Extensive Vulnerability Discovered with WIFI WPA2 Security

#5482198

ubercake

2017-10-16 13:58

KRACK ATTACK!

#5482216

Biffo

2017-10-16 14:55

Routers under Windows will be safe against this exploitation since most lock up for 24hrs after so many failed attempts plus no hacker gonna wait around for months or years till all the keys are decrypted.

#5482217

sammarbella

2017-10-16 14:55

researchers say that "each wifi device is vulnerable to one of the variant an attacks". Android version 6.0 and newer devices are more vulnerable, because of an secondary bug in the operating system. "This makes it easy to intercept and manipulate traffic." The affected Android versions are about half of all Android devices that are in use worldwide. Google will be launching an Android update on November 6th. However, older devices do not get the latest security updates anymore and are likely to be vulnerable.

Don't worry that's only some billion devices affected...

#5482232

rl66

2017-10-16 15:57

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

Belgian investigators found a serious leak in the WPA2 security standard, WPA2 is commonly used to protect most Wi-Fi networks. The vulnerability was detailed by the Belgian researchers Mathy Vanhoe... Extensive Vulnerability Discovered with WIFI WPA2 Security

yes Lilux sound better 🙂 ... don't worry we understand typonese too. More seriously most wireless system are just like a big door with "come in, it's open" written on it. but despite that people want more of it, even in their car and in their credit card (btw 1st version of pay without touch were making card detected by bt/wifi sniffer ... imagine how security is taken seriously ... 😱 )

#5482248

schmidtbag

2017-10-16 16:55

Unlike OS or software specific security issues, this is not something that should be made widely known. Most people who use WPA2 are not able to opt for something else or update their device in a useful way. So, I feel like Vanhoef and Piessens have just put waaaay more people at risk than they were before their discovery. Think of it like this: Imagine someone brings a backpack with a bomb in it in a shopping mall, and just leaves the backpack in the middle of the mall. Then an announcement is made that this backpack has a weapon in it. By letting everyone know that there is something deadly in that backpack, it dramatically increases the probability of someone with malicious intent from using it, possibly before security can diffuse the situation. If the announcement was never made, sure, somebody would've figured it out eventually, but the probability of the weapon being used would be dramatically decreased. So the fact of the matter is, the situation was insecure no matter what, but because an announcement was made, that just made things a whole lot worse.

#5482317

GlennB

2017-10-16 20:55

schmidtbag:

Unlike OS or software specific security issues, this is not something that should be made widely known. Most people who use WPA2 are not able to opt for something else or update their device in a useful way. So, I feel like Vanhoef and Piessens have just put waaaay more people at risk than they were before their discovery.

Security through obscurity is not a great way to handle any leak. We cannot know for sure whether this leak has not been found by someone else already.

#5482320

schmidtbag

2017-10-16 21:07

GlennB:

Security through obscurity is not a great way to handle any leak. We cannot know for sure whether this leak has not been found by someone else already.

I agree, but with one crucial caveat: if there is a widely available fix. Without a fix, all this announcement does is just beg hackers to take advantage of people. At the very least, they shouldn't have disclosed the details. Just merely telling consumers to look into upgrading their devices due to "a security issue regarding WPA2" ought to be enough. A statement like that may encourage uninformed hackers to try finding out what's wrong, but they don't know what's wrong, which still buys people time. Companies and developers who need/want to address the problem may contact people like these researchers personally to get the information they need to correct the problem. There's a right way to approach this situation, and announcing so many details to the public was probably the worst way to go about it; obscurity would've been better. WPA2 has been around for a long time and I'm not aware of any hackers who took advantage of it. But, now there will be.

#5482333

Noisiv

2017-10-16 22:04

How about... explicitly define allowed devices via MAC address. Not practical in a large network, but good fix for home/personal use.

#5482357

JJayzX

2017-10-16 23:43

Noisiv:

How about... explicitly define allowed devices via MAC address. Not practical in a large network, but good fix for home/personal use.

This attack uses a spoofed MAC. MACs have been easily spoofed for a long time also.

