Erster Platz beim Univention Absolventenpreis 2012

May 23, 2012 at 03:00 PM | categories: reverse engineering, degate

Meine Bewerbung für den Univention Absolventenpreis 2012 hatte Erfolg. Heute wurde im Rahmen der Eröffnungsveranstaltung des LinuxTages der fünfte Univention Absolventenpreis vergeben, mit dem Abschlussarbeiten zum Thema Open Source honoriert werden. Ich bewarb mich mit meiner Diplomarbeit „Softwaregestütztes Reverse-Engineering von Logik-Gattern in integrierten Schaltkreisen“, welche ich vor fast einem Jahr bei der Systems Architecture Group der Humboldt-Universität eingereicht habe. Im Kern geht es dabei um Methoden, wie man aus mikroskopischen Aufnahmen von Halbleiterchips Netzlisten zurückgewinnt, um diese dann z. B. auf Sicherheitsmerkmale untersuchen zu können. Diese Methoden sind in der interaktiven Software Degate implementiert, welche mittlerweile auch Thema von Lehrveranstaltungen ist.

Die Jury hat mich mit dem ersten Platz bedacht. Für die Auszeichnung möchte ich mich bei der Jury und der Univention GmbH bedanken.

Links:

Reverse-engineering the ABUS Secvest Wireless Intruder Alarm System's Radio Protocol

May 10, 2012 at 01:00 AM | categories: wireless, reverse engineering

This report documents an analysis of the wireless interface of an ABUS Secvest burglar alarm system. The analysis is based on passively received radio datagrams, which were reverse-engineered. Because the protocol offers no protection mechanism against attacks, the Secvest system cannot grant confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of communication. This is a security weakness, especially if messages are transmitted via a shared and remotely accessible medium.

Until now there is no public review available in which the effective protection level of the Secvest system is examined. The weak link is the system’s wireless interface: ABUS doesn’t use encryption and message authentication and not even a simple rolling code, which is a common technique even for garage door openers. The lack of protection mechanisms allows an attacker to eavesdrop radio communication and to inject their own datagrams by spoofing addresses of components belonging to an alarm system.

FU8000 radio module

Brute-forcing CRC parameters

February 10, 2012 at 11:20 AM | categories: reverse engineering, tools

Recently, I had to discover the parameters for a cycling redundancy check (CRC) calculation. Because it was the second time within six months that there was a need for determining a CRC polynomial, I implemented a brute-forcing tool. This tool reveals the (truncated) polynomial, the initial value, input and output reflection and a finally applied XOR-mask. Obviously, brute-forcing fails for large polynomials like for a CRC-32, because you have to try different polynomials and initial values. But for smaller CRCs this approach works well. Usually, you do not have truncated polynomials larger than 16, especially not in simple telegrams with some bytes.

What is a truncated polynomial? In general, a polynomial has a grade. E.g., CRC-16-CCITT has a polynomial of grade 16. This is x^16 + x^12+x^5+1. To describe the polynomial by its coefficients the leading digit is often skipped, e.g., 1.0001.0000.0010.0001 becomes 1.0000.0010.0001. Thus, the term truncated polynomial is used to indicate this truncation.

Let’s see how this tool works. In a first step, we generate some test data. Therefore, the tool generate-test-data might be used. It generates some random bit strings and calculates a CRC, which is appended to the string.

$ ./generate-test-data --final-xor 0 --messages 10 | tee testmessage_1
# width                    : 10 bits
# CRC's offset             : 49
# calc CRC for bit offsets : 0 .. 49 (not included)
# final XOR                : 0
# reflect in               : true
# reflect out              : false
# 
# truncated polynom        : 189 (MSB not shown)
# initial value            : 149

0110110010000011101000011000110101111000000000100 1111111010
0001000000001100101100100110011011111100000110100 0101000101
1101011100111000110110110010111011110110101001001 0011100111
0100000011100011110000100111010001101100010010011 0110100011
0110110000010111010110011001010011100101110000101 1100000001
0110101000000111010111101101001000110010100111110 1011001001
1000101011110110010100001110001111101110000011000 1000010010
0110111010111000011100100111110101110101111011010 1001111001
1001101001111000010110001000011101110000111001001 0101110000
1101110110101001101001110010011101010001110000110 0000110111

Here, the bit string starts at offset 0 and ends at offset 49. Please note, that these are not the common eight bits per byte. I avoided this byte-centric view, because in low-level reverse engineering messages might be odd-formed, especially when analyzing radio transmission.

In a second step, these test messages are reformatted to fit the brute-forcing tool’s input format. Therefore, I wrote a script in Perl. It reads bit strings (“101001…”), hex strings (“0xdeadbeef…”) and comma-separated lists of hex values (“0x23, 0x42, 0x5”) and reformats them to either a hex or a bit string.

