Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Attacks/Breaches

6/17/2016
09:50 AM
Steve Zurier
Steve Zurier
Slideshows
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

An Inside Look At The Mitsubishi Outlander Hack

White hat hacker finds WiFi flaws in mobile app for popular auto; Mitsubishi working on fix.
Previous
1 of 5
Next

Image Source: Pen Test Partners

Image Source: Pen Test Partners

It all started a few months ago when a friend of penetration tester and self-styled industry maverick Ken Munro bought a Mitsubishi Outlander.

Munro, who works for U.K.-based penetration testers Pen Test Partners, says a red flag went off for him when he looked over the plug in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) and found that the mobile application communicates via WiFi.

“With other high-end cars like BMWs or Mercedes Benz’s the mobile app communicates over GSM or, in the U.S., LTE 4G,” he says. “GSM and LTE are broadly much harder to hack than WiFi.”

Not long after he first saw the Outlander, Munro went out and bought a new Outlander and ran a man in the middle attack over the WiFi communications. Sure enough, he was able to hack in and disable the anti-theft alarm.

“I know this can be upsetting but keep in mind that this field didn’t exist three years ago,” Munro explains. “So to be fair to the car companies, they are working to fix the various flaws we find.”

Munro spoke with Dark Reading this week, sharing some behind-the-scenes information on the Outlander hack and tips for what people who bought the cars can do to protect themselves until Mitsubishi issues a fix, which Munro says the carmaker intends to do.

The following slides give you an idea of how Munro exposed the vulnerability in the Outlander:

 

Steve Zurier has more than 30 years of journalism and publishing experience, most of the last 24 of which were spent covering networking and security technology. Steve is based in Columbia, Md. View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 5
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
97% of Americans Can't Ace a Basic Security Test
Steve Zurier, Contributing Writer,  5/20/2019
TeamViewer Admits Breach from 2016
Dark Reading Staff 5/20/2019
How a Manufacturing Firm Recovered from a Devastating Ransomware Attack
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  5/20/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-5798
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Lack of correct bounds checking in Skia in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to perform an out of bounds memory read via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5799
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Incorrect inheritance of a new document's policy in Content Security Policy in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to bypass content security policy via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5800
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Insufficient policy enforcement in Blink in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to bypass content security policy via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5801
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Incorrect eliding of URLs in Omnibox in Google Chrome on iOS prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5802
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Incorrect handling of download origins in Navigation in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a crafted HTML page.