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.

IoT/Embedded Security

// // //
5/29/2018
07:00 AM
Larry Loeb
Larry Loeb
Larry Loeb

Z-Shave Attack Shows Why IoT Security Need More Attention

Pen Test Partners have discovered a new IoT vulnerability that researchers call Z-Shave. This shows why manufactures need to think much harder about building security into connected devices.

Z-Wave is a communications protocol that wirelessly connects many Internet of Things (IoT) devices as an alternative to the shorter range Bluetooth protocol.

As of April, there were 2,400 products that used the 900 Mhz system, according to Wikipedia.

However, Pen Test Partners showed a way that pairing of two of these devices can be made insecure through an attack that they call Z-Shave.

Security for the system is done through a shared network key. And that key is what drives the attack. Pen Test showed that the current S2 protocol can be driven so it reverts to the older, far less secure S0 protocol that was in use before 2013. The key-exchange now uses Diffie-Hellman encryption in S2 and can also involve authentication by entry of a five-digit code into the controller.

S0 used an fixed key consisting of all zeroes.

(Source: Pixabay)\r\n
(Source: Pixabay)\r\n

Pen Test researchers found that that an active attacker, present at the time of device pairing, can downgrade an S2 pairing to S0, which allows them to intercept the key and then intercept and inject S0 traffic on the Z-Wave network.

Since Z-Wave devices are designed to be backwards compatible, an S2 device will pair as S0 if the controller only supports S0. An S0 device will also pair with no encryption if the controller does not support S0. A network can support a mixture of devices, although encrypted traffic cannot move from S0 to S2 during use.

Pen Test researchers proposed three attacks methods for Z-Shave.

The first finds that the node info for the unpaired node, which has data that is needed for a spoofed pairing. This can be sniffed by an attacker, modified, and then sent to the controller. Boom -- pairing on the attackers terms is performed.

The second method uses the node information sent when a battery is inserted into a device in the same way, with the same result.

The third method is trickier. As Pen Test notes:

An attacker can continuously listen for the node info from the genuine node. As soon as the home ID has been obtained, they can actively jam the rest of the packet, preventing the node info from being received. […] The jamming needs to occur mid-way through the transmission of a packet and the current tools available are only capable of waiting until the end of a packet.

Silicon Labs, the company behind the Z-Wave protocol has pooh-poohed the issue. The company's main retort to the Z-Shave attack is that an attacker has a very short time window to execute the attack.

Which is true, but the attack could be carried out by battery-operated hardware left in the vicinity that is sniffing for the right opportunity, so that criticism is not entirely relevant.

Worse, Silicon Labs noted that a S2 downgrade should make the user aware that it has occurred with a message from the S2 controller. Pen Test showed in a YouTube video that this does not always happen, and the end-user may be unaware of the change in security. Perhaps a manufacturer did not fully implement S2 in their product.

Silicon Labs announced that they are changing the specs so that the user will have to acknowledge the alert if it occurs.

In an email to Security Now, Silicon Labs noted that the Pen Test researchers in their YouTube video made use of a developer tool, not a consumer rated software product, which was not designed to notify the user of security level changes.

Manufacturers need to implement the latest level of security in their products. When a simple attack can throw it all for a loop, especially in products like locks, the burden becomes even more important.

Editor's Note: This article was updated to include a comment from Silicon Labs.

Related posts:

— Larry Loeb has written for many of the last century's major "dead tree" computer magazines, having been, among other things, a consulting editor for BYTE magazine and senior editor for the launch of WebWeek.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Machine Learning, AI & Deep Learning Improve Cybersecurity
Machine intelligence is influencing all aspects of cybersecurity. Organizations are implementing AI-based security to analyze event data using ML models that identify attack patterns and increase automation. Before security teams can take advantage of AI and ML tools, they need to know what is possible. This report covers: -How to assess the vendor's AI/ML claims -Defining success criteria for AI/ML implementations -Challenges when implementing AI
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-3074
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-26
The Slider Hero WordPress plugin before 8.4.4 does not escape the slider Name, which could allow high-privileged users to perform Cross-Site Scripting attacks.
CVE-2022-3076
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-26
The CM Download Manager WordPress plugin before 2.8.6 allows high privilege users such as admin to upload arbitrary files by setting the any extension via the plugin's setting, which could be used by admins of multisite blog to upload PHP files for example.
CVE-2022-3098
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-26
The Login Block IPs WordPress plugin through 1.0.0 does not have CSRF check in place when updating its settings, which could allow attackers to make a logged in admin change them via a CSRF attack
CVE-2022-3119
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-26
The OAuth client Single Sign On WordPress plugin before 3.0.4 does not have authorisation and CSRF when updating its settings, which could allow unauthenticated attackers to update them and change the OAuth endpoints to ones they controls, allowing them to then be authenticated as admin if they know...
CVE-2022-3135
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-26
The SEO Smart Links WordPress plugin through 3.0.1 does not sanitise and escape some of its settings, which could allow high privilege users such as admin to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the unfiltered_html capability is disallowed (for example in multisite setup)