Open Source GSM Cracking Software Released 112
angry tapir writes "The GSM technology used by the majority of the world's mobile phones will get some scrutiny at next week's Black Hat security conference. An open source effort to develop GSM-cracking software has released software that cracks the A5/1 encryption algorithm used by some GSM networks. Called Kraken, this software uses new, very efficient, encryption cracking tables that allow it to break A5/1 encryption much faster than before."
Awesome (Score:1, Interesting)
Will this allow me to finally clone my multiple V2 sim cards on a single super card so I won't have to carry multiple GSM cards when I travel abroad?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because then you could copy the card and put it on another phone having effectively multiple phones with the same number. I don't know how the network handles that but I think at least chaos ensues.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know how the network handles that but I think at least chaos ensues.
No, actually the network notices that the same phone number is in 2 (or more) different locations, recognizes that's a fraudulent scenario, and shuts them all down.
Then the legitimate owner of the number complains about being shut down, and is issued a new SIM.
Re: (Score:1)
WARNING! FIND SUNGLASSES! EYE-BLEEDING SITE!
http://www.jo.zain.com/ENGLISH/PERSONAL/ZAINSERVICES/CALLRELATEDSERVICES/Pages/TwinSim.aspx [zain.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Firefox menu > view > page style >no style
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds tempting !
Finds image intensifier.
Has second thoughts, borrows mask and apron from welder's workshop.
"Brace, brace, brace for impact!"
[CLICK]
Didn't even make my eyeballs itch. [DISAPPOINTED, returns gear to welder and bridge.]
Re: (Score:1)
My PC at home is setup for games, so is bright with an enhanced contrast.
that pink seared my eyes at home.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a PEBCAK class problem :
Problem
Exists
Between
Chair
And
Keyboard
Re: (Score:2)
Or you can pay for it and have it both ways. This is available in quite a few countries where cloned SIMs is a legitimate use case.
Depends on your locality. Around here it is not uncommon for companies to have one number, but several phones - or even people. So you can have the same number on your desktop phone, mobile phone and car phone without having to move sims around or do cumbersome bluetooth magic.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it just temnology
only one iccid can be active per imei
as for phone numbers you canhave more than one attached to a iccid - you just have to get your provider to assign the number(s)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
There is a key value on the SIM. The same key value is also provisioned in your subscriber profile in your provider's main subscriber registry (aka an HLR - Home Location Register).
When you're connecting to a mobile network, the serving switch sends a request to your provider's HLR. The HLR sends a set of tokens and an "expected result" value to the serving switch. The serving switch then sends those tokens down to your mobile. Your mobile then sends those tokens to your SIM card and your SIM card sticks them into a function along with the key value and produces a result value. The result value is passed back to your phone and your phone passes it back to the serving switch. The serving switch then compares the result value from your phone with the "expected result" value from your provider's HLR and if they match up, you're good to go.
Only the SIM and the HLR know your individual key value. Your mobile and the serving network are never provided this value. That's why your phone can't simply replicate the function of your SIM, because it would need to know the key value.
I think the problem alot of people have is they think of the SIM as just a dumb piece of storage. It really is a separate little computer in it's own right that just so happens to live behind your phone battery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
and kindly refrain from ever posting on Slashdot again!
There is a limit of 1 informative post per user. And now you've made me use up mine explaining this to you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not possible because the card contains secret keys that are used when the phone registers on the network and authenticates itself.
These keys cannot be read, think of them as private members of a class - they can be accessed by the class itself (i.e. the SIM), but they are not seen on the outside.
The difference is that smart cards (a SIM card is a smart card with a file system that contains data specified in a standard, such as GSM 11.11) are designed to be tamper proof, so reverse engineering them a
Release the Kraken! (Score:5, Funny)
Release the Kraken!
Re:Release the Kraken! (Score:5, Funny)
I guess that joke only works for releases
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://reflextor.com/trac/a51 [reflextor.com]
It took me a minute of googling to find that. Hope it saves you some time. Note that their server is getting slashdotted right now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Patch the Kraken! Update the Kraken!
