PoisonTap – Exploits locked computers over USB

https://github.com/samyk/poisontap

by el_duderino • 10 years ago

235 56 10 years ago

github.com

wilg• 10 years ago

Does using SRI (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Subres...) defeat a portion of this attack?

minitech• 10 years ago

A small portion. (It’s listed in the mitigations.) Use HTTPS anyway, though.

canada_dry• 10 years ago

It's long past time that USB security is taken seriously.

By default anything stuck into a USB port should be sandboxed and various integrity checks need to be performed before access is allowed.

JshWright• 10 years ago

It's long past time that USB security is taken seriously.

You mean, before we started using USB for charging...?

It wouldn't be hard at all to make a convincing looking power adapter with something like PoisonTap baked in.

niftich2• 10 years ago

You can protect both devices from each other with a USB condom [1] which only connects the power pins. This should be the solution for trying to charge from untrusted slots, or for when an untrusted device wants to charge from you.

[1] http://syncstop.com/#faq-original

fny2• 10 years ago

You can't blame the USB ports entirely... I mean, yes, it's insane he can force requests that trick your machine into dumping unencrypted cookies, but remember this intercepts and modifies unencrypted traffic, which any packet sniffer or upstream provider (router, ISP, et al) can already see/modify.

So even if you follow Samy's recommendation of putting cement on your USB ports, [0] you're still vulnerable to injection and interception.

Moral of the story: encrypt all the things.

[0] https://github.com/samyk/poisontap#desktop-security

est• 10 years ago

By default anything stuck into a USB port should be sandboxed

Yes, suppose you have a mac mini and you plug in USB keyboard, oops it's sandboxed and does not work.

blacksmith_tb• 10 years ago

I think the idea is that if a second "keyboard" is plugged in while the machine is locked/asleep, it shouldn't work. Even for the scenario where you dump $BEVERAGE into your keyboard, forcing a hard reboot to be able to plug in another keyboard (and log back in) doesn't seem unreasonable.

qwertyuiop9242• 10 years ago

That is impressive. And scary.

But if your box's physical security has been compromised, you're already screwed in any case.

fny2• 10 years ago

But if your box's physical security has been compromised, you're already screwed in any case.

There's a gradient to the screwage, however.

For example, I've encrypted my disk, so someone would need to steal my computer and then try bruteforcing it with some new-fangled graphics card.

With this insanity, I risk someone stealing my unencrypted traffic with a plug-and-play device any time I get up from my desk to pee. Then again, they can already do that with Wireshark.

dgoldstein04• 10 years ago

not just unencrypted - traffic for any website that doesn't use HSTS. All they need to do is intercept a single HTTP page and then they can modify it to contain iframes to their favorite sites over http, and any site without HSTS can then be owned.

SilkRoadie• 10 years ago

I can't help but feel in the majority of cases fleeting access should not be a problem for a modern operating system.

Lets say you are working in an office and get up to go the loo. You lock your work station. You are expecting that your locked computer will mean that a visitor cannot gain access to it in the few minutes you are away.

They could steal the computer, they could destroy it but slipping something into the port of a locked computer shouldn't give them this sort of access.

I feel that we can do better.

qwertyuiop9242• 10 years ago

Absolutely. This can be better. But it can't be much better.

caf2• 10 years ago

It seems like another mitigation missing from their list is "modify your DHCP client to reject over-broad subnet masks" where the cutoff is probably something like /20.

Additionally you could reject any DHCP lease for a subnet that purports to overlap with the address range of any other directly connected network.

ams6110• 10 years ago

Or, don't automatically issue dhcp requests until the interface is explicitly configured to do so.

jtokoph• 10 years ago

Couldn't the USB device identify itself as multiple devices over the same port? Similar to a hub. It could then give a /20 to each device.

caf2• 10 years ago

It could, there's a limit of 127 USB devices though so it couldn't cover a large percentage of the address space that way. It might be enough to still cover some major sites of interest.

rasz_pl• 10 years ago

I almost immunized my Win10 _by accident_ thanks to paranoia about blocking W10 spying.

