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

http://www.today.com/news/police-admit-theyre-stumped-mystery-car-thefts-6C10169993

by thedoctor • 13 years ago

116 127 13 years ago

_jackwink• 13 years ago

Seems like this might be relevant. http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-usenixsec2011.pdf

mindcrime10• 13 years ago

What's the big mystery here? There have been published articles on the ease of hacking car remotes (and even the onboard electronics) going back at least a couple of years. For example:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/01...

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/07/hacking_bmws_r...

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20085131-48/remote-unlo...

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/03/researchers-car...

Here's a video (with no commentary, unfortunately) that shows someone who has apparently decoded the signals from a car remote and is using the remote and an arduino, to toggle some LEDs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doELL4g4cS0

I have little doubt that there are hackers out there who can easily build a device to remotely unlock / start cars that use keyless entry. In fact, I'd be far more surprised if there weren't.

Edit: to elaborate... when I say "What's the big mystery" I'm referring to a notion, which I interpreted from the article (rightly or wrongly), that people are totally unaware that this kind of thing is even conceptually possible. I don't claim to know the exact exploit or mechanism being used here! Just pointing out that this general class of attacks isn't something totally foreign and unknown.

jrochkind1• 13 years ago

Oh, but according to SOMEONE (source for this claim is not given) "That code is encrypted and constantly changing — and should be hackproof."

American media at it's best!

jcampbell14• 13 years ago

How would you describe a challenge based authentication system that uses 128-bit AES? I find the reporter's description reasonable.

adventured• 13 years ago

What does it have to do with American media in general? Or were you just randomly bashing?

Versus the amazing quality of Chinese or Russian media? Brazilian media? Romanian media? Or maybe it's the French that have outstanding journalistic integrity and never make mistakes!

piqufoh• 13 years ago

"What's the big mystery here?" That California PD haven't googled this yet...

Glyptodon2• 13 years ago

If they were using key reprogramming/hacking there's no reason to 'always use' the passenger side front door as claimed in the video. So I don't think it's clear that these thieves are using any of those techniques.

I imagine it might be stupider, like maybe there's a way to induce the unlock button or motor to trigger via induction or something. Though I'm pretty poorly informed about that kind of thing scientifically and am likely completely wrong.

mindcrime10• 13 years ago

If they were using key reprogramming/hacking there's no reason to 'always use' the passenger side front door as claimed in the video.

It's a fair point, but I don't know that I'd take that at face value. That could have just been a subjective assessment that got repeated as fact. Without us having access to the actual videos or the raw numbers, it's hard to say.

So I don't think it's clear that these thieves are using any of those techniques.

Sure, and I'm not saying it's 100% certain that this is exactly how the thieves are operating.. just pointing out that it's well known that modern cars are vulnerable... if there are additional, as yet unreported vulnerabilities, would anybody be surprised?

I imagine it might be stupider, like maybe there's a way to induce the unlock button to trigger via induction or something.

That actually strikes me as semi-reasonable, without having research the matter in any depth. Where were you on the night of January 12th, when a black Suburban was stolen ...

michael_h• 13 years ago

I would assume that they use the passenger side front door because that is where the storage compartment is located.

Hyrum_Graff• 13 years ago

If I was a thief then I'd always hit the passenger side front door as it gives me the quickest access to the glove compartment, where valuables are likely to be stored. Not sure what the mystery is here.

dclowd99012• 13 years ago

And notice they're also touching the door handle with their bare hands. There's probably some sort of exploit dealing with theses vehicles' touch-activated car unlocking feature.

swishercutter• 13 years ago

I searched for Acura MDX alarm antenna location and a quick glance tells me that the antenna is located behind the glovebox. So I would guess it probably works better from that side of the car...notice they seem to have to get very close to the car.

corresation4• 13 years ago

You ask what the big mystery is, and then link to a lot of unrelated hacks/exploits. Yes, the article is that someone hacked/exploited the remote door open specifically, apparently on seemingly random cars. It is a mystery how they are doing it, though it is painfully obvious that they are exploiting something.

mindcrime10• 13 years ago

You ask what the big mystery is, and then link to a lot of unrelated hacks/exploits.

I don't see how you can say that is "unrelated". Even if our "mystery" thieves aren't using those exact exploits, there is NO "mystery" that hackers have demonstrated the ability to break car remote systems. But the article and the quotes from the police make it sound like the police are just staring at the wall, drooling and going "duuuhhh huhhh huhhhh... how'd they do that.. duhhuhhhh huhhhhh." Now that's probably not literally the case, but the article makes it sound like nobody has even the slightest clue that this stuff is possible, or how it's done. And that's just not true.

guttermaw• 13 years ago

I agree. The technique described differs from anything OP linked. The fact that thieves are smashing windows to get at diagnostic ports suggests that this method of entering the vehicle is fairly novel.

Exploits have been demonstrated by researchers, but are mostly pretty make/model specific.

Certainly, I'd bet that every car with bluetooth/wifi integrated has some sort of flaw whereby it might be possible to use that to bridge to the cars Canbus and request a door unlock. That doesn't mean that these are easily exploitable by individuals willing to commit petty theft.

iblaine• 13 years ago

>What's the big mystery here? The method that the thieves are using is unknown.

While those links to may be useful to shed light on this type of crime, they do little to confirm the method that these thieves are employing. Hence, there is mystery.

mindcrime10• 13 years ago

Agreed, there is a mystery about the exact details. I read TFA as suggesting that the fundamental concept of "car hacking" is unknown. I was responding more to the generalization that I felt like I observed, than to the question of exactly how this specific set of thieves is working. I should have been more clear on that point.

inafield• 13 years ago

I'd be willing to bet that someone has stolen some universal unlock codes for a variety of manufacturers and it is now in the wild. Of course, no car company wants to admit this.

nutjob123• 13 years ago

I would also put money on something like this. Honda/Acura was the only brand mentioned in the video so I can even guess who lost them.

axus• 13 years ago

Is there a way to disable remote access to the doors? Other than driving an old car :)

wmeredith• 13 years ago

You should be able to pull the fuse for the door locks; the mechanical lock buttons and key will continue to work. To find out which fuse, just Google "[car make] [model] [year] fuse diagram" and look for door lock actuators or similar.

untothebreach• 13 years ago

Also, most (if not all) car user manuals come with a diagram of the fuse box.

thedufer• 13 years ago

Guess and check is also a reasonable solution. Last time I had a fuse go, we just moved them around until all the essentials were working.

Fuxy3• 13 years ago

Yes, you don't mount the mechanism that opens the doors when installing the alarm (or cut the wires afterwards). Store bought alarms have a lot of crap the electrician never hooks up so what's the difference not mounting this one.

Fuxy3• 13 years ago

Why is this so baffling a shocking? I think we all knew this was possible before anybody actually did it. It's not like their using proper crypto. It's the equivalent of a bad house lock give me some good lock picks and 60 seconds and I'm in so why is this so surprising?

dclowd99012• 13 years ago

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?

PeterisP• 13 years ago

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.

fragmede2• 13 years ago

There is obviously something broken somewhere, but I'd consider 128-bit AES to be 'proper crypto'.

mindcrime10• 13 years ago

I was intrigued by their mention of this "Jim Stickley" who was cited as a top security expert. I had never heard of him before, so did a quick search to find out a little more about him. He seems to be a pretty legit and well known security guy[1], but it surprises me that he said:

This is really frustrating because clearly they've figured out something that looks really simple and whatever it is they're doing, it takes just seconds to do," Stickley said. "And you look and you go, 'That should not be possible.

Considering, again, that there has been published research on this topic, and a presentation at Black Hat, revealing that (at least some) cars are vulnerable.

Honestly, I feel like the reporter on this article should have done a bit more background research and interviewed a few more people. Not that it changes the fundamental issue (don't leave valuables in your car, etc.) but it would have been a stronger article with some more context, IMO.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Stickley

droopybuns• 13 years ago

I agree with your skepticism but I disagree with your analysis of Stickley. This looks like the typical security clown out there writing his own wikipedia entry. His article's main point seems to be that he found a buffer overflow. There, he's a security expert.

What security professional worth his salt says "that should not be possible"? The entire security profession is about identifying assumptions and then challenging them. He sounds more like a software developer cashing in on the "s" word because he found a buffer overrun than a security profesional assessing an attack.

mindcrime10• 13 years ago

You're right, actually. I was trying to be charitable though, and I didn't feel like I had time to do a serious deep dive into this background and credentials. Nor am I necessarily qualified to pass any serious judgement on his knowledge.

A quote from somebody like Bruce Schneier, or tptacek, would have been a lot better.

darkarmani6• 13 years ago

Well we criminalized (DMCA) this kind of "hacking," so as far as this "security professional" knows it is impossible because he hasn't heard of it. Maybe if we stop preventing security researchers from talking about vulnerabilities we could know about these things before the thieves.

narrator• 13 years ago

They should hire someone like Dan Boneh[1] to look for cryptoanalytic attacks. Of course, I'm sure he'll find a whole bunch of attacks. That's going to be a really expensive to repair all that faulty crypto hardware.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Boneh

daeken• 13 years ago

Jim Stickley is -- being kind -- a hack. He was on the Today Show showing off my hotel lock exploit without credit, and got zero details correct. Gotta respect his ability to press-whore (I tend to think I'm fairly good, but he puts me to shame), but that's about it.

youngerdryas• 13 years ago

Ghost Dog was doing this back in 2005.

clavalle• 13 years ago

>Both the transmitter and the receiver use the same pseudo-random number generator. When the transmitter sends a 40-bit code, it uses the pseudo-random number generator to pick a new code, which it stores in memory. On the other end, when the receiver receives a valid code, it uses the same pseudo-random number generator to pick a new one. In this way, the transmitter and the receiver are synchronized. The receiver only opens the door if it receives the code it expects.

So, if you figure out how these are salted (VIN?) and what pseudo-random generator it uses, you can recreate the signal.

darkarmani6• 13 years ago

I'm betting these generators have large sources of entropy, right? You have to move your mouse around a bunch before you lock your doors.

gvb2• 13 years ago

Sounds a lot like the Chamberlain garage door gaping security hole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chamberlain_Group,_Inc._v._....

The level of security of a car door is presumably a lot higher than that of a garage door, but the technology of using a rolling code is the same and the need to be able to (re)synchronize remote keys/fobs is also there. With the cars I own, there is a procedure in the operator's manual on how to resync your keys. Nominally, it requires physical access - an already unlocked car.

Ref: http://www.programmingkey.com/

My first guess is that the bad guys figured out a timing attack that confuses the lock software if the "right" sequence of codes are sent with the "right" timing.

My alternate guess is that the bad guys figured out a way to mimic the resync mechanism without requiring physical access.

cheald2• 13 years ago

If they'd figured out how to invoke resync, the owners' keyfobs would stop working, which would be a dead giveaway.

gvb2• 13 years ago

The "(re)sync" mechanism allows you to add new keys without disturbing the existing keys.

jordan_clark• 13 years ago

They didn't release all of the details. We would need to know which makes and models and years this does/does not work on. In the videos they only showed Honda products (Acura) (The MDX was a 2000-2006 model) but does not work on GM or Ford. So this is most likely is manufacturer specific.

saddino• 13 years ago

Get ready for two-factor authentication coming to a car near you.

outworlder• 13 years ago

The advice given in the article sounds ridiculous to my (brazilian) ears.

- "Don't leave valuables in the car". Really? I'd have to deal with smashed windows every single day if I left anything that could possibly be of value sitting overnight (or for a few minutes in some places). Perhaps even an empty shoe box. And that's with tinted windows so dark they are not even supposed to be street legal.

- "Keep your car registration in the wallet". Identity theft with a car registration should not be possible here, as it doesn't contain ID numbers, nor photographs and is no proof of identity (you have to display the driver's licence - which is proof of identity - and the car's documents on demand if requested by authorities). Still, it is a ridiculously bad idea to leave it sitting in a car overnight. If the car is stolen, the crooks would have a much easier time evading minor police checkpoints.

I guess some places have such a low crime rate that people just forget basic security precautions?

javert4• 13 years ago

That stuff really isn't necessary in much of the US (many non-urban areas... thought not all). I don't even always lock my car doors in some places. To someone who's not used to it, it's probably amazing how benevolent people and society really can be.

cglace2• 13 years ago

In urban areas I don't lock my doors to avoid having my windows smashed for some change.

jeffasinger• 13 years ago

I lived in a town where if someone was running into a store for only a few minutes, they would probably just leave the car unlocked, with the keys in it, and the engine running.

Pxtl• 13 years ago

Yup. In some places it actually feels best just to leave your car doors unlocked - then the thief doesn't have to smash your window before they root through your car and find it contains nothing of value.

pavel_lishin• 13 years ago

A dumb thief may break a window anyway, rather than bother checking the door.

Or a vindictive one, for that matter.

incision• 13 years ago

>I guess some places have such a low crime rate that people just forget basic security precautions?

Yes.

I've lived most of my life within 25 miles of where I was born in the US.

Within that area there are places where your windows will be smashed for $0.74 in a cupholder and others where people don't even lock their doors.

I grew up in the former and even though I've lived in the latter for a long time I don't think I'll ever get used to it.

btbuildem2• 13 years ago

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.

ssimpson• 13 years ago

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.

DanBlake• 13 years ago

I never understood why keyfobs work in a UDP style, when communication between the remote and car would be infinitely better.

For instance, instead of just sending "12345" and having the doors open since the code was expected, What about if the remote said "hey car, whats your random number" - the car then transmits back "54321" at which point the transmitter sends a hashed reply sha512(54321 + unique-random-id-set-per-car) which the car receives then verifies matches expected output.

The takeaway being that both the car and the remote know what "unique-random-id-set-per-car" is, but nobody else does. It should be randomly set at the factory so each car and the remotes have a unique id.

My only thoughts as to why its not like this is that the logic required to do that type of operation might not be possible without a higher wattage 'processor' in the keyfob which would eat through batteries. Im totally out of the know in that area though.

Also, unrelated- but the passenger door thing is likely just coincidence because they want to get in the glove box. But, there is another thing that could explain it. On my last car (mercedes) when I wanted to reprogram a new keyfob to work with the car, I had to do a long process of certain actions to make it work. It was like "press on brake, release brake, press on brake for 3 seconds then release, open drivers window, open passenger door, close drivers window, press open button on keyfob" So the car CPU is definitely aware and can take actions specific to which door is being opened, so its possible its related.

jevinskie• 13 years ago

Mifare fobs do use a challenge response protocol. Old fobs use small keys though.

martin-adams• 13 years ago

That probably means the keyfob needs a receiver (which I suspect they don't by current design). But I agree, a two-way communication would be nice as the keyfob could then report whether the car was locked properly.

WiseWeasel• 13 years ago

Wouldn't you then be able to determine the fob ID by recording multiple car "random number" requests and fob responses?

stcredzero3• 13 years ago

Make the nonce and the secret long enough, and you would have to break SHA512.

lucb1e• 13 years ago

I think that's part of how Mifare (NFC) was cracked; the entropy of the card's random number generator was very low. When implemented correctly it's a safe method though.

makomk• 13 years ago

Having both a transmitter and receiver in the fob used to be a lot more expensive and bulky than having just a transmitter. It isn't really anymore thanks to advances in RF miniturization and integration, but when car keyfobs were first designed it mattered.

progrock• 13 years ago

How about the manufacturers providing a back door? Their own code.

What happens in the event that you loose your fob?

astral3032• 13 years ago

If you loose your fob, the workaround is re-programming via the OBDII or other diagnostic ports. Yes, that has a backdoor. But typically there is no remote backdoor.

kbar13• 13 years ago

TIL today.com's site looks really nice

nodata2• 13 years ago

Anyone know how much compute time is needed to crack a new BMW or Audi remote?

TheCapn• 13 years ago

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.

gambiting• 13 years ago

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.

zw123456• 13 years ago

You can Google the phrase "car learning keyless remote control" and see tons of sites selling these for "legit" purposes as replacement remotes. I am sure not all of them work on all cars but I am sure the thieves simply figured out which ones work on which cars and just target those. And I agree, this is nothing new, a story about it pops up on the news every so often and the it seems like each time the Police are baffled. Maybe there needs to be a web site for the police that provides them with such information. If there isn't one already, there is an app opportunity for someone perhaps.