I prefer to fork the Kraken . . . garlic sauce and fresh bread on the side . . .
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
you are Kraken me up
Please, please... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Uhm? No. The Goverment just has a copy of every conv shipped to them directly from exchange.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Burning some karma here.
Ironic that this is hot on the heels of Slashdot's pro-net neutrality story. If the government took over the internet, it would make sure to "regulate" any websites posting this kind of cracking information. Want to pirate it on Bittorrent? Sorry, the government would "regulate" Bittorrent too thanks to political donations from lobby groups like the RIAA/MPAA. In fact, the government would require all your activities to be logged by ISPs for investigative purposes.
Net neutrality--proving that there are always people naive enough to hand great things over to the government where they are ruined forever.
Net Neutrality is not about the government taking over the internet! It is exactly the opposite (they ensure that the internet is not "regulated"). How many times must this be said?
Re: (Score:2)
ISPs are providing a service. They have EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to regulate what's passing through their networks, because it's their network.
Not if the public don't agree to that, they don't. If they don't like the regulation, then they shouldn't sell access to their network. Different rules apply for a private facility and one that's open to the public.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:How ironic (Score:4, Informative)
ISPs are providing a service. They have EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to regulate what's passing through their networks, because it's their network.
ISPs are providing a service using infrastructure built on public land.
The internet as we know it would not exist if the telephone/cable companies couldn't use public property.
It's not so simple as "their network, their rules".
wahhh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How ironic (Score:5, Interesting)
You do realize that net neutrality is the _absence_ of filtering, right?
See, the whole idea is that an ISP that also owns other companies, or is affiliated somehow, can't step in and decide what is and isn't viewable, charge more, etc.
Re:How ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that net neutrality is the _absence_ of filtering, right?
That is how you define it. Never underestimate the power of a senator who can draft a 2000 page bill that does exactly the opposite of what its title implies. You're just like the guy in the previous conversation who suggests Fox News should be regulated: once you start regulating what can and can't be on the internet, it's just a step away from blocking it.
See, the whole idea is that an ISP that also owns other companies, or is affiliated somehow, can't step in and decide what is and isn't viewable, charge more, etc.
Exactly, it's something the government should be doing. As an example of how it could be done, think of the financial regulator positions created in the financial bill that just passed. For a communications bill, we create an Internet Supervisor position, whose job it is to make sure none of the ISPs are illegally blocking stuff. He goes around, runs tests, etc. Harmless stuff. Then on page 1283 of the bill, in a small, single sentence, we give him power to decide how traffic should be regulated. Then give the Supervisor position to someone sympathetic to our cause, and there is no end to the ways that language can be abused. Should we block traffic we don't like? He has the power. Should we use it to speed up the websites of our campaign donors? He has the power. See how this stuff works?
What needs to be done is break up the monopolies where they exist so there is real competition between ISPs. Then we don't have to worry about this kind of thing: if an ISP does something we don't like, we can switch.
Re:How ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
Senators don't draft (or even read) 2000 page bills. Their corporate overlords have staff to take care of those pesky details.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:How ironic (Score:5, Informative)
Add another layer to your tinfoil hat.. I'm not saying what you're suggesting can't happen, but that's not the goal of net neutrality and imagining worst case, back room, scenarios is pointless to argue about.
Onto "Free market solves everything" mantra. No, it will not solve anything unless the fiber that is laid down (read: already there) is open to equal opportunity leasing at fair prices (which means it has to be governmentally regulated) that the small ISP can afford. Otherwise the costs of entry into the market are way too huge and the telco's will simply drop their price enough to not allow the little guy running new fiber to profit, thus sinking their business.
Think about it, if you have no right to their fiber, you have to run your own across the city. That will cost millions, easily. You ignore the cost as you think you can make it up later so you start running fiber. The telco's in the area decide, hey, it's costing them millions, lets just drop our prices to make everyone using them switch to us. Now all your subscribers jump ship because ATT just dropped their service plans to $1 a year. You go under, they buy you out, thanks for the new fiber.
Free market won't work with entrenched telco's who already have the fiber in place plus the will and means to bully you out of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
it will not solve anything unless the fiber that is laid down (read: already there) is open to equal opportunity leasing at fair prices
This sounds like an excellent plan. I endorse your idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the markets can be distorted far easier than government regulators. Without the FDA or FAA, no doubt there would be countless more deaths attributed to bad medicine and aircraft incidents. It doesn't matter if these drug and airline companies are monopolies or small players. Of course with FDA and FAA we are dealing with outcomes that is hard to quantify (ie. Human lives), which is different to the case with consumer regulation which is basically what this net neutrality thing is.
The problems
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Again, you actually believe the government regulating internet traffic is going to be the absence of filtering? Government--the most corrupt organization in the world--is somehow going to be more neutral than a private organization that is beholden to customer satisfaction? That lobby groups like the RIAA won't petition for special restrictions on torrent traffic?
On top of that, an ISP should absolutely be allowed to decide how its network is run and what traffic goes across it. Internet access isn't a cons
Big brother is watching you... (Score:2)
Really? Really? Citation, please.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but you're begging the question when you say ISPs are beholden to customer satisfaction. The reality is that the truly lucky people may have three choices for their ISP; most probably have two, and if you get too far from an office you may very well have one. They're oligopolies, and they don't operate on the same rules as other free market p
Re:How ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what you meant to say was that this is exactly what will happen if the telcos took over the internet. They would just not route any traffic to bittorrent at all.
What is this government take over of the internet you speak of? Or do you forget that the government invented the internet? Without the government, we would still be using AOL, Compuserv, and Prodigy. Which, coincidently is exactly what the anti-net neutrality folks would like to see returned.
Anti Net neutrality--proving that there are always people naive enough to hand great things over to corporations where they are ruined forever.
Re: (Score:2)
If consumers would take a stand every once in a while instead of rolling over and demanding the government help them because they can't control themselves, you would find companies afraid of pissing off people instead of doing anything they can as long as they can get away with it from the government.
The government is what we citizens have established in order to establish rules. Citizens united can demand whatever behavior they want from the corporations to whom they grant legal status, using the full force of their government.
You can go be a powerless consumer, I'll remain an empowered citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is how it's unfair:
I work for my employer. They give me money, so they get to determine what I'm allowed to do on the internet while they're paying me. If they blacklist/whitelist sites on their machines, that's fine. They paid for those machines, they pay for the bandwidth, and they pay for my time. They get to pick what I do with their time and equipment.
I give money to my ISP. It is a world of difference when I pay someone for their services, then they decide how those services can be used.
In other
Re: (Score:2)
I am a company and I filter internet access for my employees. Is that unfair to the sites I'm filtering?
Yes. But it's your business, you censor free speech all you'd like. Your employees are free to access their favorite sites at home.
I am a company and I have some slight performance issues out to the internet for employees, to speed things along I prioritize traffic to and from business related websites we commonly use. Is that unfair to the sites that aren't being prioritized?
Yes. But it's your business, you censor free speech all you'd like. Your employees are free to access their favorite sites at home.
What if instead of me as the company doing it for my own employees I am an ISP that provides this to business customers. Is that unfair to anybody?
Yes. Only now, you're censoring the free speech of the public, which is a violation of the Constitution, at least in spirit.
What if I sell it to consumers, is that unfair to the sites?
No, not really. What you do or do not charge for your service has no relation to individual websites, so long as it's the s
Re: (Score:2)
The government already took over the internet when they game one or two big companies local monopolies and exclusive permission to lay wires everywhere. I'd rather have a competitive market with many providers but this is what we're stuck with and government control is the first step to getting one. Don't you think the large ISPs, which also often have a phone business, would themselves want to censor this kind of stuff?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I wanted a flame war I'd say you know nothing about what a common carrier is.
That however would leave me open to not knowing the concepts of giving an inch and them taking a mile.
Regulation by telling a corporation they can't self-regulate communication based on content will be a sticky issue since it has to be constantly defended against the government saying, YOU corporations can't regulate content but WE can. But at least there are some mechanisms in place that allow the people to control the governme
Re: (Score:2)
If that is the case, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
If that's not the case, please clarify.