$ perl ../rewrite-as.pl bits testmessage_1 | tee testmessage_1.bits
01101100100000111010000110001101011110000000001001111111010
00010000000011001011001001100110111111000001101000101000101
11010111001110001101101100101110111101101010010010011100111
01000000111000111100001001110100011011000100100110110100011
01101100000101110101100110010100111001011100001011100000001
01101010000001110101111011010010001100101001111101011001001
10001010111101100101000011100011111011100000110001000010010
01101110101110000111001001111101011101011110110101001111001
10011010011110000101100010000111011100001110010010101110000
11011101101010011010011100100111010100011100001100000110111

Finally, we launch the CRC brute-forcing tool, which requires specifying several offsets: The tool needs to know, where the message’s CRC relevant portion starts and stops and where the checksum is placed. When reverse engineering a telegram format, one might determine the checksum part without problems. This is caused by the CRC algorithm’s property that it is a Galois type shift register, which produces pseudo-random numbers. But it loops not on its own. Instead the algorithm is fed with message bits. Thus, the checksum looks more random than the rest of the message.

$ ./bruteforce-crc --width 10 --start 0 --end 49 --offs-crc 49 \
       --file testmessage_1.bits --probe-reflections true 
number of threads        : 4
width                    : 10 bits
CRC's offset             : 49
calc CRC for bit offsets : 0 .. 49 (not included)
final XOR                : 0
reflect in               : false
reflect out              : false

truncated polynom        : from 0 to 1023 (MSB not shown)
initial value            : from 0 to 1023
probe reflections        : true
probe final xor          : false

extracted crc 03fa
extracted crc 0145
extracted crc 00e7
extracted crc 01a3
extracted crc 0301
extracted crc 02c9
extracted crc 0212
extracted crc 0279
extracted crc 0170
extracted crc 0037
----------------------[ MATCH ]--------------------------------
Found a model for the CRC calculation:
Truncated polynom : 0xbd (189)
Initial value     : 0x95 (149)
Final XOR         : 0x0 (0)
Reflected input   : false
Reflected output  : false
Message offset    : from bit 0 .. 49 (end not included)

The brute-forcing tool extracts the checksum field at the specified offset and compares the calculated CRCs with the extracted CRCs. If a CRC matches the extracted one, the tool continues with testing the other messages. And finally, if a CRC parameter set satisfies all messages a CRC model is found.

If you have to reverse engineer an undocumented bus-protocol or some radio messages and don’t want to reconstruct the CRC parameters by putting on one's thinking cap, you might need such a tool, too. Therefore, I published the code on github.com.

Further readings:

Radare and the GCHQ's brainteaser

December 02, 2011 at 10:15 PM | categories: reverse engineering, tools

Recently I discovered the tool suite radare, which is a handy tool for analyzing snippets of binary code. You can just open the file containing shell code and disassemble it. Radare works with PE files and ELF binaries. Further, the software supports several machine types like ARM and Intel and allows analyzing code for Dalvik and Java virtual machines.

When I stumbled upon the GCHQs reverse engineering challenge, I noticed the 0x42424242, the 0x41414141 and the not that obvious “deadbeef”. I supposed that it is not a byte wise XOR with a “secret” key, at least not on the full message. The most specific hint for me to inspect the code with radare is the message’s first byte, which is a 0xeb. This is also the first byte on my hard disk and there it represents a jump to the boot loader.

The secret message is given as:

char bytes[] = {
0xeb, 0x04, 0xaf, 0xc2, 0xbf, 0xa3, 0x81, 0xec,
0x00, 0x01, 0x00, 0x00, 0x31, 0xc9, 0x88, 0x0c,
0x0c, 0xfe, 0xc1, 0x75, 0xf9, 0x31, 0xc0, 0xba,
0xef, 0xbe, 0xad, 0xde, 0x02, 0x04, 0x0c, 0x00,
0xd0, 0xc1, 0xca, 0x08, 0x8a, 0x1c, 0x0c, 0x8a,
0x3c, 0x04, 0x88, 0x1c, 0x04, 0x88, 0x3c, 0x0c,
0xfe, 0xc1, 0x75, 0xe8, 0xe9, 0x5c, 0x00, 0x00,
0x00, 0x89, 0xe3, 0x81, 0xc3, 0x04, 0x00, 0x00,
0x00, 0x5c, 0x58, 0x3d, 0x41, 0x41, 0x41, 0x41,
0x75, 0x43, 0x58, 0x3d, 0x42, 0x42, 0x42, 0x42,
0x75, 0x3b, 0x5a, 0x89, 0xd1, 0x89, 0xe6, 0x89,
0xdf, 0x29, 0xcf, 0xf3, 0xa4, 0x89, 0xde, 0x89,
0xd1, 0x89, 0xdf, 0x29, 0xcf, 0x31, 0xc0, 0x31,
0xdb, 0x31, 0xd2, 0xfe, 0xc0, 0x02, 0x1c, 0x06,
0x8a, 0x14, 0x06, 0x8a, 0x34, 0x1e, 0x88, 0x34,
0x06, 0x88, 0x14, 0x1e, 0x00, 0xf2, 0x30, 0xf6,
0x8a, 0x1c, 0x16, 0x8a, 0x17, 0x30, 0xda, 0x88,
0x17, 0x47, 0x49, 0x75, 0xde, 0x31, 0xdb, 0x89,
0xd8, 0xfe, 0xc0, 0xcd, 0x80, 0x90, 0x90, 0xe8,
0x9d, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0x41, 0x41, 0x41, 0x41
};

