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.

Comments
Emerging Long-Range WAN Networks Vulnerable to Hacking, Compromise
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
wte
50%
50%
wte,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/30/2020 | 3:07:17 PM
Re: Encryption
The encryption is two layers of 128-bit AES. Not really outdated. I assume you mean "keys" rather than "Keats" ?

I was a bit surprised after reading through the entire article that most of the vulnerabilities are not unique to LoRaWAN. For example:
  • Physical security and reverse engineering of a device. First, it's nothing new, and it's already being handled in newer devices using "secure elements" to protect the keys, preventing them from being retrieved even through a physical attack.
  • Fixed keys being stolen. LoRaWAN provides two ways of joining a network: essentially pre-shared keys, and keys that are renegotiated upon joining (OTAA: over-the-air authentication). The first method is never recommended for any production devices. Anyone releasing such a device simply hasn't read the specs, or anything else regarding LoRaWAN joins. 
  • Default passwords unchanged, etc. Again, nothing unique to LoRaWAN. Most of this type of issue is at the network or system level, regardless of wireless protocol

I'm glad they acknowledge that the v1.1 LoRaWAN spec addresses most of these issues. I was teaching on most of these vulnerabilities as early as 2Q 2018, and v1.1 was released later that year. Yes, it does take time for the changes to progagate into working systems, but that's the nature of rapidly-changing technology, and v1.1 has some pretty dramatic changes/improvements from the prior version.
wte
50%
50%
wte,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/30/2020 | 2:52:21 PM
Re: Sensors
When it's done in hardware, it doesn't take much power to do the encryption required for LoRaWAN. Many devices commercially available will run for 2-5 years or more on a pair of off-the-shelf alkaline C cells, or even 5-10 years on a 3.6V AA-size lithium battery. The key factors are limiting the frequency and duration of transmissions, and conserving power when the device is idle. Since NOT encrypting isn't an option for LoRaWAN, they've made it feasible even for low-power, limited-memory devices.
wte
50%
50%
wte,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/30/2020 | 2:45:37 PM
Re: Older devices
Many LoRaWAN devices rely on a separate chip/chipset that handles the LoRaWAN communications at the MAC and physical layers, and the MCU controlling the actual device may not be able to update the firmware inside the LoRa chip (separate from the MCU's own firmware). And, of course, many IoT devices were never made to handle updates of the device's main firmware itself, but this is changing as we collectively focus more on security. Newer parts of the LoRaWAN spec are providing mechanisms for firmware update over LoRa. This was demoed at the LoRa Alliance conference over 2 years ago. So while it's true that older devices won't be able to support newer aspects of the protocol, this is hardly a new scenario in technology in general. How many of us have a 10-year-old cell phone that can still communicate on today's cell networks?
techilife99
0%
100%
techilife99,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/30/2020 | 3:16:40 AM
Re: Older devices
Syncing iCloud photos to other devices such as iPhone, Mac and PC comes in handy on several occasions. Especially, when the time is short and you have to make quick edits. But, there come times when the iCloud photos are not syncing to these devices. And we all know how annoying this all gets. Well, there might be several reasons that prevent iCloud photos from syncing the media library to other devices. In this article, we have mentioned some trouble shooting steps to help solve the issue. If your iCloud Photos is not syncing to the device, keep on reading.

 

icloud photos not uploading
pvaneijk
100%
0%
pvaneijk,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/29/2020 | 4:07:43 PM
Inaccuracies
Jai,

 

I think you either need to turn in your engineering degree for a refund or stick to writing obituaties and the weather report. I have never read so many falsehoods and generalizations in the same article about LoRaWAN. Did Verizon or ATT fund your article ? Before you start spreading falsehoods maybe read the LoRaWAN specification front to cover. Then read it again. And again. And then compare the latest version to the first version. Yes, the first version left some openings for various attacks, but they all have been fixed. And nobody builds devices to the first version of the spec anymore. 

In your article you fail to even name the encryption that is used: "The encryption that is used to ensure the authenticity of devices on the network and to protect the confidentiality and integrity of communications between the device and application server can be relatively easily cracked, according to Cerrudo" LoRaWAN uses 128-bit AES encryption for both the Network Session and the Application (user data) Sessions. Stating that this type of encryption can be relatively easily cracked is a joke!

So even if you got you hands on a set of keys, from for example a device that is cofigured as APB (Activation by Personalization) instead of the much more secure methode of OTAA one can inflict no damage on a Network from a single end device. LoRaWAN IoT devices do not have a MB/s TCP/IP pipleline to the cloud. You can't flood the Network server with 100,000s of message from an IoT device. You can send at most between 11 and 242 bytes...every FEW SECONDS. You have to understand that an LPWAN IoT network is not based on TCP/IP.

I can go on for a while but this article is so poorly written that it is not worth my time. Bone up on LoRaWAN and come back with some real substance!

 


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/14/2020
Lock-Pickers Face an Uncertain Future Online
Seth Rosenblatt, Contributing Writer,  8/10/2020
Hacking It as a CISO: Advice for Security Leadership
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 New Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities That Could Put Your Enterprise at Risk
In this Dark Reading Tech Digest, we look at the ways security researchers and ethical hackers find critical vulnerabilities and offer insights into how you can fix them before attackers can exploit them.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-17475
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of authentication in the network relays used in MEGVII Koala 2.9.1-c3s allows attackers to grant physical access to anyone by sending packet data to UDP port 5000.
CVE-2020-0255
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2020-10751. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2020-10751. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2020-10751 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-14353
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2017-18270. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2017-18270. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2017-18270 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-17464
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none.
CVE-2020-17473
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of mutual authentication in ZKTeco FaceDepot 7B 1.0.213 and ZKBiosecurity Server 1.0.0_20190723 allows an attacker to obtain a long-lasting token by impersonating the server.