Skip to content

IoT goes nuclear: creating a ZigBee chain reaction

June 22, 2017
tags: ,

IoT goes nuclear: creating a ZigBee chain reaction Ronen et al., IEEE Security and Privacy 2017

You probably don’t need another reminder about the woeful state of security in IoT, but today’s paper choice may well give you further pause for thought about the implications. The opening paragraph sounds like something out of science fiction – except that it’s a demonstrated reality today:

Within the next few years, billions of IoT devices will densely populate our cities. In this paper, we describe a new type of threat in which adjacent IoT devices will infect each other with a worm that will rapidly spread over large areas, provided that the density of compatible IoT devices exceeds a certain critical mass.

The ZigBee protocol is the radio link of choice for many IoT devices since it is simple and widely available at low cost and with low power consumption. It has much lower bandwidth than WiFi, but that doesn’t matter for many IoT applications. The popular Philips Hue smart lamps use ZigBee for example. Suppose you could build a worm that jumps directly from one lamp to another using their ZigBee wireless connectivity and their physical proximity. If the install base of lamps in a city is sufficiently dense, you could take them all over in no time, with the worm spreading like a physical virus. The authors of today’s paper demonstrate exactly how to build such a worm:

… we developed and verified such an infection using the popular Philips Hue smart lamps as a platform… The attack can start by plugging in a single infected bulb anywhere in the city, and then catastrophically spread everywhere within minutes.

If plugging in an infected bulb is too much hassle, the authors also demonstrate how to take over bulbs by war-driving around in a car, or by war-flying a drone. (I get the impression they had fun with this one!). Based on percolation theory, we can estimate that if a city such as Paris has around 15,000 or more randomly located smart lamps then the attack will spread everywhere within the city.

What we demonstrate in this paper is that even IoT devices made by big companies with deep knowledge of security, which are protected by industry-standard cryptographic techniques, can be misused by hackers can rapidly cause city-wide disruptions which are very difficult to stop and investigate.

I just p3wned your city!

The whole paper is a wonderful tour de force that combines two main elements:

  1. A Correlation Power Analysis (CPA) attack against the CCM encryption mode used to encrypt and verify firmware updates, allowing the authors to encrypt, sign, and upload malicious OTA updates to infect lamps.
  2. A takeover attack that allows the authors to take control over lamps from long distances without using custom hardware.

Let’s look at these two components in turn, and then revisit the analysis that shows how easily such a worm can spread through a city given a relatively low density of installed bulbs. We’ll conclude by considering some of the attacks this enables, and another appeal for better IoT security.

Uploading malicious firmware

ZigBee provides an OTA update feature that the authors exploit. They started out by finding several different older Hue models which had previously had software updates. By plugging these in and letting them update, a recording of the update process can be made for analysis, which enabled discovery of the hex code OTA requires to be sent over the air. The team then wrote a python script to impersonate a lightbulb and ask for an OTA update using the code.

The firmware image that we recorded was not dependent on our impersonated lightbulb MAC address. This brought us to the conclusion that the software is protected by a single key that is shared at least between all the lamps from a specific model.

(Bad idea, but very common!).

On this assumption of symmetric cryptography, recovering the encryption and authentication keys from any one Philips Hue lightbulb will allow a software update to performed to any other lightbuild and upload malicious code of the attacker’s choosing. (At least once the OTA firmware image structure has been reverse engineered, which the authors also did).

To get those keys, the authors developed a side-channel power analysis attack to break the Philips bootloader:

Side channel power analysis measures the power consumed by a digital device as it performs operations. With this attack it is possible to infer something about the data being processed by the device, which was first demonstrated as a method of breaking cryptographic algorithms by Kocher et al..

Section 6 of the paper provides the full details of how differential power analysis (DPA) and correlation power analysis (CPA) were used to recover the key bits. We don’t really have space to cover it here (and besides, I’m not sure I could do it justice), but it’s well worth reading if you’re interested, and a great demonstration of the weakness of ‘security by obscurity’ even when you think you’re doing everything else right.

Reaching bulbs from a distance

At this point, if we can communicate with a bulb, we can upload our firmware to it. Communication normally requires close physical proximity though:

[The ZibBee chips in the Hue lamps] will ignore any request to reset or to change their affiliation unless it is sent from a ZigBee transmitter which is only a few centimeters away from the lamp. Even though the attacker can try to spoof such a proximity test by using very high power transmitters, the fact that the received power decreases quadratically with the distance makes such brute force attacks very hard.

Section 7 in the paper details how the authors managed to bypass the proximity check in the Atmel ZigBee chip’s Touchlink implementation. It all boils down to an assumption in the code that a message with a zero-value transaction id has already been rejected as invalid. However, this check is actually only carried out for Scan Request messages, and not for any other message in the protocol.

This means that we can send any other message assuming zero value for the Transaction and Response Ids and it will be received and processed as a valid message by the light.

So the team send a unicast ‘Reset to Factory New Request’ command to the light with a zero Transaction Id. Upon receiving the message the light undergoes a factory reset and begins scanning for a new network to join by sending ZigBee Beacon request messages. “…we respond with a ZigBee Beacon message with the Association Permit flag set to true. This cause the light to start a ZigBee association process and join our network.”

For this part of the attack:

We install 3 Philips Hue lamps in offices at the first floor of our faculty building. We successfully tested our full attack from a car which was parked across the lawn at at distance of about 50 meters… We then successfully tested our attack while ‘wardriving’ the car at the far edge of the lawn.

Then they installed 5 smart bulbs in the third floor of an office building and mounted the attack kit onto a DJI drone. Successful takeover was achieved with a fly-by (warflying) and attack code that caused all the lamps to repeatedly signal SOS in Morse code while the drone hovered in front of the building.