I just tried to decode it with radare and here it is:

[0x00000000]> eval asm.arch=intel32                                                                                                                                                    
[0x00000000]> pd
.=< 0x00000000, 0 cursor: eb04 jmp 0x6 ; 1 = 0x00000006
| 0x00000002 0 af scasd
| 0x00000003 0 c2bfa3 ret 0xa3bf
| 0x00000003 0 ; ------------------------------------
`-> 0x00000006 256_ 81ec00010000 sub esp, 0x100
0x0000000c, 256 31c9 xor ecx, ecx
.--> 0x0000000e 256 880c0c mov [esp+ecx], cl
| 0x00000011 256 fec1 inc cl
`==< 0x00000013 256 75f9 jnz 0xe ; 2 = 0x0000000e
0x00000015 256 31c0 xor eax, eax
0x00000017 256 baefbeadde mov edx, 0xdeadbeef ; (0xffffffffdeadbeef)
.---> 0x0000001c, 256 02040c add al, [esp+ecx]
| 0x0000001f 256 00d0 add al, dl
| 0x00000021 256 c1ca08 ror edx, 0x8
| 0x00000024, 256 8a1c0c mov bl, [esp+ecx]
| 0x00000027 256 8a3c04 mov bh, [esp+eax]
| 0x0000002a 256 881c04 mov [esp+eax], bl
| 0x0000002d 256 883c0c mov [esp+ecx], bh
| 0x00000030, 256 fec1 inc cl
`===< 0x00000032 256 75e8 jnz 0x1c ; 3 = 0x0000001c
.====< 0x00000034, 256 e95c000000 jmp 0x95 ; 4 = 0x00000095
| 0x00000039 256 89e3 mov ebx, esp
| 0x0000003b 256 81c304000000 add ebx, 0x4
| 0x00000041 248_ 5c pop esp
| 0x00000042 256_ 58 pop eax ; cursor+0x8
| 0x00000043 256 3d41414141 cmp eax, 0x41414141
.=====< 0x00000048, 256 7543 jnz 0x8d ; 5 = 0x0000008d
|| 0x0000004a 264_ 58 pop eax ; cursor+0x8
|| 0x0000004b 264 3d42424242 cmp eax, 0x42424242
.======< 0x00000050, 264 753b jnz 0x8d ; 6 = 0x0000008d
||| 0x00000052 256_ 5a pop edx
||| 0x00000053 256 89d1 mov ecx, edx
||| 0x00000055 256 89e6 mov esi, esp
||| 0x00000057 256 89df mov edi, ebx
||| 0x00000059 256 29cf sub edi, ecx
||| 0x0000005b 256 f3a4 rep movsb
||| 0x0000005d 256 89de mov esi, ebx
||| 0x0000005f 256 89d1 mov ecx, edx
||| 0x00000061 256 89df mov edi, ebx
||| 0x00000063 256 29cf sub edi, ecx
||| 0x00000065 256 31c0 xor eax, eax
||| 0x00000067 256 31db xor ebx, ebx
||| 0x00000069 256 31d2 xor edx, edx
.-------> 0x0000006b 256 fec0 inc al
|||| 0x0000006d 256 021c06 add bl, [esi+eax]
|||| 0x00000070, 256 8a1406 mov dl, [esi+eax]
|||| 0x00000073 256 8a341e mov dh, [esi+ebx]
|||| 0x00000076 256 883406 mov [esi+eax], dh
|||| 0x00000079 256 88141e mov [esi+ebx], dl
|||| 0x0000007c, 256 00f2 add dl, dh
|||| 0x0000007e 256 30f6 xor dh, dh
|||| 0x00000080, 256 8a1c16 mov bl, [esi+edx]
|||| 0x00000083 256 8a17 mov dl, [edi]
|||| 0x00000085 256 30da xor dl, bl
|||| 0x00000087 256 8817 mov [edi], dl
|||| 0x00000089 256 47 inc edi
|||| 0x0000008a 256 49 dec ecx
`=======< 0x0000008b 256 75de jnz 0x6b ; 7 = 0x0000006b
``-----> 0x0000008d 256 31db xor ebx, ebx
| 0x0000008f 256 89d8 mov eax, ebx
| 0x00000091 256 fec0 inc al
| 0x00000093 256 cd80 int 0x80
`----> 0x00000095 256 90 nop
0x00000096 256 90 nop
0x00000097 256 e89dffffff call 0x39 ; 8 = 0x00000039
0x0000009c, 256 41 inc ecx
0x0000009d 256 41 inc ecx
0x0000009e 256 41 inc ecx
0x0000009f 256 41 inc ecx
[0x00000000]>

Update: Heise has details on solving the whole puzzle.