Zarathust2• 13 years ago

All of the remotes I've seen require physical access to an unlocked car to initiate the re-synchronization procedure between the new remote and the car. This involves complex things like starting the car 5-10 times and pressing buttons on the remote at the same time

Dnguyen• 13 years ago

I wonder if they found an exploit for Bluetooth. Newer cars have this feature so the owner doesn't have to use the key. If the Bluetooth service has access to the On Board Diagnostic (OBD), it can get to a lot of the car's info and commands, such as unlock door. I remember working on AutoPC back in the day and we tapped into the OBD and provided a feature to send a message to the car to unlock the doors. Similar to OnStar now a day.

klinquist• 13 years ago

I don't think this is done via bluetooth - I believe the remote/app unlocking is all done via cellular.

kweks• 13 years ago

Probably the attack from two years ago: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/422298/car-theft-by-ant...

Essentially, with the newer cars keyless entry cars, it's the car that transmits the signal to the fob (so you can't get stranded with a flat battery).

The protocol itself is secure, but open to a MITM attack. The exploit works essentially like a WiFi booster. Perp #1 places himself near the car, receiving the car's transmission. This is relayed to perp #2, who is near the owner (and the key). The key communicates with the car (via the relay) - the door opens, the car starts, and off you go.

joars• 13 years ago

wow, i really disliked the way that news report was presented. i think it was because the narrator ended each sentence as if it was the last sentence in the story.

astral3032• 13 years ago

RSA Security and John Hopkins have been able to crack an RFID keyfob in 15 minutes [0] back in 2005. Rumor had it that later on it was something like 30 seconds to crack a Ford key. 40-bit RFID keyspace--combine that with 2013-era technology and this is absolutely no surprise.

http://www.jhu.edu/news/home05/jan05/rfid.html

nakedrobot2• 13 years ago

Um, maybe this?

https://www.google.com/search?q=car+key+duplicator+alibaba

:-)

RyanBrantley• 13 years ago

How about the possibility that the thieves have simply purchased replacement remotes from eBay (or similar), and programmed them when they had access to a compatible vehicle? Maybe the thieves work at a car wash, valet or have organized a larger network of goons (think credit card skimming).

Programming a replacement remote is a simple procedure, requiring only a few moments in the vehicle with the key present... like when parking a car. Paired with an easily accessible address (registration?), you have a crime ready to take place.

This would confirm why multiple vehicles in the same driveway were targeted. Families use the same service providers. It could also make sense of why the "device" occasionally did not work. Maybe they got the remotes / addresses mixed up, the programming did not take or their mule is selling them unprogrammed remotes.

I think this is more logical of a solution considering the facts. Any thoughts?

jmspring• 13 years ago

Recent rental car in Italy - get the keys, head to parking lot, and search out car based on license plate on keys. Writing is dodgy, could mistake an 8 for a 9. Find car, electronic control unlocks it, yet key will not start car.

Head back to desk, slam keys down (person behind desk had previously shown a serious attitude to renters), get startled look and say "car doesn't work". After a bit of shock due to slammed keys and firm voice person says "colleague should be there" (he wasn't), pointed out "nope", responded with "oh, in 5 minutes".

Wander back out to car, electronic lock locks/unlocks care, but still doesn't start. "Colleague" shows up. Points out diff between 8 and 9. I mention "uh, car unlocked". He shrugged. Turns out the car was in a completely different/not visible (for the company) part of the parking lot. Both electronic locks and key worked in that vehicle.

Having an electronic system for duplicate cars (1 off in license plates) seems like a bad idea.

keithjia• 13 years ago

assuming the car remote is using some kind of asymmetric encrytion algo, doesn't this simply mean either A) somebody leaked the private key from the manu? B) encryption was done with lower enough bits so that it is brute-force breakable

They could have just asked any CS prof or student for the possiblities...

runamok• 13 years ago

I read a recent 2600 article that said it's fairly easy to procure (from overseas) a jammer to prevent the lock signal from reaching the car. It would not open the doors but instead stop them from locking so the would-be thief would later manually open the unlocked doors.

NameNickHN• 13 years ago

> and should be hackproof

I always chuckle when I read something like this because if something has been made by men it can be cracked by men. It's simple as that.

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

Related Stories