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

131–139 of 139 posts

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

#131

Post by darkarmani »

finnw wrote: post #109
darkarmani wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be just fine, if you knew what you were doing when choosing ECB. I can think of plenty of brain dead ways you could accidentally use it if you thought that AES automatically protected you no matter how you used it. I'm sure there are vulnerabilities all over the place, but it would make even more sense if it happened to an AES system, because people would let their guard down because super-duper industrial s…

If the use of ECB is appropriate (which it may well be for this application) then the fact that is was used is not an indication of "brain dead" decision making. I would be much more worried if they made the system unnecessarily complicated (and thus more vulnerable) just because they thought the presence of ECB would be bad for marketing.

> then the fact that is was used is not an indication of "brain dead" decision making.

I didn't mean using it was brain dead, i mean using it without knowing the implications might lead to (accidentally) using it in in a brain dead way. For example, I could see them implementing the protocol and testing it without crypto and then simply adding crypto on top of it without thinking about the crypto portion.

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

#132

Post by jcampbell1 »

mrb wrote: post #130
jcampbell1 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really matter. Consider the dumbest possible encryption scheme: Car sends random 32-bit number to key. The key XORs the random number with some 32-bit number. ECU checks that the response is valid. This is the worst possible design, and not far from what late 90's cars use. Even though it is the dumbest possible solution it still works reasonably well, because you have to have access to the key to start th…

Look, your initial claim that the reporter is reasonable when saying that the protocol should be "impossible" to attack is completely unfounded. The details do matter. For example your hypothetical protocol is grossly insecure. Keys transmit signals over dozens of feet, not inches. All an attacker would have to do to attack your hypothetical protocol would be to capture one exchange. Then he can XOR the challenge wit…

Are you talking about press to unlock fobs, or proximity keys?

I was under the assumption that we are talking about proximity keys. Old ignition keys use RFID, but a broken encryption system. They are still secure because the range is a few inches. Newer cars with unlock from the pocket / push to start, use challenge based auth and strong encryption.

Click to unlock fobs use secure PRNGs. That is a separate discussion, and they are generally secure. Maybe this is what the reporter was talking about, but I assumed these cars had proximity keys. Even if this is what the reporter was talking about, they were not way off base, as this still falls in the "should be impossible" category.

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

#133

Post by javert »

cglace wrote: post #111
javert wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't live in a place like that... unless there were major benefits or I had no choice.

You don't have to live in a place like that for it to happen to you. This is happened to me in the nice parts of town that are close to public transit. They smash a few windows run across the street and jump on the train. . .

Well, that can't happen where there isn't public transportation. Also, where I live, if you're trespassing in people's yards, you might get shot. And yet it's a super-safe place to live. Who would have thought?

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

#134

Post by mrb »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #132
mrb wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, your initial claim that the reporter is reasonable when saying that the protocol should be "impossible" to attack is completely unfounded. The details do matter. For example your hypothetical protocol is grossly insecure. Keys transmit signals over dozens of feet, not inches. All an attacker would have to do to attack your hypothetical protocol would be to capture one exchange. Then he can XOR the challenge wit…

Are you talking about press to unlock fobs, or proximity keys? I was under the assumption that we are talking about proximity keys. Old ignition keys use RFID, but a broken encryption system. They are still secure because the range is a few inches. Newer cars with unlock from the pocket / push to start, use challenge based auth and strong encryption. Click to unlock fobs use secure PRNGs. That is a separate discussio…

I am talking about the press to unlock fobs. Which is what the thieves seem to be using, based on the description of how they open the cars.

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

#135

Post by Fuxy »

PeterisP wrote: post #77
dclowd9901 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Even if you use practically unbreakable encryption keys, there are a million things that you can fail in the whole cryptosystem and any one of them will make you vulnerable. How are keys generated? What is the source of randomness? How are keys reset if needed? What are the manufacturer/service/guvmint backdoors in the keys? etc.

I think you're on to something with the backdoor. Backdoors have to be extra secure because if you hack that you have access to all of them. Hell they shouldn't even exist it's like asking to be exploited.

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

#137

Post by nodata »

gambiting wrote: post #97
TheCapn wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seconds I believe. I have no source but I recall seeing a story where people were able to fake a BMW remote by plugging directly into the OBDII port on the cars and running a quick program on an attached arduino. As for remote access I'm sure its equally plausible to crack if you know the right steps to take.

But that was a clear mistake in the ODB port programming on new BMW, which was fixed by the manufacturer. Not something that can be easily done on any car.

So how long would it take to remotely crack or brute force or otherwise gain access to a brand new BMW? I'm interested in the cost on AWS compute or GPU compute.

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

#138

Post by btbuildem »

ssimpson wrote: post #91
btbuildem wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tint on your windows probably contributes -- they can't see inside, so they break in just in case there might be something worth stealing.

a lot of smash and grab guys use something called a "ninja rock" which is a chunk of porcelain from a spark plug. throw it against the window and it explodes. if you have tint, it is like tape on the glass, so it doesn't break apart as easily and makes the smash and grab operation take longer.

I've jerry-rigged one of those onto the bottom of a pepperspray canister. This "device" works wonders with drivers who think they can just run a cyclist off the road.

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

#139

Post by stcredzero »

gojomo wrote: post #98
stcredzero wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many jurisdictions, if the car was stolen and used in a crime, you could be charged for negligence.

Which jurisdictions? (Do you have a reference?) I don't think US law works this way, for example, and would be curious to know where it does.

It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. You can indeed be financially liable for leaving your keys in the ignition, if the car is taken and a crime is committed.

http://blog.lawinfo.com/2011/06/22/if-you-leave-your-keys-in...

Post reply on HN