Harald Welte's blog
   

RSS

Harald's Web
gnumonks.org
hmw-consulting.de
sysmocom.de

Projects
OpenBSC
OsmocomBB
OsmocomTETRA
deDECTed.org
gpl-violations.org
gpl-devices.org
OpenMoko
gnufiish
OpenEZX
OpenBeacon
OpenPCD
librfid
openmrtd
opentom.org
netfilter/iptables

Categories

Archives

Other Bloggers
David Burgess
Zecke
Dieter Spaar
Michael Lauer
Stefan Schmidt
Rusty Russell
David Miller
Martin Pool
Jeremy Kerr
Tim Pritlove (German)
fukami (German)
fefe (German)
Bradley M. Kuhn
Lawrence Lessig
Kalyan Varma

Aggregators
kernelplanet.org
planet.netfilter.org
planet.openezx.org
planet.openmoko.org
planet.foss.in

Ohloh profile for laforge
identi.ca
twitter
flattr
Linked in
Xing

Creative Commons License
Articles on this blog/journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.


blosxom


Contact/Impressum

       
Sat, 31 Jul 2010
GSM Denial of Service by flooding BTS with RACH requests

At Blackhat US 2010, there was a Talk that (among other things) apparently included the subject of a RACH DoS on GSM base stations, implemented using my Layer1 of the OsmocomBB software.

As some news sites are covering this as "news": This vulnerability has been long known in the field and was - to the best of my knowledge - first demonstrated to a public audience by Dieter Spaar at the Deepsec 2009 conference in November 2009. You can get his slides.

The difficult part for many years has not been to know about the possibility of this weakness. Anyone who has read the GSM air interface specification will inevitably see that there is a limited number of RACH slots and a limited number of dedicated channels. Once you fill more RACH slots than the cell has dedicated channels, and you keep re-filling them at a higher rate than the cell can expire those dedicated channels, you have a DoS.

So rather, the difficult part was to implement it in practise, as traditionally all GSM baseband chipsets have been extremely closed, just like the very software (firmware) running on them. Today, starting from Q2/2010, it is very easy to do a proof-of-concept implementation, as we have created OsmocomBB: An Open Source baseband firmware.

Dieter Spaar's implementation predates OsmocomBB development by the better part of a year. At that time, he had to resort to binary-patching existing proprietary (binary-only) baseband firmware. So I think people should recognize his effort in doing the first practical implementation of that attack.

[ /gsm | permanent link ]

Dieter Spaar has started a blog

Dieter Spaar, who has been involved in various ways with both OpenBSC and OsmocomBB has just started a blog. This is good news and I hope this way he will get a bit more (much deserved) exposure on his great work.

[ /gsm | permanent link ]

Fri, 30 Jul 2010
A real-world practical A5/1 attack using airprobe and Kraken

At Blackhat USA 2010, Karsten Nohl has been presenting on a practical real-world A5/1 cracking attack. For recent years, Karsten, myself and others have been speaking at various opportunities, indicating that a practical attack using readily-available information and tools from the Internet is very possible, and that it is only a matter of time for somebody actually does it.

While Karsten has focused on the actual cryptographic attack, I've been putting in some time in projects like airprobe (a GSM receiver/decoder).

Now finally, a team of friends at the new Security Research Labs (founded by Karsten) in Berlin has put the pieces of the puzzle together.

Airprobe has been extended to fully support decoding of TCH/F (FACCH, SACCH and traffic), as well as SDCCH/SACCH control channels, and to specify the timeslot and physical channel configuration from the command line. Using this, you can

  • decode the AGCH, wait for an IMMEDIATE ASSIGNMENT of a SDCCH
  • decode that very SDCCH and wait until encryption is turned on
  • dump an encrypted burst where you have sufficient known plaintext
  • use a different program to actually recover the A5/1 ciphering key
  • feed that key into airprobe and decrypt+decode the ASSIGNMENT COMMAND of the TCH
  • use airprobe to decrypt+decode that assigned TCH/F

The external program to recover the A5/1 ciphering key is called Kraken and is also available from the SRLabs website.

So what are the limitations? Well, so far this only works on non-hopping cells with a single ARFCN. The limitations are those of the receiver hardware (and SDR software), and not really limitations of the airprobe GSM decoder or the actual software tools.

In the past I would have assumed that non-hopping and/or single-ARFCN cells are rare, but in fact we can find them even inside a big city like Berlin, from at least two of the four German GSM operators. So that's why this attack is very practical, no matter what the GSMA might say.

[ /gsm | permanent link ]

Thu, 29 Jul 2010
I'm still alive ;)

In case you're wondering why there is such a long period with no updates: I've been travelling over the last week and barely had sufficient time to follow my e-mail and get the most high-priority work done. Hope to update the blog soon.

[ /personal | permanent link ]

Sat, 17 Jul 2010
More musings on locked-down mobile phones

In recent days, the story about Motorola locking out its users (and developers) from their more recent Droid phones has made big news. As it seems, the exact functionality implemented by eFuses remains unclear, and the behavior of Motorola might thus not be too different from what has more or less become the industry standard.

