WPA2 security in trouble as KRACK Belgian boffins tease key reinstallation bug

Re: Firmware update or OS?

Reckon the vuln is in the WPA2 protocol itself rather than in the implementation so it's unlikely there will be any update available?

Re: Firmware update or OS?

After a read through the (now published) details and paper, another lucky save is that this is a [strong]client[/strong] attack. So unless you are running your routers in a client configuration (like as a repeater) or have fast roaming enabled on them, this does not have any effect.

It's just OSs that need patching, so your PCs, phones and other devices.

It also requires that the attacker is [emphasis]already on the WiFi as a client[/emphasis], i.e. already knows your WPA2 key / has a WPA enterprise connection.

The patch is also fully backwards compatible, so unpatched devices can communicate with patched ones on the same network.

The big patching headache is going to be all the specialist devices used in business and industry that don't receive vendor patches or are a massive pain to patch, and any old home gear lying around that has reached vendor imposed obsolescence - though someone being able to crack the encryption on the connection your WiFi radio uses is unlikely to be a problem.

Re: Firmware update or OS?

"the attacker would have to be on the same base station as the victim, which restricts any attack's impact somewhat."

So when using say a high gain Yagi directional antenna that means within a couple of miles line of sight of the Base station then. That doesn't seem to be much of a restriction!

Re: Firmware update or OS?

It is already patched for Debian/Ubuntu. That was quick!..

Well, as I am using wired ethernet, I didn't really needed it anyway.

Re: Uncorrectable Horse Staple Battery

What a silly statement.

Encryption is DESIGNED so that anyone can capture the packets and still not be able to decrypt the message. The medium matters not. if you operate your systems on the basis that it's difficult to send / recieve rogue packets, you're just leaving yourself open for compromise. Encrypt, VPN (even over home wifi - why not?). All media are equally risky if anyone else is on them at all.

In this case it looks like they've forced poor implementations to behave improperly (nonce reuse), which has little to do with the actual encryption. Maybe the protocol is poor, like WEP. But notice how no-one is saying AES is broken?

If you just work on the assumption that all media are vulnerable, then encrypt with known-good encryption (not RC5 or TKIP, and yes you MUST keep up to date with what's safe!), it really doesn't matter what happens or who can send you packets.

VPN over WPA2 on every home network I've had. Zero latency (I game a lot). And survived the whole WEP/WPA/TKIP vulnerabilities with time enough to safely upgrade.

Always assume every network interface is sniffable. Encrypt everything.

Re: I hope they're allowed to return to Belgium..

I've done a bit more digging and found some more info on Hutchinson - (by which I mean I discovered an analysis done by someone else).

Not so sure Hutchinson doesn't have a few skeletons in his closet now.

Re: So in theory

As long as the download is secured with https or VPN that data should still be encrypted. Breaking that kind encryption on the fly should still be non-trivial. So I think in this case the best you could do is spy after the fact with captured data, not inject "corrected" packets. I am far more worried about Windows leaking weakly hashed passwords to an attacker that has broken into a wifi network.

Re: So in theory

This is where I get to be smug that all the PoS systems I'm responsible for are hardwired.

Oh wait, the customer insisted that they communicate with a tablet to harvest customer emails? Over wifi?

FML :(

Re: So in theory

It's equivalent to being as secure as you would be on a public WiFi network. Anything you wouldn't do on a public WiFi network you wouldn't want to do if you thought your WPA2 network may be compromised.

Re: ...the attacker would have to be on the same base station as the victim...

As with all these things, this starts as “has to be on same base station” but people will work out a way to replicate this approach without having to authenticate first...

In the meantime, disconnect from public WiFi...

Re: ...the attacker would have to be on the same base station as the victim...

"Security" isn't a two state condition, it's a sliding scale calibrated to threat level.

and budget vs risk tolerance..

Re: ...the attacker would have to be on the same base station as the victim...

If that's the case then it is somewhat analogous to a locksmith demonstrating the ability to come round to your house and pick the front door lock.

A better analogy might be a locksmith demonstrating that he can open all the internal doors in your house when what's important is that he can't open the front door from the outside.

Of course, if you let him in he has the run of the place.

Re: I've kept wondering why we haven't seen a WPA3 yet

What would be the point? If you don't know where the problem is then simply meddling with the protocol isn't necessarily going to help and will probably introduce new vulnerabilities. Attacks like these don't break AES (which is what WPA2 essentially is) so mindlessly increasing key lengths wouldn't make any difference. If anything, causing protocol proliferation would just fragment research/auditing efforts and risk increasing the attack surface as the lesser used protocol(s) come under reduced scrutiny.

The integrity of cryptography rests on a published mechanism resisting sustained attack by cryptographers over a period of time lengthy enough to confer credibility. That makes it a problem domain where you absolutely should not set about trying to "fix" things until you know exactly where and how they are broken.

Just because you have the keys to the castle, doesn't mean you're not also a threat.

same base station

You get on the same base station by hacking a weak link via some other avenue- e.g. poorly managed laptop that already has the wireless key/password...

Risks on a University wifi network for example - Students, and worse still staff...

No. There is (now) a rather good summary near the top of this thread. It is fixable in software, so for most OSes you can expect a fix in the next day or two. the vendors were all warned in advance and should have something ready. It also attacks the clients rather than the access point, so your router is not a problem unless you've chained a few together to extend your range.

The biggest problem I can see is that Android (and Linux in general) can be persuaded to use a null encryption key with this attack. That's "drop trousers and bend over" time for *lots* of mobile phones until such time as phone vendors (and any ISPs who might be cock-blocking the update channel) decide that these "existing customers" are worth some attention.

Re: But what's the risk?

If you are working in the field protecting assets worth millions or billions; or on major pieces of critical national infrastructure affecting millions of people then you'll need to look a bit more closely.

If someone is stupid enough to do this, what makes you think they would have enabled WPA2 in the first place?

Re: Router firmware updates?

"That shouldn't take long."

Shouldn't.

But, in any case, it's irrelevant. It's the base station firmware that needs to be update. Router and radio aren't necessarily the same box.

Re: Router firmware updates?

It looks like an update for my SOHO Access Point has been available for about a week. Check vendor support sites.

Re: Should you really care.

"If you are not concerned with QoS then follow the guidance of OpenWireless.org and run a fully open wireless network"

Only two problems with that as far as I can see. Firstly, I'm paying for the traffic. Secondly, Amber Fudd would then blame me for all the porn that passers-by downloaded over my link.

Re: Should you really care.

I am actually concerned about going to prison when my neighbour decides to do something illegal and I am the one who is the "owner" of the line.

Re: Clarity, please?

@milton

I suspect they used the keywords “same base station” to indicate that ssid is irrelevant and that if you have more than 1 basestation, the attacker must be connected to the same 1 as the victim.

If you have guest WiFi on the same basestation as your private WiFi then it looks like you could be susceptible. It’s to do with part of the wpa setup being reissued to multiple connections, i suspect guest WiFi would reuse the same as private.

Yes. And if your client is something that can be plugged into the router with a cable then it (the client) will almost certainly be patched this week.