Free Essay

Fgdg

In:

Submitted By patronovski
Words 2922
Pages 12


What you will learn
 General overview of 802.11  Authentication Methods
▪ WEP
▪ Overview ▪ Key Hierarchy ▪ Encryption/Decryption

▪ WPA
▪ Overview ▪ Key Hierarchy ▪ Encryption/Decryption

▪ WPA2
▪ Overview ▪ Encryption/Decryption

 

Summary Question and Answer

 Defense Strategies  Monitoring

In order to cover the largest amount of information we are going to have make some assumptions:
 You have a general understanding of the TCP/IP

protocol suite

▪ Primarily layers 2 – 3

 You have a general understanding of protocol basics  You have a general understanding of how Radio

Frequency (RF) works







Borne out of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Part11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications standard Drop in replacement for Ethernet (802.3)
 Upper layer protocols should be none the wiser  This seamless integration comes at a stiff price –

under the hood complexity



DSSS
 Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum

 2.4GHz ISM Band ▪ Industrial / Instrumentation, Scientific, Medical (ISM) ▪ 2.400GHz – 2.4835GHz ▪ 14 channels or frequency divisions
▪ 1 – 11 used in the United States

 1000mW power maximum ▪ Most devices are 30mW – 100mW



CSMA/CA
 LBT (Listen Before Talk)  Exponential back off and retry  Collision avoidance via physical carrier

sense and Network Allocation Vector
▪ Network Allocation Vector (NAV)
▪ Virtual Carrier Sense ▪ Limits the need for physical carrier sensing of the air interface in order to save power.

AD Hoc

Infrastructure



Beacon
 Transmitted frequently announcing availability

and capabilities of BSS


Probe Request and Response
 Client initiated request for a WLAN  Response is essentially the same as a beacon



Associate Request and Response
 “I’d like to be a part of your BSS”



Disassociate
 “Get a stepping!”



Request to Send (RTS)
 “I’d like to send a frame or two”  Updates NAV values for neighboring stations (transmitter)



Clear to Send (CTS)
 “Sounds good”  Updates NAV values for neighboring stations (receiver)



Acknowledge (ACK)
 “Got your data”  Also updates NAV as per CTS

Source

Destination

802.11 Frame Format [34 – 2344 bytes]
Frame Control (2 bytes) Address Two (6 bytes) Sequence Control(2 bytes) Data(0 – 2312 bytes) FCS (4 bytes)

Duration / ID (2 bytes)

Address One (6 bytes)

Address Three (6 bytes)

Address Four (6 bytes)

802.11 Frame Control Field (16 bits)
Control Flags

2

2

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Protocol Version

Frame Type

From DS
Frame Subtype To DS

Retry

More data PWR mgmt

Other WEP

More Frags

802.11 Type and Subtypes
00 - Protocol Version

2

2

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

00 – Management Frame Type 0000 – association request 0001 – association response 0010 – reassociation request 0011– reassociation response 0100 – probe request 0101 – probe request 1000 – beacon 1010 – disassociation 1011 – authentication 0111 – deauthentication

01 – Control Frame Type 1010 – power save poll 1011 – RTS 1100 – CTS 1101 – ACK 1110 – CF-end 1111 – CF-end + CF-ACK 0110 – CF-poll (no data) 0111 – CF-ACK + CF-poll (no data)

10 – Data Frame Type 0000 – data 0001 – data + CF-ACK 0010 – data + CF-poll 0011 – data + CF-ACK + CF-poll 0100 – NULL (no data) 0101 – CF-ACK (no data) 0110 – CF-poll (no data) 0111 – CF-ACK + CF-poll (no data)



• • •



Purpose – bring the security of wired networks to 802.11 Provides Authentication and Encryption Uses RC4 for encryption 64-bit RC4 keys • Non-standard extension uses 128-bit keys Authentication built using encryption primitive – Challenge/Response

CRC
802.11 Frame Header Payload Payload ICV

ICV computed – 32-bit CRC of payload

* 4-byte Integrity Check Value (ICV)

4 x 40
Key 1 Keynumber Key 2 Key 3 Key 4 Key 40

• Integrity Check Value (ICV) computed – 32-bit CRC of payload • One of four keys selected – 40-bits (10 Hex character)
WEP Key
1 2 3 4

ASCII too complicated too simple norfolk southern locomotive

Hex 746f6f2063
746f6f2073 6e6f72666f 6c6f636f6d

IV

keynumber

24

8

• Integrity Check Value (ICV) computed – 32-bit CRC of payload • One of four keys selected – 40-bits • Initialization Vector (IV) selected – 24-bits, prepended to keynumber

64
IV Payload Key ICV RC4 Payload ICV

• Integrity Check Value (ICV) computed – 32-bit CRC of payload • One of four keys selected – 40-bits • Initialization Vector (IV) – 24-bits, prepended to keynumber • IV+key used to encrypt payload+ICV

WEP Frame

Header

IV

keynumber

Payload

ICV

• Integrity Check Value (ICV) computed – 32-bit CRC of payload • One of four keys selected – 40-bits • Initialization Vector (IV) selected – 24-bits, prepended to keynumber • IV+key used to encrypt payload+ICV • IV+keynumber prepended to encrypted payload+ICV

4 x 40 bit keys
Key 1

Keynumber

Key 2 Key 3 Key 4

Key

40

• Keynumber is used to select key
WEP Key 1 2 3 4 ASCII too complicated 746f6f2063 Hex

too simple norfolk southern locomotive

746f6f2073
6e6f72666f 6c6f636f6d

64

IV Payload

Key ICV RC4 Payload ICV

• •

Keynumber is used to select key ICV+key used to decrypt payload+ICV

Payload

ICV CRC ICV 32

Header

Payload

• • •

Keynumber is used to select key ICV+key used to decrypt payload+ICV Integrity Check Value (ICV) recomputed and compared against original



Uses WEP encryption primitives
 Nonce1 is generated and sent to client

 Client encrypts nonce and sends it back
 Server decrypts response and verifies that it

is the same nonce.


Authentication is optional used Once

1 Number

24

104

128-bits IV Key

Payload

ICV

RC4

Payload

ICV

• • • • •

Purpose – increase the encryption key size Non-standard, but in wide use IV and ICV set as before 104-bit key selected IV+key concatenated to form 128-bit RC4 key

 

Keys are manually distributed Keys are statically configured
 Implications: often infrequently changed and easy

to remember!
  

Four 40-bit keys (or one 104-bit key) Key values can be directly set as hex data Key generators provided for convenience
 ASCII string is converted into keying material  Non-standard but in wide use  Different key generators for 64- and 128-bit

• WEP and 802.11 standards recommends (not
• • •



requires) the IV be changed after every packet. No standard to generate IVs IV field is 24 bits, forcing a busy connection to exhaust all IVs in less than a half a day Random 24 bit IV will be expected to have a collision after transmitting 5000 packets (Birthday Problem) 24GB to construct a full table, which would enable the attacker to immediately decrypt each subsequent ciphertext



Dynamic WEP changes WEP keys dynamically
 Different key on a per-user, per-session basis  Key changes based upon a timer or number of packets

Theory: Prevent attacker from being able to collect enough data to crack the current encryption keys  Reality: Can be cracked given current technologies


 Though Key only good until a timer or number of

packets threshold is reached



The FMS Attack (2001)
 Named for Fluhrer, Mantin, and Shamir  First key recovery attack  Based on predictable headers ▪ Attack can compromise the first few bytes of the keystream ▪ Leads to correlations in other bytes  4-6 million packets needed to succeed with

probability greater or equal to 50%



Korek1Attack (2004)
 Based on the FMS Attack, but extended with

16 more correlations between the first few bytes of an RC4 key, keystream, and the next key byte.
 Reduced the number of packets needed to

700,00 to succeed with probability greater or equal to 50%
1 Korek was a forums username where the majority of wireless cracking mathematical efforts were postulated.



PTW Attack (2007)
 Named for Pyshkin, Tews and Weinmann  Extends both FMS and KoreK  Process every packet and cast votes for likelihood

of key  The key is generally close to having the most votes
▪ Test each key for correctness

 Reduced the number of packets needed to

35,000-40,000 to succeed with probability greater or equal to 50%



Chopchop Attack

 Allows an attacker to decrypt the last m bytes by

sending m * 128 packets to the network.  Does not reveal the root key ▪ Only plaintext  Some access points are not vulnerable to this attack ▪ Some may seem vulnerable at first but actually drop data packets shorter that 60 bytes

Security standard developed after WEP’s vulnerabilities had been exposed and successfully attacked  Development was a collaborative effort between the Wi-Fi Alliance and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)  Purpose was to be an immediate solution while the long-term solution (802.11i/WPA2) was being finished




WPA strengthened WEP by:
 Including authentication using 802.1X

framework (commercial systems) or a passphrase (home systems)  Creating a key hierarchy out of the master key  Doubling the size of the initialization vector (IV) used during encryption  Including a more robust data integrity algorithm (Michael)



A session consists of:
 Authentication of the client to the access point

(802.1X/passphrase)  4-way handshake to exchange key values and generate the key hierarchy  Data session to send encrypted information using the Temporal Key Integrity Protocol (TKIP) ▪ RC4 for encryption ▪ Michael for integrity checking (MIC)



Key Hierarchy consists of a master key and session keys
 Master key, called the Pair-wise Master Key, is

derived from either an 802.1X key or from the passphrase  Session keys, collectively called the Pair-wise Transient Key, are derived from the master key



Pair-wise Transient Key is segmented into:
 Key Confirmation Key and Key Encryption Key used during the

4-way handshake  Temporal Keys (2) used during the data session
Pairwise Master Key (PMK)

Pairwise Transmit Key (PTK) Key Confirmation Key (KCK) Key Encryption Key (KEK) Temporal Keys (TP)



Martin Beck from the Technical University of Dresden discovered a flaw in the TKIP protocol
 Assisted by Erik Tews1 from the Technical University of

Darmstadt
  

Allows an attacker to decrypt data to a wireless client, slowly Once a packet is decrypted, opportunity to transmit up to 7 forged packets of any content No authorization needed for success
1 Erik Tews of PTW fame



Not a key recovery attack
 Attacker can only decrypt one packet at a time; does

not allow earlier/later frame decryption  Does not affect AES-CCMP1 networks (required for FIPS 140-2)  Workarounds will mitigate this flaw
 Not perfect, but will buy some time


1

Some APs can be configured to mitigate this flaw

Counter Mode with Cipher Block Chaining Message Authentication Code Protocol



All deployments of TKIP
 Regardless of WPA or WPA2  Regardless of PSK or 802.1X/EAP



authentication Current exploits target TKIP networks with QoS enabled
 QoS is required for much of 802.11n



Attacker can decrypt a plaintext packet from AP to station (not station to AP)
 Not more than 1 unknown byte per minute  Any packet can be selected for partial data



Targeting an ARP packet (68 bytes), between 14 and 17 bytes are unknown
 8 MIC, 4 ICV, 2-5 IP source and destination



Once plaintext is known, attacker can inject not more than 15 arbitrary packets
 ARP poisoning, DNS manipulation, TCP/SYN request

802.11e displaced sequence enforcement across multiple queues (Wireless MultiMedia)

BK = Background BE = Best Efforts






TKIP adds a new per-packet hashing algorithm (MIC) known as Michael Weak algorithm, but best that could be accommodated on legacy WEP hardware Includes provision for countermeasures
 Two invalid MIC’s within 60 seconds shuts down

AP and STA’s for 60 seconds  Must pass ICV and TSC check first  Called MIC countermeasures



ICV failure generates no network activity
 MIC failure causes the client to generate a notice

the attacker can observe
   

If MIC failure observed, ICV passed! Take a packet, chop last byte, guess and TX until MIC failure observed Wait 60 seconds to not trigger countermeasures Repeat for next-to-last byte

 

Not more than 1 byte per minute decrypted ARP is mostly known plaintext
 Five bytes unknown assuming /24 (A.B.C.Y and A.B.C.Z)

 

Also need to determine ICV and MIC values (12 bytes) Only 17 bytes to recover, 14 if network is known (RFC1918 guess?)

Result: 68 bytes ARP, 8 bytes MIC, 4 bytes ICV known plaintext to the attacker in 14-17 minutes

     

Michael is invertible; you can determine the key from plaintext + MIC Attacker decrypts ARP, knows Michael key and can craft any packet up to 68 bytes Attacker can use other QoS queues where attacked TSC is lower to inject arbitrary packets into network (can target any destination or protocol) Injection is blind, attacker cannot decrypt responses Attacker can only inject up to 7 packets (3 other standard 802.11e queues and 4 non-standard)
 Potential for 15 injected packets, depending upon driver
 One Linux implementation can potentially inject 31 packets



Michael algorithm countermeasures
 AP must disconnect all stations and shutdown the

network following two MIC failures within 60 seconds


Very easy for an attacker to trigger, shutting down AP for 60 seconds

DOT11-TKIP_MIC_FAILURE: TKIP Michael MIC failure was detected on a packet (TSC=0x0) received from [mac-address]

 

Developed by Toshihiro Ohigashi and Masakatu Morii Applies Beck-Tews attack to the MITM attack in order to work any WPA implementation.
 Three modes required for attack: ▪ Repeater mode: Attacker relays to the receiver all packets that include SSID beacon with no modification ▪ MIC key recovery mode: The purpose of this mode is to obtain a MIC key. A MIC and a checksum are recovered by the chopchop attack based on the MIM attack, and the MIC key is recovered. The execution time is about 12-15 minutes. ▪ Message falsification mode: The purpose of this mode is to falsify an encrypted packet using a MIC key. When a target is an ARP packet, the execution time of the method is about 4 minutes.



Reducing the Execution Time of the Attack
 Beck-Tews attack recovers all the 4 bytes of the checksum  Checksum is compared with the checksum calculated from

candidates of the ARP packet.  Comparison of 4 bytes checksum is effective
▪ Requires at least 3 minutes for the wait time for MIC error.

 Ohigashi and Morii compare only parts of checksum (last

byte)  Reduce the time of the wait time for MIC error.  Attack reduces the Beck-Tews attack by three minutes  Execution time is about one minute.

Security standard developed by the Wi-Fi Alliance and is an implementation of IEEE’s 802.11i  Uses the same authentication process, 4-way handshake, and key hierarchy as WPA  Replaces TKIP with the Advance Encryption Standard (AES) CCMP protocol

 AES in Counter-Mode for encryption  AES in Cipher Block Chaining-Message

Authentication Code (CBC-MAC) for integrity checking

Flag

Priority Source Address Packet Number Data Length

Starting block MAC header

CCMP header

Padding

Data

Padding

CBC MAC

Cipher Block Chaining-Message Authentication Code for integrity checking

Flag

Priority Source Address Packet Number Counter
AES/Counter mode encryption

Starting counter value, Data+MIC

Counter-Mode for encryption

802.11 header

CCMP (with Packet Number)

Data

MIC

802.11 trailer

Encrypted Authenticated 802.11 frame payload

802.11 frame

802.11 header

CCMP (with Packet Number)

Data

MIC

802.11 trailer

Flag

Priority Source Address Packet Number Counter
AES/Counter mode encryption

Starting counter value, Encrypted[Data+MIC]

Data
CBC MAC

MIC

Starting block MAC header

CCMP header

Padding

Data

Padding

Flag

Priority Source Address Packet Number Data Length

 WEP ▪ Dynamic WEP ▪ Current key rotation is set to
▪ Remember our recommendation is reduce key to 2 minutes ▪ This comes a cost to performance

▪ Cisco Aironet changes the initialization vector (IV) on a per-packet basis
 WPA ▪ Not currently using QoS ▪ Start planning transition to AES-CCMP ▪ Investigate and apply TKIP key rotation every 2 minutes ▪ Capture and analyze logging data on AP‘s



Best approach: migrate away from TKIP to AESCCMP
 Will likely require moving to WPA2



Difficult to implement if you need to support any legacy devices
 Laptops and embedded devices (handhelds, etc)



Client re-configuration will be necessary, making this resource-intensive
 Active Directory simplifies deployment



Forcing more frequent key rotation will limit how much plaintext can be derived
 Each minute of key life can be used to determine a byte of

plaintext  4 minute key rotation = 4 bytes plaintext
 

This defense is the best immediate-term option, but requires testing to understand the impact to all devices.

Consensus is to reduce key lifetime to 2 minutes Reducing key lifetime may burden AP

Aruba Networks – PTK and GTK rotation configure terminal aaa authentication dot1x multicast-keyrotation unicast-keyrotation timer mkey-rotation-period 120 timer ukey-rotation-period 120

Cisco Autonomous – 802.1X reauthenticate Warning: Significant negative impact conf t dot1x timeout reauth-period 120 broadcast-key change 120



Disabling QoS support on an AP will defeat tools, does not solve issue
 Not an option for 802.11n High-Throughput (HT)

networks


Vendors may choose to fix TKIP with implementation hacks
 Keep an eye on AP and client vendor software

update pages



WIDS technology can identify this attack
 You may need a software update to get new signature

support  Action: look for WIDS that can detect the “TKIP ICV attack”  No signature in Kismet … yet


Log monitoring on AP’s
Aruba Networks
Received TKIP Micheal MIC Failure Report from the Station [mac addr] [bssid] [apnames]

Cisco Autonomous APs
DOT11-TKIP_MIC_FAILURE_REPORT: Received TKIP Michael MIC failure report from the station [mac-address] on the packet (TSC=0x0) encrypted and protected by [key] key

 Questions and Answers





IEEE Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications  http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.112007.pdf Tews/Beck paper on TKIP and WEP
 http://dl.aircrack-ng.org/breakingwepandwpa.pdf




Raul Siles attack analysis information
 http://radajo.blogspot.com/2008/11/wpatkipchopchop-attack.html

Toshihiro Ohigashi and Masakatu Morii
 http://jwis2009.nsysu.edu.tw/location/paper/A Practical Message

Falsification Attack on WPA.pdf

Similar Documents