For those of you who are not following the mobile world as close on a technical level as people like me do: In the last five years, more and more cellphone manufacturers have used cryptographic code signing to lock-down the software that you can run on the phone. Major parts of the system including the software update mechanism and the bootloader on the device contain a verification process of those cryptographic signatures to ensure that you can only software signed by the phone manufacturer.

I have seen this with the MotoMAGX phones like the ROKR2 v8, various Windows Mobile handhelds from HTC, The non-developer (non-ADP) version of the Google/Android G1 and many other phones.

This puts the user into a strange situation where he buys some hardware from the manufacturer, but yet doesn't have control over what this device does. Just imagine buying a computer, but being limited to run Windows 98 and Office 97 on it. You could not update to a later version of the operating system, and you could not install an alternative operating system such as a version of GNU/Linux. If the computer vendor decides that he will drop support for it, you will not even be able to install security updates to the operating system.

From my point of view, this is an abusive, anti-competitive behavior by the manufacturer. For no reason but his ever-growing hunger for power he makes you completely dependent on his decision. It is not in the control of the user, what operating system or even applications you can install. It is under the control of the manufacturer.

I would accept this if the phone was rented. In this case, I would only pay a small rental fee, but the phone is the property of the manufacturer and I am only using it. But the manufacturer actually sells the device. He wants to be paid the full price, but still not actually hand control over to the buyer.

Compare this with buying a CD-player that has arbitrary restrictions so it would only play CDs from one of the major music labels/distributors like EMI, but not CDs from any of the other publishers, for no technical reason whatsoever. Or buying a TV set that is locked down so you can only watch one TV channel, while you need to buy another TV for a different channel.

I actually think the antitrust authorities should investigate this behavior of the mobile phone industry. Simply compare it with the PC situation and look at the fact how often Microsoft has been judged in some kind of anti-competitive behavior in the PC world. In the mobile phone industry, the situation is worse than it ever was in the PC world, yet we do not see big antitrust cases being brought forward.

And please don't buy those pseudo-arguments that this has any relation to regulatory/FCC approval or the safety of mobile networks themselves. The entire software stack interacting with the mobile network runs on a separate processor (the baseband processor) anyway. It doesn't matter what you install on the application processor. Once again, compare it to laptops: You can insert a 3G miniPCI, expressCard or USB dongle. Inside this dongle you run the communications stack on a processor that is completely different from your main processor that runs your regular OS (be it GNU/Linux, OS X, Windows, Solaris or whatever makes you happy).

[ /linux/mobile | permanent link ]

Fri, 16 Jul 2010
Motorola locking down the DroidX and Droid2 in a nasty way

There are plenty of reports in recent days about the level of locking-down that Motorola is apparently doing on their most recent Android products, the Droid 2 and the Droid X.

This goes as far as to an (I believe unconfirmed) slashdot.org report claiming that not only there is the more or less typical DRM on software (i.e. cryptographic signature validation chain), but there also is an eFuse that that is blown if something happens wrong during the booting process.

To the best of my knowledge (and I'm doing mobile phone reverse engineering for about 6 years now), this is the first time I hear of something like this. If true, it sounds pretty dangerous to me. What if something goes wrong during an update (such as a power failure during software update)? What if you really have a non-correctable multi-bit error in your NAND Flash? In that case, cryptographic verification of the firmware fails and the eFuse would be blown, resulting in your device being a brick. This could eventually backfire massively to Motorola.

The best comment from the slashdot.org thread:
You can legally buy a gun that only shoots in the direction of the person pulling the trigger, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Reading something like this almost makes me very depressed. Motorola is benefitting from the billions-of-dollar-worth development of existing Free Software projects like the Linux kernel, but they now want to take away the fundamental right to run modified versions of that very software. Somebody needs to slap them with a very large trout.

I'm not really surprised that they are doing it, though. Motorola has shown that direction even years ago when they first used SELinux as part of their later pre-Android Linux phones (EZX and MAGX). They didn't use it to enhance the security of the user, but to enhance the security _from_ the user.

Please also note this great post by Bradley M. Kuhn on the subject matter. If you don't know Bradley, he's been doing GPL enforcement for the last 12 years - for the Free Software Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Center. In his post, he actually thanks Motorola to publicly state that they actually want to lock their phones down (as opposed to Apple).

What's even more interesting though is his elaboration on the scripts to control compilation and installation clause of GPLv2. This is indeed something that most people tend to overlook when it comes to GPL[v2] compliance and we see this a lot during our gpl-violations.org work.

And in fact, for a very long time, I have been teaching and educating this fact during my GPL related talks and trainings: In software specific for embedded devices, the scripts to control installation are incomplete, if you do not provide a means to install the software onto the actual device. Where else would you be reasonably install the Linux kernel image that is made specifically to work on such a particular mobile phone model? Due to the custom nature of Linux kernels for embedded targets, it wouldn't even run anywhere else.

I've never taken any such issue to court so far - but it was a frequent dispute in out-of-court GPL enforcement we've been doing at gpl-violations.org. I'm definitely curious to see what will be the first court case addressing that issue. The ever power-hungry manufacturers of mobile phones seem like they deserve it.

UPDATE:
Apparently Motorola has released some statement that denies they use eFuses to brick the device. All it does is to render the device unable to boot until some Motorola-certified/signed/authorized software is loaded on the device again. They did not specify how that could be done, though. Still, even without the eFuse bricking, I find it outrageous that the Industry (including Motorola) expect their customers pay hundreds of dollars for a device that is then still owned by Motorola rather than that very customer. It's like selling something but still retaining ownership of it. Doesn't that make you feel strange, too?

[ /linux/mobile | permanent link ]

Sun, 11 Jul 2010
Implementing the TCAP protocol, heading towards OsmoSGSN SS7 support

The protocol by which traditional GSM core network components interact is called MAP (Mobile Application Part). MAP itself is a user of the TCAP (Transaction Capabilities Application Part) protocol, which in turn runs on a SS7 protocol stack (i.e. SCCP over MTP or M3UA or SUA over SCTP).

For those users of OpenBSC who have a need to interoperate with other GSM networks (roaming), the circuit-switched part of OpenBSC has so far relied on the use of a proprietary MSC (by means of the A interface). This closed MSC then talks MAP/TCAP/SS7 to roaming partners.

However, on the GPRS front, we now have OsmoSGSN. However, as opposed to the BSC on the circuit switched side, the SGSN directly interacts with the core GSM network components (both of the home network and the roaming partners).

So in order to run OsmoSGSN interacting with existing HLRs, we need to add a MAP/TCAP/SS7 interface to it. Once this has been done for the SGSN, we of course can do the same for the MSC-part that is currently integrated with OpenBSC.

As there are existing implementations of SCTP (inside the Linux kernel) and SUA (sualibrary), TCAP is the next step in the protocol stack that needs to be implemented. I've been digging into TCAP for the last week(s), and believe I finally understood every part of its operation.

You can think of TCAP as something that facilitates the transport of request-response type transactions over a datagram oriented transport layer. It intends to have lower overhead than a connection-oriented service (e.g. establishing TCP sessions) and supports features such as aggregating multiple user-messages (called components) in a single actual transport-layer message. The idea is to reduce the overhead of message headers and routing.

TCAP is (unfortunately) specified in ASN.1 and thus requires significant effort to parse and construct. Right now I'm using Lev Walkin's asn1c ASN.1 C code generator to generate the parser and constructor functions. The actual TCAP protocol logic is once again implemented in plain C, using the various concepts and utility functions established in OpenBSC (and now part of libosmocore).

The implementation is making good progress and I hope I can do some early testing in about a week from now, and successively move straight to the MAP protocol, implementing at least those parts that we need for GPRS authentication and attach / routing area updates.

[ /gsm | permanent link ]

Thu, 08 Jul 2010
COSCUP 2010 conference schedule has been posted

The Schedule of the COSCUP 2010 conference has been posted on the conference homepage. I'm happy to see such a large number of talks from a wide range of speakers - including many friends from my time in Taiwan a couple of years back for Openmoko...

As it seems from this chinese blog entry, the organizers were overwhelmed by the number of attendee registrations, with all 610 available seats being occupied within 85 minutes of opening the registration. It seems they are in need of a bigger venue next year ;)

[ /linux/conferences | permanent link ]

Mon, 05 Jul 2010
Family visit is keeping me busy

In case you're expecting a quick response from me these days, please apologize. I'm currently having family visiting me in Berlin, and I very much enjoy being the personal tourist guide for some days...

I shall be back to normal by the end of the week.

[ /personal | permanent link ]

Fri, 02 Jul 2010
Major update in OpenBSC GPRS/EDGE support

Through the last couple of days, I've been in extreme bug-squashing mode for the GPRS/EDGE code base in OpenBSC (mostly the OsmoSGSN program). I'm now at a point where I can reliably establish PDP contexts and access the Internet from a variety of different phones with different baseband chipsets and GPRS protocol stack implementations. All so-far-known bugs regarding fragmentation/reassembly, sequence numbering and other issues have been fixed. There definitely are plenty more, but we first need to find them.

Since it's working reliably now, it's quite fascinating what the various phones do after connecting to the GPRS network. Like Windows Mobile phones sending Netbios Name Service updates (and requests), which I think is funny considering that they are sent to a network that is typically considered to be the public Internet.

But to be fair and not anti-Windows, my Google/Android G1 also makes some https connections back to Google - and I don't know what they are for [yet].

In any case, with OpenBSC, OsmoSGSN and OpenGGSN anyone interested in doing true security (and privacy) research with mobile phones is now able to do so. Using those programs, you can run your own GPRS+EDGE network and can see first hand what your phones are doing on a cellular network, what kind of data they are sending back home. In this setup, there is no packet filtering, NAT, deep packet inspection and no intrusion detection systems between your PC and the IP stack on your phone.

[ /gsm | permanent link ]