Building a self-spreading worm is now possible by combining the ability to sign and encrypt arbitrary binaries with our knowledge of the long-rage takeover attack vulnerability.

How many bulbs do you need before the infection takes over a whole city?

Once you can spread from bulb to bulb, all you need to do is infect one (or a small number) of seed bulb(s) and let nature take its course. Recall from some of the network theory we’ve looked at previously that in a random graph, once a certain number of edges have been added a phase change occurs in which a single giant connected component emerges. If we model this by assume N smart lamps (nodes) placed randomly within a city, and an edge between any two lamps that are less than distance D apart, then the field of Percolation theory can tell us the critical value of N (the Percolation threshold) at which this giant connected component should emerge.

For the city of Paris, with a total area of 105 square kilometers, and assuming D = 100 meters we find that the critical mass of installed lamps in the whole city of Paris needs to be about N = 15,000.

Since the Philips Hue smart lamps are very popular in Europe and especially in affluent areas such as Paris, there is a very good chance that this threshold has in fact already been exceeded, and thus the city is already vulnerable to massive infections via the ZigBee chain reaction described in this paper.

You took over my bulb, so what?

  • A Bricking attack makes the attack irreversible such that any effect caused by the worm (blackout, constant flickering etc.) is permanent. Once the worm is in place, it can determine what further OTA updates to accept if any.
  • Wireless network jamming uses the ZigBee band, which overlaps with WiFi. By going into ‘test mode’ which transmits a continuous wave signal without first checking for a clear channel, it would be possible to mount DoS attacks disrupting all WiFi or other 2.4GHz traffic.
  • Data infiltration and exfiltration using Philips Hue lamps demonstrated by Ronen and Shamir at a rate of about 10KB per day. Using infected lamps similar covert channels can be created but at much higher rates.
  • Let’s get a bit more serious… Epileptic seizures – it is possible to use the Philips Hue to trigger epileptic seizures, or to drive LEDs at frequencies that increase long-term discomfort in humans. Imagine this happening simultaneously across a whole city!

Can we please take IoT security a little more seriously now?

Our attacks exploit a specific implementation bug of the Touchlink commission protocol and a specific design for the OTA update process, but they are just an example of the way security in IoT is designed today. The Atmel code we reviewed was very well written and documented, but it is extremely difficult to implement complex state machines of such protocols without any bugs. The main problem is in the insecure design of the ZLL standard itself. We believe this will not be the last bug or attack found against ZLL commissioning… The sharp contrast between the open and inclusive manner in which the TLS 1.3 standard was designed and the secretive work on the ZigBee 3.0 specification that is still not open to the public, is a big part of the problem.

The attack is also another reminder that “security by obscurity has failed time after time,” and any reuse of keys across devices is a big security risk.

We should work together to use the knowledge we gained to protect IoT devices or we might face in the near future large scale attacks that will affect every part of our lives.

20 Comments leave one →
  1. June 22, 2017 8:12 pm

    I have worked with Zigbee. I have never use the Philips Hugh lamps and never worked on them.
    The OTA protocol is part of the standards. They did not really have to reverse engineer it.
    Generally the firmware images are not encrypted, only signed. The signature should keep the image from being changed. Part of the signing is a digital digest of the image.
    The signing and digest is usually handled in the actual radio chip set, independent from the application program. The keys are local to the radio, and not visible to the signer.
    There are or could be thousands of these devices. Building an signing images on a per device level will not scale.
    Most Zigbee networks use a devices and gateway model. The Zigbee network should not had direct connections to the Internet. The gateway can prevent access from the Zigbee network out, if it is designed correctly. Again, a big harry problem.
    Sigh.

  2. JD Roberts permalink
    June 23, 2017 3:47 am

    The paper was published in November 2016, Phillips released a patch within a few weeks. Old news.

  3. Jay Gee permalink
    June 26, 2017 11:40 pm

    When does Skynet become self-aware?

  4. July 10, 2017 9:46 am

    You need to read up on what “security through obscurity” (STO) means. THIS is not an example.

    STO is when a company (often Philips) thinks that they can design an encryption algorithm that nobody can crack and that keeping the algorithm secret helps security of the encryption. This has repeatedly been shown to be not true.

    NOT STO is when the encryption algorithm is published and well studied, only the encryption key is kept secret. Well they extracted the encryption key in a way that has been known to be possible for several decades. So bad planning there. but no STO.

    What philips should have done is use public key cryptography where they keep the private key in a vault somewhere at headquarters. Development should happen with lights programmed to accept an alternate (less secure) key from the developers. Once the new firmware is released it is signed by the secure key.

Trackbacks

  1. “authors also demonstrate how to take over bulbs by war-driving aro… | Dr. Roy Schestowitz (罗伊)
  2. 【知识】6月23日 – 每日安全知识热点-安全路透社
  3. Bruce Lawson’s personal site  : Reading List
  4. Internet of Things News of the Week, June 23 2017 | Stacey on IoT | Internet of Things news and analysis
  5. Internet of Things News of the Week, June 23 2017 | Internet Of Things | IoT
  6. Internet of Things News of the Week, June 23 2017 | Latest Mobile Technology Information
  7. 【知识】6月23日 – 每日安全知识热点 – 安百科技
  8. Newsletter: June 24, 2017 | Notes from MWhite
  9. Wie das Internet der Dinge zur elektronischen Pest-Epidemie wird | 11k2
  10. ZigBee Protocol « Jack's Newswatch
  11. Kodsnack 214: En vecka med Surface Book » KATHING
  12. 半月安全看看看2017六月(下) – 安全0day
  13. End of term, and Orders of Magnitude | the morning paper
  14. Zigbee Technology Images | cn

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: