(I'm doing this on my network, just for science). I was using airodump-ng to capture handshake. After that, I was able to open file with captured information in WireShark and find part with 4 handshake messages of EAPOL protocol. I know about millions of years needed for brute-force and I know that I can use aircrack-ng for dictionary attack.
I would like to extract just password from those 4 messages. I assume it is transfered as some sort of salted hash value. What I don't know is, in which message password resides (wireless password, for connection) and how exactly is sent? For example SHA1 of "password"+"ssid"... I would like to be able to compute exact same hash in my program (of course, that would be possible only for my network because I know my password). I'm gonna need that also for some demonstration on university.
Thanks!
The 802.11i "4 way handshake" that you have captured is where both parties agree on shared Group (read: broadcast) and Pairwise (read: unicast) transient keys. I.e. the keys generated here only exist for the duration of the 802.11 Association, or until the next rekey is issued from the AP.
Before you can even begin to decrypt the 4 way handshake messages you need the pairwise master key (PMK), which is what gets derived from the user-entered passphrase using a key derivation function (PBKDF2), or is the result of a WPS exchange which is based on Diffie-Hellman.
The point here is the ASCII passphrase you are seeking to extract is not exchanged in any of the 4 messages, as it has already been shared amongst all parties involved in the transaction (client and AP in this case) and used to generate a 256 bit PMK. And unless you have this PMK, the contents of the 4 way handshake messages are as good as random data.
The best that you can do, if you already know the PMK, is extract the GTK and PTK from M2 and M3 of the 4 way handshake, and from those pull the temporal key which can be XORed with the payload in subsequent frames to get the plaintext data - which wireshark will also do for you if you enter the PMK or passphrase into the IEE802.11 settings and enable decryption.
Related
I am trying to figure out a way to implement decent crypto on a micro-controller project. I have an ARMv4 based MCU that will control my garage door and receive commands over a WiFi module.
The MCU will run a TCP/IP server, that will listen for commands from Android clients that can connect from anywhere on the Internet, which is why I need to implement crypto.
I understand how to use AES with shared secret key to properly encrypt traffic, but I am finding it difficult to deal with Replay Attacks. All solutions I see so far have serious drawbacks.
There are two fundamental problems which prevent me from using well
established methods like session tokens, timestamps or nonces:
The MCU has no reliable source of entropy, so I can't generate
quality random numbers.
The attacker can reset the MCU by cutting power to the garage,
thus erasing any stored state at will, and resetting time counter to
zero (or just wait 49 days until it loops).
With these restrictions in mind, I can see only one approach that seems
ok to me (i.e. I don't see how to break it yet). Unfortunately, this
requires non-volatile storage, which means writing to external flash,
which introduces some serious complexity due to a variety of technical details.
I would love to get some feedback on the following solution. Even better, is there a solution I am missing that does not require non-volatile storage?
Please note that the primary purpose of this project is education. I realize that I could simplify this problem by setting up a secure relay inside my firewall, and let that handle Internet traffic, instead of exposing the MCU directly. But what would be the fun in that? ;)
= Proposed Solution =
A pair of shared AES keys will be used. One key to turn a Nonce into an IV for the CBC stage, and another for encrypting the messages themselves:
Shared message Key
Shared IV_Key
Here's a picture of what I am doing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNsUrOVQKpE#t=10m11s
1) Android takes current time in milliseconds (Ti) (64-bit long) and
uses it as a nonce input into the CBC stage to encrypt the command:
a) IV(i) = AES_ECB(IV_Key, Ti)
b) Ci = AES_CBC(Key, IV(i), COMMAND)
2) Android utilizes /dev/random to generate the IV_Response that the
MCU will use to answer current request.
3) Android sends [<Ti, IV_Response, Ci>, <== HMAC(K)]
4) MCU receives and verifies integrity using HMAC, so attacker can't
modify plain text Ti.
5) MCU checks that Ti > T(i-1) stored in flash. This ensures that
recorded messages can't be replayed.
6) MCU calculates IV(i) = AES_ECB(IV_Key, Ti) and decrypts Ci.
7) MCU responds using AES_CBC(Key, IV_Response, RESPONSE)
8) MCU stores Ti in external flash memory.
Does this work? Is there a simpler approach?
EDIT: It was already shown in comments that this approach is vulnerable to a Delayed Playback Attack. If the attacker records and blocks messages from reaching the MCU, then the messages can be played back at any later time and still be considered valid, so this algorithm is no good.
As suggested by #owlstead, a challenge/response system is likely required. Unless I can find a way around that, I think I need to do the following:
Port or implement a decent PRGA. (Any recommendations?)
Pre-compute a lot of random seed values for the PRGA. A new seed will be used for every MCU restart. Assuming 128-bit seeds, 16K of storage buys be a 1000 unique seeds, so the values won't loop until the MCU successfully uses at least one PRGA output value and restarts a 1000 times. That doesn't seem too bad.
Use the output of PRGA to generate the challenges.
Does that sound about right?
Having an IV_KEY is unnecessary. IVs (and similar constructs, such as salts) do not need to be encrypted, and if you look at image you linked to in the youtube video you'll see their description of the payload includes the IV in plaintext. They are used so that the same plaintext does not encode to the same ciphertext under the same key every time, which presents information to an attacker. The protection against the IV being altered is the HMAC on the message, not the encryption. As such, you can remove that requirement. EDIT: This paragraph is incorrect, see discussion below. As noted though, your approach described above will work fine.
Your system does have a flaw though, namely the IV_Response. I assume, from that you include it in your system, that it serves some purpose. However, because it is not in any way encoded, it allows an attacker to respond affirmatively to a device's request without the MCU receiving it. Let's say that your device's were instructing an MCU that was running a small robot to throw a ball. Your commands might look like.
1) Move to loc (x,y).
2) Lower anchor to secure bot table.
3) Throw ball
Our attacker can allow messages 1 and 3 to pass as expected, and block 2 from getting to the MCU while still responding affirmatively, causing our bot to be damaged when it tosses the ball without being anchored. This does have an imperfect solution. Append the response (which should fit into a single block) to the command so that it is encrypted as well, and have the MCU respond with AES_ECB(Key, Response), which the device will verify. As such, the attacker will not be able to forge (feasibly) a valid response. Note that as you consider /dev/random untrustworthy this could provide an attacker with plaintext-ciphertext pairs, which can be used for linear cryptanalysis of the key provided an attacker has a large set of pairs to work with. As such, you'll need to change the key with some regularity.
Other than that, your approach looks good. Just remember it is crucial that you use the stored Ti to protect against the replay attack, and not the MCU's clock. Otherwise you run into synchronization problems.
I've used the wikipedia article among other sources to understand how this protocol works and have two questions:
1) After Alice makes her initial query to the server, she receives as part of the response:
(the new session key + Alice's ID) - encrypted with Bob's secure key.
Since the secure keys in this particular protocol are symmetric and Alice knows the full contents of this "packet", won't she be able to now go and figure out Bob's secure key?
2) The wiki article explains the Achilles heel of this protocol to be a replay attack "If an attacker uses an older, compromised value" for the session key they can repack it as:
(the session key + Alice's ID) - encrypted with Bob's secure key
and use that to initiate a session with Bob.
Maybe I'm just missing something, but just because the attacker has the session key does not mean that they have Bob's secure key. How are they then to generate the above packet?
What you are referring to is a Known Plaintext attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Known-plaintext_attack. In Kerberos 5, the encryption protocol used is AES, and it is generally considered to be 'resistant' against KP attacks. See here: https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/1512/why-is-aes-resistant-to-known-plaintext-attacks for a discussion of how/why AES is considered resistant.
Attacker (M) does not need to repack anything using K_B, it only records all previous communication from A to B. Later, it re-sends {K_AB, A}K_B to B. Without a nonce B does not know that this session key is not fresh. It starts a new session with A. Since A is not expecting any packet from B, all the packets coming from B in this session is dropped. But M keeps replying to B making it think that A is replying.
Note that rest of the communication in this session does not need K_B, but just K_AB. The new nonce B sends is encrypted with K_AB (that M already knows and can use to decrypt the new nonce). M can decrypt older messages from A to B, update the nonce values (according to the new nonce for this session) and repack using K_AB. This way M can make B redo the sequence of action it did in previous session.
How is that helpful? Say, B is a bank and A sent $10 to M in previous session using B. M can later replay the previous communication over and over to repeat that transfer from A to M.
I'm developing own protocol for secure message exchanging.
Each message contains the following fields: HMAC, time, salt, and message itself. HMAC is computed over all other fields using known secret key.
Protocol should protect against reply attack. On large time interval "time" record protects against replay attack (both sides should have synchronized clocks). But for protection against replay attack on short time intervals (clocks are not too accurate) I'm planning replace "salt" field with counter increasing every time, when new message is send. Receiving party will throw away messages with counter value less or equal to the previous message counter.
What I'm doing wrong?
Initial counter value can be different (I can use party identifier as initial value), but it will be known to the attacker (party identifier transmitted in unencrypted form).
(https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/8246/what-is-a-good-enough-salt-for-a-saltedhash)
But attacker can precompute rainbow tables for counter+1, counter+2, counter+3... if I will not use really random salt?
I'm not certain of your design and requirements, so some of this may be off base; hopefully some of it is also useful.
First, I'm having a little trouble understanding the attack; I'm probably just missing something. Alice sends a message to Bob that includes a counter, a payload, and an HMAC of (counter||payload). Eve intercepts and replays the message. Bob has seen that one, so he throws it away. Eve tries to compute a new message with counter+1, but she is unable to compute the HMAC for this message (since the counter is different), so Bob throws it away. As long as there is a secret available, Eve should never be able to forge a message, and replaying a message does nothing.
So what is the "known secret key?" Is this key known to the attacker? (And if it is, then he can trivially forge messages, so the HMAC isn't helpful.) Since you note that you have DH, are you using that to negotiate a key?
Assuming I'm missing the attack, thinking through the rest of your question: If you have a shared secret, why not use that to encrypt the message, or at least the time+counter? By encrypting the time and counter together, a rainbow table should be impractical.
If there is some shared secret, but you don't have the processor available to encrypt, you could still do something like MD5(secret+counter) to prevent an attacker guessing ahead (you must already have MD5 available for your HMAC-MD5).
I have attacked this problem before with no shared secret and no DH. In that case, the embedded device needed a per-device public/private keypair (ideally installed during manufacturing, but it can be computed during first power-on and stored in nonvolatile memory; randomness is hard, one option is to let the server provide a random number service; if you have any piece of unique non-public information on the chip, like a serial number, that can be used to seed your key, too. Worst case, you can use your MAC plus the time plus as much entropy as you can scrounge from the network.)
With a public/private key in place, rather than using HMAC, the device just signs its messages, sending its public key to the server in its first message. The public key becomes the identifier of the device. The nice thing about this approach is that there is no negotiation phase. The device can just start talking, and if the server has never heard of this public key, it creates a new record.
There's a small denial-of-service problem here, because attackers could fill your database with junk. The best solution to that is to generate the keys during manufacturing, and immediately insert the public keys into your database. That's impractical for some contract manufacturers. So you can resort to including a shared secret that the device can use to authenticate itself to the server the first time. That's weak, but probably sufficient for the vast majority of cases.
I'm looking to authenticate that a particular message is coming from a particular place.
Example: A repeatedly sends the same message to B. Lets say this message is "helloworld" which is encrypted to "asdfqwerty".
How can I ensure that a third party C doesn't learn that B always receives this same encrypted string, and C starts sending "asdfqwerty" to B?
How can I ensure that when B decrypts "asdfqwerty" to "helloworld", it is always receiving this "helloworld" from A?
Thanks for any help.
For the former, you want to use a Mode of Operation for your symmetric cipher that uses an Initialization Vector. The IV ensures that every encrypted message is different, even if it contains the same plaintext.
For the latter, you want to sign your message using the private key of A(lice). If B(ob) has the public key of Alice, he can then verify she really created the message.
Finally, beware of replay attacks, where C(harlie) records a valid message from Alice, and later replays it to Bob. To avoid this, add a nonce and/or a timestamp to your encrypted message (yes, you could make the IV play double-duty as a nonce).
Add random value to the data being encrypted, and whenever it's decrypted, strip it from the original unencrypted data.
You need decent random number generator. I'm sure Google will help you on that.
C noticing that B receives twice the same encrypted message is an issue called traffic analysis and has historically been a heavy concern (but this was in times which predated public key encryption).
Any decent public encryption system includes some random padding. For instance, for RSA as described in PKCS#1, the encrypted message (of length at most 117 bytes for a 1024-bit RSA key) gets a header with at least eight random (non-zero) bytes, and a few extra data which allows the receiver to unambiguously locate the padding bytes, and see where the "real" data begins. The random bytes will be generated anew every time; hence, if A sends twice the same message to B, the encrypted messages will be different, but B will recover the original message twice.
Random padding is required for public key encryption precisely because the public key is public: if encryption was deterministic, then an attacker could "try" potential messages and look for a match (this is exhaustive search on possible messages).
Public key encryption algorithms often have heavy limitations on data size or performance (e.g. with RSA, you have a strict maximum message length, depending on the key size). Thus, it is customary to use a hybrid system: the public key encryption is used to encrypt a symmetric key K (i.e. a bunch of random bytes), and K is used to symmetrically encrypt the data (symmetric encryption is fast and does not have constraints on input message size). In a hybrid system, you generate a new K for every message, so this also gives you the randomness you need to avoid the issue of encrypting several times the same message with a given public key: at the public encryption level, you are actually never encrypting twice the same message (the same key K), even if the data which is symmetrically encrypted with K is the same than in a previous message. This would protect you from traffic analysis even if the public key encryption itself did not include random padding.
When symmetrically encrypting data with a key K, the symmetric encryption should use an "initial value" (IV) which is randomly and uniformly generated; this is integrated in the encryption mode (some modes only need a non-repeating IV without requiring a random uniform generation, but CBC needs random uniform generation). This is a third level of randomness, protecting you against traffic analysis.
When using asymmetric key agreement (static Diffie-Hellman), since are a bit more complex, because a key agreement results in a key K which you do not choose, and which could be the same ever and ever (between given sender and receiver). In that situation, protection against traffic analysis relies on the symmetric encryption IV randomness.
Asymmetric encryption protocols, such as OpenPGP, describe how the symmetric encryption, public key encryption and randomness should all be linked together, ironing out the tricky details. You are warmly encouraged not to reinvent your own protocol: it is difficult to design a secure protocol, mostly because one cannot easily test for the presence or absence of any weakness.
You may want to study block cipher modes of operation. However, the modes are designed to work on a data stream that is sent over a reliable channel. If your messages are sent out of order over an unreliable transport (e.g. UDP packets), I don't think you can use it.
I'm implementing a network server that processes udp packets. I want to avoid replay attacks, where an attacker could copy udp packets, and replay them later in time. I way toying with idea that i could hash packet and store this value in a hash table. I can then do the same process everytime a packet is received then look it up in the hash table. If it's already exists then we reject the packet, however if we never seen it (the entry does not exist) we store it for future use.
Now, what hash algorithm would be suitable for this? Do i need something other than hash table? As there are a lot of udp packets being received i want this to work in O(1)!!!!!! ;-), is this possible?
Obviously the longer i 'remember' hashes, the more storage (state) i will need to allocate, can a hash table grow and shrink dynamically over time?
I maybe way off here, i may not need a hash table at all! i'm open to idea's!!
Do you have control over the content of the packet? If so, add a hash to the content and use that - which moves the hashing effort to the sender. You could also include a validity period so that a) you know you can discard any record of a packet after that time and b) a packet stored by an attacker becomes useless after that time. You would want to encrypt the time stamp in some way so the attacker can't just update the time stamp.
Other techniques can be found on Wikipedia
Using a hash table for packets can be expensive because you will have to rehash your hash table, which is O(n).
In this situation you should negotiate a shared secret between the server and each client. This secret key K is then used to construct a Message Authentication Code. The Message being authenticated should be the data you are transmitting in the UDP packet along with a time stamp. Sequence ID's are unfavorable because there is no guarantee a UDP packet will arrive at all, and its possible for packets to arrive out of order.
It should be noted that this attack is impossible with TCP due to the three way handshake and sequence ids. In this case the security provided by TCP may in fact be lighter than this proposed security system.