Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police admit they're 'stumped' by mystery car thefts

today.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 139 posts

Re: Police admit they're 'stumped' by mystery car thefts

#21

Post by Glyptodon »

Hyrum_Graff wrote: post #17
Glyptodon wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were using key reprogramming/hacking there's no reason to 'always use' the passenger side front door as claimed in the video. So I don't think it's clear that these thieves are using any of those techniques. I imagine it might be stupider, like maybe there's a way to induce the unlock button or motor to trigger via induction or something. Though I'm pretty poorly informed about that kind of thing scientifical…

If I was a thief then I'd always hit the passenger side front door as it gives me the quickest access to the glove compartment, where valuables are likely to be stored. Not sure what the mystery is here.

Do people actually put valuable things in their glove boxes? I didn't think people put stuff besides proof of insurance and their car manuals in them. I'd think it a lot more likely that valuables were in the center console storage.

Re: Police admit they're 'stumped' by mystery car thefts

#22

Post by dclowd9901 »

Fuxy wrote: post #15

Why is this so baffling a shocking? I think we all knew this was possible before anybody actually did it. It's not like their using proper crypto. It's the equivalent of a bad house lock give me some good lock picks and 60 seconds and I'm in so why is this so surprising?

From what they describe, it sounds like the locking systems use a system that works like a VPN key (this was actually surprising to me). Those seem pretty tough to crack, so why would this be any different?

Re: Police admit they're 'stumped' by mystery car thefts

#23

Post by corresation »

mindcrime wrote: post #3

What's the big mystery here? There have been published articles on the ease of hacking car remotes (and even the onboard electronics) going back at least a couple of years. For example: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/01... http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/07/hacking_bmws_r... http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20085131-48/remote-unlo... http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/…

You ask what the big mystery is, and then link to a lot of unrelated hacks/exploits. Yes, the article is that someone hacked/exploited the remote door open specifically, apparently on seemingly random cars. It is a mystery how they are doing it, though it is painfully obvious that they are exploiting something.

Re: Police admit they're 'stumped' by mystery car thefts

#24

Post by mindcrime »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #19
jrochkind1 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, but according to SOMEONE (source for this claim is not given) "That code is encrypted and constantly changing — and should be hackproof." American media at it's best!

How would you describe a challenge based authentication system that uses 128-bit AES? I find the reporter's description reasonable.

Your comment piqued my interest, as I wasn't sure if car manufacturers were really using 128-bit AES or not. That led me to this page:

http://ir.atmel.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=665225

Where Atmel announced a new transponder chip & microcontroller, which do, indeed, use 128-bit AES. This is from 2012 though, so I'm not sure how widely adopted this particular chip is, or if other, older chips are in widespread use that are 128-bit AES.

But even if everybody is using 128-bit AES, all that means is that the actual encryption itself is probably essentially unbreakable. But, as well all know, cryptographic systems are more than just the raw crypto algorithm. All sorts of systems which use crypto are eventually found to be insecure, so this whole thing should still come as little surprise (well, to people like us anyway. To the average cop, maybe this all sounds like black magic).

Re: Police admit they're 'stumped' by mystery car thefts

#25

Post by Robin_Message »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #19
jrochkind1 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, but according to SOMEONE (source for this claim is not given) "That code is encrypted and constantly changing — and should be hackproof." American media at it's best!

How would you describe a challenge based authentication system that uses 128-bit AES? I find the reporter's description reasonable.

I'd describe a challenge-based authentication system that uses 128-bit AES as "An industry standards-based solution that would have worked"

In other words, the superlatives don't match the reality.

Re: Police admit they're 'stumped' by mystery car thefts

#26

Post by mindcrime »

corresation wrote: post #23
mindcrime wrote: post #3

What's the big mystery here? There have been published articles on the ease of hacking car remotes (and even the onboard electronics) going back at least a couple of years. For example: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/01... http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/07/hacking_bmws_r... http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20085131-48/remote-unlo... http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/…

You ask what the big mystery is, and then link to a lot of unrelated hacks/exploits. Yes, the article is that someone hacked/exploited the remote door open specifically, apparently on seemingly random cars. It is a mystery how they are doing it, though it is painfully obvious that they are exploiting something .

You ask what the big mystery is, and then link to a lot of unrelated hacks/exploits.

I don't see how you can say that is "unrelated". Even if our "mystery" thieves aren't using those exact exploits, there is NO "mystery" that hackers have demonstrated the ability to break car remote systems. But the article and the quotes from the police make it sound like the police are just staring at the wall, drooling and going "duuuhhh huhhh huhhhh... how'd they do that.. duhhuhhhh huhhhhh." Now that's probably not literally the case, but the article makes it sound like nobody has even the slightest clue that this stuff is possible, or how it's done. And that's just not true.

Re: Police admit they're 'stumped' by mystery car thefts

#27

Post by clavalle »

>Both the transmitter and the receiver use the same pseudo-random number generator. When the transmitter sends a 40-bit code, it uses the pseudo-random number generator to pick a new code, which it stores in memory. On the other end, when the receiver receives a valid code, it uses the same pseudo-random number generator to pick a new one. In this way, the transmitter and the receiver are synchronized. The receiver only opens the door if it receives the code it expects.

So, if you figure out how these are salted (VIN?) and what pseudo-random generator it uses, you can recreate the signal.

Re: Police admit they're 'stumped' by mystery car thefts

#28

Post by gvb »

Sounds a lot like the Chamberlain garage door gaping security hole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chamberlain_Group,_Inc._v._....

The level of security of a car door is presumably a lot higher than that of a garage door, but the technology of using a rolling code is the same and the need to be able to (re)synchronize remote keys/fobs is also there. With the cars I own, there is a procedure in the operator's manual on how to resync your keys. Nominally, it requires physical access - an already unlocked car.

Ref: http://www.programmingkey.com/

My first guess is that the bad guys figured out a timing attack that confuses the lock software if the "right" sequence of codes are sent with the "right" timing.

My alternate guess is that the bad guys figured out a way to mimic the resync mechanism without requiring physical access.

Re: Police admit they're 'stumped' by mystery car thefts

#29

Post by corresation »

mindcrime wrote: post #26
corresation wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You ask what the big mystery is, and then link to a lot of unrelated hacks/exploits. Yes, the article is that someone hacked/exploited the remote door open specifically, apparently on seemingly random cars. It is a mystery how they are doing it, though it is painfully obvious that they are exploiting something .

You ask what the big mystery is, and then link to a lot of unrelated hacks/exploits. I don't see how you can say that is "unrelated". Even if our "mystery" thieves aren't using those exact exploits, there is NO "mystery" that hackers have demonstrated the ability to break car remote systems. But the article and the quotes from the police make it sound like the police are just staring at the wall, drooling and going "…

The article makes it sound exactly like what it seems to be -- that the thieves are using an exploit that they don't know, and thus they want to know. One of the guys quoted makes a profession out of this and he doesn't know what they're doing. But apparently lots of people on HN do.

Re: Police admit they're 'stumped' by mystery car thefts

#30

Post by cleverjake »

Glyptodon wrote: post #21
Hyrum_Graff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I was a thief then I'd always hit the passenger side front door as it gives me the quickest access to the glove compartment, where valuables are likely to be stored. Not sure what the mystery is here.

Do people actually put valuable things in their glove boxes? I didn't think people put stuff besides proof of insurance and their car manuals in them. I'd think it a lot more likely that valuables were in the center console storage.

I know multiple people who do. its a quick 'out-of-sight' place to throw something small like a purse or phone.
Post reply on HN