    >netsh advfirewall firewall show rule name=all
    …
    Rule Name: Core Networking – Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP-In)
    ———————————————————————-
    Enabled: Yes
    Direction: In
    Profiles: Domain,Private,Public
    Grouping: Core Networking
    LocalIP: Any
    RemoteIP: LocalSubnet
    Protocol: UDP
    LocalPort: 68
    RemotePort: 67
    Edge traversal: No
    Action: Allow
    
    Rule Name: Core Networking – Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP-Out)
    ———————————————————————-
    Enabled: Yes
    Direction: Out
    Profiles: Domain,Private,Public
    Grouping: Core Networking
    LocalIP: Any
    RemoteIP: LocalSubnet
    Protocol: UDP
    LocalPort: 68
    RemotePort: 67
    Edge traversal: No
    Action: Allow

Basically I only allow DHCP from LocalSubnet. Of course according to Microsoft LocalSubnet : “The keyword localsubnet, which includes all addresses that are on the local computer’s current subnet.” but how the hell does your computer know “local computer’s current subnet” BEFORE it receives its IP from DHCP server??? Hmm, I think Ill just hardcode this to private subnet (192.168.0.0/16).

zeta0134• 10 years ago

I wonder if a viable method for securing USB devices would be a pairing step, similar to how bluetooth keyboards work. Most input devices are USB-based, which means we can't require confirmation for every device, but we could require OS confirmation for most of them, and do a pairing step for input devices. Like click these visual targets / type in this key sequence.

This wouldn't fully solve this problem, but it might just help protect me from people plugging devices into my machine while it's locked, and could even alert me that the device I thought was just charging has reported itself as a keyboard, despite looking nothing like one.

stillAbnormal• 10 years ago

A hardware-oriented attack vector that completely unravels the carefully conceived schemes of the application layer's software-oriented security that sits on top of it.

And USB at the heart of it. My old friend, USB.

Why am I not surprised?

thinkling2• 10 years ago

Previously:

"PoisonTap, a $5 tool that invades password-protected computers"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12966673

niftich2• 10 years ago

Another fine exploit by Samy [1]. At the risk of sounding like a killjoy, once the attacker has physical access to a machine, let alone plugs in their own device, you can usually abandon all security hope [2]. But that entirely notwithstanding, the techniques presented in this exploit are actually quite clever, and they conspire to make for a nasty set of scenarios. Kudos to him for raising awareness once again!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samy_Kamkar [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=tptacek%20"physical%20access"&...

nine_k• 10 years ago

A powered-down machine with full disk encryption is reasonably safe against physical access, I still hope?

pulse7• 10 years ago

Unless USB keylogger is present which will log the disk encryption password when user is unaware of it...

arantius• 10 years ago

Not if you can get access twice. A variety of "evil maid" style attacks exist. For example, imagine I replace your FDE's bootloader with a version that appears identical, except it also logs your passphrase. Then I come back, read the passphrase, decrypt, and win.

For scarier thoughts, imagine I know how to control the Intel Management Engine, and attack that instead. That's not covered by FDE.

thinkling2• 10 years ago

So is clearing your browser cache sufficient to be sure that any possible PoisonTap infection has been removed?

dgoldstein04• 10 years ago

sounds like it, but given usb plug-n-play I'm sure you could make a more persistent version.

And also clearing your cache won't invalidate all your web sessions that they could have stolen. You'll want to find every site you were logged into, and explicitly log out. Otherwise those stolen cookies will still be valid, unless the website does some sort of channel-id thing to bind cookies to the particular computer (which I'm not sure is possible beyond experimental browser features, and certainly is not common practice)

jlgaddis2• 10 years ago

I wonder if this could be combined with some of the (relatively) recent issues w/ LastPass and/or 1Password, where the application and password credentials were accessible via 127.0.0.1 (which is apparently required for the browser extensions to work)?

If so -- assuming the user is logged in to {1Password|LastPass} -- just plug this in to their PC after they walked away from their desk and wait for all of their saved credentials to be stolen!

jlgaddis2• 10 years ago

I remember the "good ol' days" when you could reasonably build a monolithic Linux kernel with support for loadable modules disabled. Just compile in whatever you needed for your hardware and leave out the other 90% that you didn't need.

It was a decent (but not very popular) defense against rootkits and attackers being able to dynamically load kernel modules and would also prevent something like this (unless you had the necessary drivers compiled in).

pmlnr• 10 years ago

This could be done: we need a common git repo with a config for each kernel version per laptop; eg. config-4.4.30 for ThinkPad X200, which only includes the required drivers for the laptop itself.

collyw• 10 years ago

That sounds great but I remember installing Linux on a Mac and even then it wasn't consistent exactly which drivers should have been used as there were variations depending on the date of purchase. Macs are probably a lot more consistent than the majority of laptops.

blockoperation• 10 years ago

What's stopping you from doing it now?

I've been using CONFIG_MODULES=n for years without issue. It can be annoying when you need to use some obscure driver, filesystem or protocol on a one off basis and have to do an emergency recompile just for that, but that's rare (for me at least), and otherwise it's perfectly usable.

micaksica• 10 years ago

You have a few mitigations that aren't listed here, but it's really moot because physical access is still game over.

First, the GRSecurity patchset contains a kernel-level USB whitelist, so you can whitelist only known USB devices. A targeted attacker could attempt to spoof an existing/whitelisted USB device, but it does significantly harden the USB attack surface:

1. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Allow_only_known_usb_devices

Clearly this only helps Linux people. For those using Linux/BSD/macOS, There's also usbkill, a Python-based antiforensic tool that just kills the computer if a device is inserted/removed that isn't on its whitelist: https://github.com/hephaest0s/usbkill

While this won't stop Samy's box from starting to do its thing, it will at least shut the computer off and mitigate some of the potential damage. usbkill is in the Homebrew repositories for macOS as well. If you have fully encrypted disks and strong passphrases, this is still going to ruin somebody's day trying to use this device.

conradev• 10 years ago

For completeness, if you happen to use Qubes, you can configure a VM specifically for talking to USB devices that would prevent this from affecting the rest of the system.

stebalien• 10 years ago

First, the GRSecurity patchset contains a kernel-level USB whitelist, so you can whitelist only known USB devices. A targeted attacker could attempt to spoof an existing/whitelisted USB device, but it does significantly harden the USB attack surface:

Actually, the GRSecurity patchset includes a toggle to disable all new usb devices after boot. The whitelist mechanism you're referring to relies only on udev (no kernel patching needed). You can even whitelist by driver to, e.g., allow all usb storage devices by default.

chme• 10 years ago

I think that USB is not the issue here, because you could simply do the same with a Raspberry Pi 1-3 and the Ethernet port.

That dhcp is running and assigning addresses while the computer is locked, it the issue IMO.

brazzledazzle• 10 years ago

I don't have a Pi to test with but I imagine keeping the associated kernel module(s) (assuming I have the right ones) unloaded would mitigate this entirely:

kextunload /System/Library/Extensions/AppleUSBEthernet.kext

and maybe this one. I don't know if this would impact using your phone as a usb hotspot but it might so keep that in mind:

kextunload /System/Library/Extensions/AppleUSBNetworking.kext

and this one but I'm pretty sure it is in fact required for usb tethering so keep that in mind if you use that:

kextunload /System/Library/Extensions/AppleUSBEthernetHost.kext

I don't remember if they reload on reboot or not but if needed you can reload them with kextload.

Edit: This is for OS X/macOS by the way. And I wish I had a Pi to test with because this is very cool. We owe people that release stuff like this a big thanks because they took it from an idea to implementation and then the big step of creating a usable, shareable project which goes a long way toward increasing awareness.

alexpoulsen• 10 years ago

FileVault plus running 'pmset destroyfvkeyonstandby' in Terminal should prevent this. Destroying the FileVault key should encrypt the disk, likely stopping things from running while asleep. I haven't tested this though.

X-Istence2• 10 years ago

On OS X when I plug in a new USB based Ethernet device, the first thing it does is pop up a dialog asking me if I want to enable/configure the device... is the device already configured at that time?

greggman2• 10 years ago

Does it ask for a password to enable it? If not the device and also emulate a keyboard to press enter to confirm the dialog.

Any idea where is the list of approved devices is. I'd like to clear my list and then plugin some devices and see if it asks.

X-Istence2• 10 years ago

I run as a non-administrator account, so this may be different if the user has administrator privileges.

But here is what happens:

1. I plug in the new device

2. Dialog box pops up letting me know a new network interface was detected (and to open network preferences to configure the device). The device does show up as en6, it is disabled and there is no network activity.