Re: (Score:2)
I do believe you are confused.
"Net Neutrality" is a term used to describe the Internet as it originally was, and still (to a large degree) is. The idea is that the Internet itself is just a passive means to transfer information from one place to another. The various ISPs along the way have to remain neutral. They cannot give any particular packet special treatment just because they're partnered with a specific company. This means that I'm pretty much able to visit whatever websites I want, download what
Re: (Score:1)
This is most certainly not the intent of net neutrality. The goal is to not bias content and serve all content equally without any filtering of any kind. It prevents ISPs from having tiered platforms with subscription ala carte web services, and it prevents ISPs from throttling bittorrent.
What does this lead to? (Score:1, Insightful)
Does this lead to more wiretapping, or free cellular service?
TFA focus isn't just encryption... (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA also points out that eavesdropping as 'easy' as making a fake tower, getting phones to connect to it, commanding them to drop encryption, and having enough disk space to save the conversations. Not very expensive, and not very difficult.
So this would work well if you brought a fake tower with you to an event, like a convention or even a press conference, and just gather conversations at will. Setting up a tower near the White House would not be impossible, unless they already understand this and have an onsite tower they can secure. The Secret Service is no doubt already working with this, if not already in place. If VZW or Sprint is their most common carrier, well, those are different standards so this is not the problem.
All said and done, it is not impractical to be able to eavesdrop on GSM phones, though it is nontrivial. Data intercept I don't know a lot about.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You do realize, that in order for a fake tower to work, it actually has to be part of the network right?
How do you intend to connect to the phone network with your fake tower?
Putting up a fake tower and getting phones to connect isn't hard, but its just about only useful for stop calls.
If you want to listen in on calls with a 'fake tower' it actually has to function as a tower and connect you to a phone network so you can have a conversation. Not much to record otherwise.
Still not impossible, but its not s
Re: (Score:2)
Forward (over wire or on a different frequency) to another tower elsewhere which pretends to be the phone?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it be hard to connect the phone network?
You could for example use a phone line... or a voip service...
to receive and route calls TO mobile phone would be difficult or perhaps impossible but outbound calls would be trivially easy.
Re: (Score:1)
Couldn't the fake tower just connect to a real tower?
Re:TFA focus isn't just encryption... (Score:4, Insightful)
These have been sold in kits for a few years now. Google "micro cell". You can uplink them to a voip gateway and plop down your own tower on the cheap. Popular for conferences and things like that.
FTFA (Score:3, Informative)
"Meanwhile, another Black Hat presenter, Chris Paget plans to demonstrate a completely different way to intercept GSM calls. He's setting up a fake cellular tower that masquerades as a legitimate GSM network.
According to Paget, using open-source tools and a US$1,500 USRP radio, he can assemble his fake tower, called an IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) catcher. In a controlled experiment, he's going to set one up at Black Hat and invite audience members to connect their mobile phones. Once a p
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of phones have the ability to display an icon when operating in an unencrypted mode, but the carriers turn the icon off.
I seriously doubt the secret service relies on the security of the cell phone network, regardless of who the carrier is.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I suspect the Secret Service either has towers on site, or has the carriers locate them onsite. After this article, I would expect that. Now how to prevent such a hack when the users get off the property.
Oh, wait, surely WH staffers have properly encrypted phones, not just carrier encryption. And those that don't, they must be told to discuss nothing on the phone. Nothing.
Really? (Score:1)
I don't know much about mobile phone tech, but this sounds strange. This is 2010, I don't know anyone still using a GSM-phone, most of us switched to 3G 6-7 years ago. If it's true, surely GSM users are in the minority in the developed world?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3G is referring to UMTS here.
My phone that gets 3G service in the US will get 3G service in most countries - European countries included. This is true for many AT&T phones.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
From the GSM wikipedia page:
In 2010, threatpost.com reported that "A group of cryptographers has developed a new attack that has broken Kasumi, the encryption algorithm used to secure traffic on 3G GSM wireless networks. The technique enables them to recover a full key by using a tactic known as a related-key attack, but experts say it is not the end of the world for Kasumi."[17] Kasumi is the name for the A5/3 algorithm, used to secure most 3G traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3G is GSM.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If you put a SIM card into your 3G phone, then it is GSM. The term 3G has become little more than marketing rubbish at this point.
That is incorrect. 3G is UMTS, but can seamlessly hand over calls to the 2G GSM.
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't get about encrypted communication... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of the issue... you have to remember how old the GSM standards are. The processing chips didn't have nearly as much oomph as they do today. Most more modern encryption schemes would not have been feasible to even put in a chip that would a) physically fit in a cell phone b) be low enough power to have any meaningful cell phone usage c) have costs low enough to be considered cheap enough to put into cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Even lawful interception would be virtually impossible, because you can't, in general, intercept all of an airborne signal and prevent it from reaching its destination, particularly when you don't even know in advance exactly where the sender is going to be.
And simply trying to eavesdrop on a communication that is using such a key exchange won't help matters because the discrete logarithm problem is NP-hard. Even if you do figure it out, by the time you've solved it the communication would be long since
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to. Diffie-Hellman is for key exchange, but the mobile company already has a copy of the key stored on your SIM card, so they don't need to do any key exchange.
The problem is that they used weak encryption, not that they used symmetric encryption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, it is. They just cracked the encryption algorithm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never said you could. You seem confused. There is no need for key exchange in thhis case. They just needed to use a better encryption method, e.g. AES.
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial: (Score:5, Funny)
"Can you hear me now?"
"Yup"
"yes"
"uh-huh"
"me too!"
"absolutely!"
Re: (Score:2)
I can only imagine "Absolutely!" said in Moria Browns' voice!
Which networks? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, it is deprecated, and no one is supposed to even test whether a phone can handle it, anymore. At least according to the last PTRCB Bulletin entries that I read, on my old account of 4 years ago.
Using it is actually WORSE than broadcasting in clear, apparently.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What data? (Score:1)
am I the only one not surprised? (Score:1, Interesting)
I know I will probably be called troll or something, but here it goes anyway...
I worked as a consultant for the defense ministry of certain latin american country (which routinely uses its military for police purposes). While being there I befriended some people who had access to complex eavesdropping systems. They showed me how they had the ability to almost instantly intercept any mobile phone call. They even did it with one of my phone calls for amusement. There were 4 cell phone operators in the country
How to obtain the tables and the code (Score:2)
Coming Soon... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are TRYING to show that the ability to crack GSM must already exist because it has been so easy for them to do. If a Government or powerful organization wanted to listen to a GSM call, they could be doing it today.
Re:Well FUCKING A THIS IS A GOOD THING FOR ALL (Score:4, Informative)
Not could but can. It's a pretty well known fact that in most western countries there are schemes in place to allow intelligence agencies direct internal access to cell phone provider networks.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's a pretty well known fact that in most western countries there are schemes in place to allow intelligence agencies direct internal access to cell phone provider networks."
All the more reason to port Zimmerman's Zfone [nytimes.com] to the iPhone and Android and any other smart phone you can think of.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Indeed. This is no tin-foil hat conspiracy theory - there are NO technical obstacles in place for law enforcement or intelligence agencies to tap into the cell-phone network. I used to work at one of the major providers of hardware for cell-phone networks. My mentor at the time, who worked on this gear all over the world, explained how service providers work with law-enforcement to allow them complete access. I wouldn't know about the paperwork required (warrants and such) but if a three-letter agency shows
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The gov't doesn't have to crack the encryption, they're given a back door by the telcos. This is not only happening today, it has been happening for many years.
Google CALEA for one of the more recent incarnations.
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard about this sort of thing enough to believe it. But i think the GSM cracking thing is important because it means foreign government agents or other powerful organizations could listen to GSM calls without anyone knowing.. not even the phone companies.
If a foreign embassy had this capability and was safe within its doors, wouldn't that be a scary thing?