Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

How (Not) to Fix a Flaw

Continued from page 1

By Erica Naone

Thursday, August 14, 2008

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

It is unclear, though, whether the MBTA can realistically buy the time it needs. Karsten Nohl, a University of Virginia PhD student who was one of the first to publish details of security vulnerabilities in MiFare Classic, the brand of wireless smart card used in Boston's system, says solving the problems could take a year or two and might even involve replacing all card readers and all cards in circulation.

This is not the first lawsuit to hit researchers who have studied the security of MiFare Classic. Last month, Dutch company NXP Semiconductors, which makes the MiFare cards, sued a Dutch university in an attempt to prevent researchers there from publishing details of similar security flaws. The injunction did not succeed, but as RFID technology continues to proliferate, other security experts are concerned about being able to discuss relevant security research openly.

Bruce Schneier, chief security technology officer at BT Counterpane, says the latest lawsuit only distracts from what's really at stake. "MiFare sold a lousy product to customers who didn't know how to ask for a better product," he says. "That will never get fixed as long as MiFare's shoddy security is kept secret." He adds, "The reason we publish vulnerabilities is because there's no other way for security to improve."

The same brand of RFID card is used on transport networks in other cities, including London, Los Angeles, Brisbane, and Shanghai, as well as for corporate and government identity passes. The technology has even been incorporated into some credit cards and cell phones.

Nohl says the industry should view the MIT students' work as a free service that could ultimately lead to better security. Although there has been plenty of academic research on the security of RFID, he says, little has yet made its way into products. "The core of the problem is still industry's belief that they should build security themselves, and that what they've built themselves will be stronger if they keep it secret," Nohl says.

Meanwhile, independent researchers have come up with a number of ideas for improving the security of RFID cards. Nohl and others are researching better ways of encrypting the information stored on the cards. But part of the problem is that the cards are passive, meaning that they will return a signal to any reader that sends a request. Tadayoshi Kohno and colleagues at the University of Washington are also working on a motion-sensing system that would let users activate their cards with a specific gesture, so that it does not normally respond to requests. Karl Koscher, one of the researchers who worked on the project, says their system is aimed at increasing security without destroying the convenience that has made the cards so popular.


Comments

  • [no subject]
    “"They are telling a terrific tale of widespread security problems, but they still have not provided the MBTA with credible information to support such a claim," says Joe Pesaturo”
    If this is true, then why are they trying to shut them up?

    "It's extremely rare for a court to bar anyone from speaking before that person has even had a chance to speak," sounds to me like a blatant violation of the first amendment. Why does that not surprise me in today’s America?

    Sieg Heil!
    Rate this comment: 12345

    zig158
    08/14/2008
    Posts:64
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re:
      I'm by no means a security expert, but in business terms this situation resembles the Music industry's shut down of file sharing sites in the early part of this decade because they couldn't understand it and they couldn't control it.  In doing so they lost bazillions of dollars and alienated the very people they should have been trying to bring into their mix.

      When will these old timers learn that it's a new world out there now?  Being paranoid, secretive and trying to control everything on the internet is not the way to go.

      It's ironic that this article about clamping down and restricting is in the same issue as the article about Barack Obama's facillitation and openess web strategy.  Who came out on top?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      elkay3000
      08/19/2008
      Posts:1
  • Responsible Researchers
    Based upon the article, the researchers omitted details to protect the public entity from fraud, while also providing some details to show there is a credible security flaw that needs to be addressed.  That sounds to me like they were being responsible researchers.  How about the public entity or the third party firm (a) pay the researchers for further details on the security flaws, (b) pay the researchers for information on how to detect when these security flaws are compromised, and (c) pay these researchers also to help to close down those security holes?  Alternatively, perhaps these researchers will create and license some new technology with better security to competing firms, or start their own firm, since these existing entities are so prone to sue those who'd help them.  It seems the researchers want to have the flaw resolved.  If these public entities sue anyone who would be willing to help them out, likely they'll lose a lot more money when others instead move to secretly exploit various security flaws that could have been remediated.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    carlii
    08/14/2008
    Posts:26
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: Responsible Researchers
      I agree that the public entity and the third party supplier should be paying the researchers instead of enjoining them. Paying for the details of the hack is spot-on. I'm more skeptical about the proposal to pay them for closing the security hole.

      Creating a security system and cracking it are two different talents. Yes, they require the same sort of technical knowledge. And there are people who can do both well. But most crackers are not good creators, and vice versa. I have no idea whether these particular researchers are as good at creating as at cracking.

      Bottom line: The notion of "security through obscurity" has been discredited repeatedly over the years. Probably close to a century, in fact. Punishing the messenger is stupid, and the courts' facilitating the punishment is unconscionable.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      dtutelman
      08/14/2008
      Posts:57
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Pay fault finders
        Makes so much more sense to reward "Black Hats" who find the cracks and don't publish.

        Versus not knowing, until the circumvention is detected in wide use!

        No reward?
        No reason not to publish.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        nekote
        08/25/2008
        Posts:139
        Avg Rating:
        3/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

The Marcellus Shale Gas Rush
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Featured Content
Sponsored by:
White Papers

Twelve ways to reduce costs with SQL Server 2008
Find out how to reduce costs and get more efficient

Download

Total Economic Impact of SQL Server 2008 Upgrade
Forrester reports on increasing productivity and management capabilities

Download 

Achieving Cost and Resource Savings with UC
How Office Communications Server R2 and Exchange Server can make your business smarter and more efficient

Download 

The Compelling Case for Conferencing
Read how you can improve workload support and find IT efficiencies

Download

How Windows Server 2008 R2 Helps Optimize IT and Save you Money
Read how you can improve workload support and find IT efficiencies

Download

Windows Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V Live Migration
See how Windows Server 2008 R2 and Hyper-V enable virtualization and Live Migration

Download
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.