3. I can click Cancel or open Network Preferences

4. Click to open Network Preferences

5. I have to click the lock, and authenticate as an administrative user

6. I have to click the +

7. I have to select the new network interface by name from the drop-down

8. I have to click OK

9. I have to click Apply

At that point the network interface is brought "up", and it does a DHCP request, and I can use it.

So there are 8 steps to take AFTER plugging in the device before it can start siphoning off any and all of my data. It's not as plug and go as it is made out to be.

----

After adding a device, you can remove it from the list of devices in Network Preferences, and that resets that dialog box letting you know there is a new device.

captainmuon3• 10 years ago

The takeaway for me is that you can program a Raspberry Pi Zero to be a USB device (not just host). I wonder if it can do both at the same time...

I sometimes think about building a "USB Condom". There already exist devices that only pass through the power lines, if you want to charge a phone from a dubious plug. However, I would go a step further and try to support data. For example, I would emulate a USB pen drive (with a FAT32 file system), and then mirror the contents of an attached drive. If the attached drive is malicious, it cannot easily attack the host.

bitberd• 10 years ago

I agree

blauditore• 10 years ago

Hm, this sounds like a software-based solution right? But if you have software only letting certain data pass, couldn't the same software just be run by the main device instead of an intermediate one?

wongarsu• 10 years ago

Two reasons speak for a separate hardware for that purpose:

1: conventional computers have no mechanism to indicate what you expect from a USB device, and you can't ask for confirmation that the user wanted to plug in a keyboard, because the user might need that keyboard to confirm hits intention

2: the USB software stack can be attacked at many layers, including firmware, generic OS code and the OS-chosen driver. That software stack varies depending on OS, motherboard, BIOS version, installed drivers etc. A hardware device can provide protection invariant from those factors

captainmuon3• 10 years ago

Just what wongarsu said.

I don't know from the top of my head about USB, but for FireWire there was a hack that allowed a malicious device to access all memory (read-write). Basically, a new device is placed on the DMA bus (for speed reasons) with no authentication and can do whatever it wants. There is a proof of concept that unlocks OS X, Windows, and a popular Linux desktop.

There was a USB bug where you could infect some USB controllers with mal-firmware that would spread like a worm! I believe the NSA was actively using this, but I might be mixing things up.

With a condom, a malicious device would have to take over two pieces of hardware, not just one. This is one advantage of a hardware solution.

The other advantage is, if there is an exploit in the USB filter software, the malware lands in my condom (hihi). It would likely have to be adapted to work on it and to move to my PC (the condom is ARM, has no network besides USB, can have a read-only file system, ...).

gruturo• 10 years ago

You wish to build your own USB condom because you want to be absolutely, 100% sure it's built without any kind of backdoor and you don't trust anyone else to do this for you?

Because otherwise you can just get one at e.g. http://int3.cc/products/usbcondoms

I have had one for years (a no-name one, not the one I linked)

captainmuon3• 10 years ago

No, the one you linked to is just charge-only.

I wish to build - or I wish someone would build - a USB condom that passes through USB stick drives, by reading files on one side, and emulating a filesystem on the other.

It's not because I want to be 100% there is no backdoor. Rather I want a minimum of safety when I have to access a USB stick given to me by a stranger.

(Speaking of building your own, simple power-only USB condoms - like you linked to - are actually pretty easy to make. They have been used to teach (SMD) soldering at CCC events, hackerspaces and the like.)

dgoldstein04• 10 years ago

so thinking about the attack: would it be feasible for OSes to only allow USB input devices to be attached while the computer is locked? It seems like it should be unnecessary to install usb network devices while the computer is locked.

msimpson• 10 years ago

This attack can be mitigated in Windows using group policy: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc731387(WS.10)....

midgetjones• 10 years ago

It's not often you see exploits that reference RuPaul's Drag Race. I, for one, am all for it.

sidarape• 10 years ago

Almost everything said on that page is already feasible with basic network spoofing. Sure, the hardware hack is cool and allows a bit more but nothing extraordinary.

jlebrech• 10 years ago

shouldn't the OS pause the running of programs when you've locked your computer, and when you log in say something like "hey you've plugged a new device in while you were locked out, are you sure you want to resume all you programs"

PoisonTap – Exploits locked computers over USB

Related Stories