#5482361

Noisiv

2017-10-17 00:16

JJayzX:

This attack uses a spoofed MAC. MACs have been easily spoofed for a long time also.

OK so he retreives my client's MAC address and spoofs it, but what's gonna happen later when two identical MAC clients are connected? None will work correctly?

#5482364

schmidtbag

2017-10-17 00:35

Noisiv:

OK so he retreives my client's MAC address and spoofs it, but what's gonna happen later when two identical MAC clients are connected? None will work correctly?

I suppose it depends on what they're trying to do. If the hacker doesn't intend on breaching the security of the spoofed MAC, they could still get in your network disguised as your PC and do whatever else they want. In some cases, the router or conflicting PC won't care if there are duplicate MACs. In the event something does care, the hacker just has to wait until you sign off.

#5482374

Noisiv

2017-10-17 01:31

schmidtbag:

I suppose it depends on what they're trying to do. If the hacker doesn't intend on breaching the security of the spoofed MAC, they could still get in your network disguised as your PC and do whatever else they want. In some cases, the router or conflicting PC won't care if there are duplicate MACs. In the event something does care, the hacker just has to wait until you sign off.

The more I read about this... this be some serious shiit. A someone directly hacking my personal device(s), that's the least of problems.

#5482386

HeavyHemi

2017-10-17 02:12

Krack is whack!

#5482396

Athlonite

2017-10-17 03:24

Oh great lets put out a video showing any wood-be hacker how it's done a simple there's a security problem with WPA2 and you'll need to update your device when a fix is availably statement would have sufficient

#5482495

geogan

2017-10-17 13:14

JJayzX:

This attack uses a spoofed MAC. MACs have been easily spoofed for a long time also.

How does the attacker get a valid MAC address that is on the allowed list though? He would never get in by just randomly searching through thousands of MAC addresses. Do they use some method to find out the MACs of devices already on the network?

#5482497

geogan

2017-10-17 13:17

Anyway let me play devil advocate here... TBH that Krack "attack" to me is just another way for the government agencies to trick or frighten users into updating all the routers in existence with their latest "approved" firmware which is loaded with their own backdoors and snoops. IMO it is better to have a 1% chance of some lonely hacker deciding he wants to try and get into your network than 100% chance you now have installed the NSAs latest backdoor entry toolkit on your router... i'm keeping my own 6 year old router firmware to keep NSA out...

#5482504

Noisiv

2017-10-17 13:57

geogan:

How does the attacker get a valid MAC address that is on the allowed list though? He would never get in by just randomly searching through thousands of MAC addresses. Do they use some method to find out the MACs of devices already on the network?

yup airodump-ng

#5482524

schmidtbag

2017-10-17 14:40

geogan:

TBH that Krack "attack" to me is just another way for the government agencies to trick or frighten users into updating all the routers in existence with their latest "approved" firmware which is loaded with their own backdoors and snoops. IMO it is better to have a 1% chance of some lonely hacker deciding he wants to try and get into your network than 100% chance you now have installed the NSAs latest backdoor entry toolkit on your router... i'm keeping my own 6 year old router firmware to keep NSA out...

I'd gladly take the NSA spying on me than a stranger who wants to steal my personal info and bankrupt me or pin a serious crime on me. Sure, I don't like the NSA spying on me in principle, but if you think your old WPA2 router can protect you from that, you are mistaken.

#5482730

Athlonite

2017-10-17 22:35

well The just aswell my Router is German made then they'll just tell the NSA nein friggin zee firmwarez

#5483372

geogan

2017-10-19 14:56

schmidtbag:

I'd gladly take the NSA spying on me than a stranger who wants to steal my personal info and bankrupt me or pin a serious crime on me. Sure, I don't like the NSA spying on me in principle, but if you think your old WPA2 router can protect you from that, you are mistaken.

Well I would be the opposite. The government agencies can do you a lot more damage. Most of these mass media news scare stories are really engineered to get everyone to install "Big US based agency Toolkit v.2.1" by stealth.