BLURtooth: Exploiting Cross-Transport Key Derivation in Bluetooth Classic and Bluetooth Low Energy
September 24, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· π ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Daniele Antonioli, Nils Ole Tippenhauer, Kasper Rasmussen, Mathias Payer
arXiv ID
2009.11776
Category
cs.CR: Cryptography & Security
Citations
35
Venue
ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
The Bluetooth standard specifies two transports: Bluetooth Classic (BT) for high-throughput wireless services and Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) for very low-power scenarios. BT and BLE have dedicated pairing protocols and devices have to pair over BT and BLE to use both securely. In 2014, the Bluetooth standard (v4.2) addressed this usability issue by introducing Cross-Transport Key Derivation (CTKD). CTKD allows establishing BT and BLE pairing keys just by pairing over one of the two transports. While CTKD crosses the security boundary between BT and BLE, little is known about the internals of CTKD and its security implications. In this work, we present the first complete description of CTKD obtained by merging the scattered information from the Bluetooth standard with the results from our reverse-engineering experiments. Then, we perform a security evaluation of CTKD and uncover four cross-transport issues in its specification. We leverage these issues to design four standard-compliant attacks on CTKD enabling new ways to exploit Bluetooth (e.g., exploiting BT and BLE by targeting only one of the two). Our attacks work even if the strongest security mechanism for BT and BLE are in place, including Numeric Comparison and Secure Connections. They allow to impersonate, man-in-the-middle, and establish unintended sessions with arbitrary devices. We refer to our attacks as BLUR attacks, as they blur the security boundary between BT and BLE. We provide a low-cost implementation of the BLUR attacks and we successfully evaluate them on 14 devices with 16 unique Bluetooth chips from popular vendors. We discuss the attacks' root causes and present effective countermeasures to fix them. We disclosed our findings and countermeasures to the Bluetooth SIG in May 2020 (CVE-2020-15802), and we reported additional unmitigated issues in May 2021.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Cryptography & Security
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settings
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Distillation as a Defense to Adversarial Perturbations against Deep Neural Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Spectre Attacks: Exploiting Speculative Execution
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
How To Backdoor Federated Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Time
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted