Dark Reading
Risky Business
Do more than just cursory scans. Develop
a holistic approach to app security.
Find out how!
Learn to take the ambiguity out of managing IT so you can guide your business forward.
Download now!
Use these tips from Gartner to identify the EPP solution that best suits your business.
Download now!
New 'On/Off Switch' Protects RFID Cards From Hacks
Technology would let cardholders activate RFID transmission only when card goes through a readerSep 11, 2008 | 09:20 AM
By Kelly Jackson HigginsDarkReading
A U.K. firm has developed an on/off “switch” for RFID cards that could protect cardholders from being hacked. The cardholder activates the RFID transmission by squeezing the card between his thumb and forefinger when it must be scanned by a reader.
The patented polymer-based technology comprised of metal particles is embedded into a circuit and gets built into a smart card during the lamination process. When compressed, it acts as an RFID signal conductor. “The difference is that RFID is always on and being interrogated, but this is always off until the instant you want it read,” says a spokesman for Peratech, which says it’s currently in discussions with smart card vendors.
RFID hacking has been well-documented, and a popular target for researchers. RFID readers can be easily hacked, and RFID-based cards, cloned with little effort. (See Black Hat Researcher Hacks Credit Cards.) This has made RFID-based building passes, passports, credit cards, and other contactless cards vulnerable to identity theft or other types of fraud. “Your identity and financial information could be stolen by the person sitting behind you on the bus, on the train, in a queue -- even walking down the street -- and you would never know that is was happening,” says David Lussey, CTO of Peratech.
Peratech’s underlying Quantum Tunnelling Composites (QTC) technology itself is used in astronaut spacesuits, robotics, and defense. Its application to RFID cards is not the first attempt to protect RFID from hacks. There are a variety of “shields” and stainless steel wallets that you can slip your RFID-based card into to prevent any tampering, for instance. But unlike some of these more bulky approaches to securing personal information stored on RFID cards, the 70-micron thick switch is rugged and compact. “It’s like a thin piece of paper,” Peratech’s spokesman says.
The concept of an on/off switch to protect user privacy in RFID isn’t new, either. Nate Lawson, principal with Root Labs, who recently reverse-engineered the popular RFID-based FasTrak toll tag that many drivers in the San Francisco Bay Area affix to their windshields for pre-paying highway tolls, is building a prototype on/off switch of sorts for FasTrak users. “You press a button on it so when you near the toll plaza, it activates RFID, and then immediately cuts the power to the whole circuit when it’s done,” Lawson says. (See FasTrak Toll Hacked, Exposing Privacy Dangers.)
Lawson says the Peratech switch concept represents a positive development for RFID security. “It won’t change the world, but overall, this is a [positive] development,” he says.
The key is making it inexpensive enough to attract card manufacturers. “Even a penny difference is something these manufacturers are concerned about,” he says. “That’s why you haven’t seen smart cards replacing mag-stripe” credit cards to date, he says.
Peratech won’t say just what it will cost per card, but that it would be a matter of “cents,” not dollars.
Lawson says an indicator light or auditory beep would be helpful to alert users that the card had successfully been enabled.
Just when Peratech’s RFID on/off switch technology gets incorporated into smart cards is unclear, however. “It’s not in credit cards or door-access cards now… We’re talking to RFID card vendor,” the company spokesman says. “We want to create an awareness that protection for this problem is here.”
Have a comment on this story? Please click "Discuss" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.
New Banking Trojan Discovered Targeting Businesses' Financial Accounts 02/09/2010
China Nudges Out U.S. For Most Bot-Infected Machines 02/09/2010
The Evolving Malware Threat: Is Your Organization Protected from All Angles? 02/17/2010
Daily log review sucks, here's how to make it easier 01/28/2010
DIGITAL ASSETS
All Roads Lead to Rome: How Cyber Terrorists are Exploiting Digital America" with Tom Kellermann
02/09/2010
The Tangled Web: Silent Threats & Invisible Enemies
02/02/2010
Subscribe to RSSChina Nudges Out U.S. For Most Bot-Infected Machines
China Shutters Hacker 'Boot Camp'
GAO Report: NASA Still Facing Weaknesses In IT Security
MORE KEYHOLE
Published:2010-01-22
Severity:High
Description:SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 SP3 (SLE10-SP3) configures postfix to listen on all network interfaces, which might allow remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions.
Published:2010-01-22
Severity:High
Description:The URL validation functionality in Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 and 8 does not properly process input parameters, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary local programs via a crafted URL, aka "URL Validation Vulnerability."
Published:2010-01-22
Severity:Medium
Description:ISC BIND 9.0.x through 9.3.x, 9.4 before 9.4.3-P5, 9.5 before 9.5.2-P2, 9.6 before 9.6.1-P3, and 9.7.0 beta does not properly validate DNSSEC (1) NSEC and (2) NSEC3 records, which allows remote attackers to add the Authenticated Data (AD) flag to a forged NXDOMAIN response for an existing domain.
Published:2010-01-22
Severity:High
Description:Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, 6 SP1, 7, and 8 does not properly handle objects in memory, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by accessing an object that (1) was not properly initialized or (2) is deleted, leading to memory corruption, aka "Uninitialized Memory Corruption Vulnerability," a different vulnerability than CVE-2009-2530 and CVE-2009-2531.
Published:2010-01-22
Severity:High
Description:Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 does not properly handle objects in memory, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by accessing an object that (1) was not properly initialized or (2) is deleted, leading to memory corruption, aka "Uninitialized Memory Corruption Vulnerability," a different vulnerability than CVE-2009-3671, CVE-2009-3674, and CVE-2010-0246.
|
