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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

7/26/2016
09:31 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

'MouseJack' Researchers Uncover Major Wireless Keyboard Vulnerability

KeySniffer attack shows two-thirds of low-cost wireless keyboards prone to keystroke capture and malicious keystroke injection.

The same researchers who earlier this year uncovered glaring vulnerabilities in many wireless mice today announced a new major flaw in the majority of the market's low-cost wireless keyboards that puts users at risk of having attackers remotely sniff all of their keystrokes and even inject their own malicious keystroke commands from distances of up to 250 feet away.

Dubbed KeySniffer by the Bastille Research Team who found it, the vulnerability puts any password, credential, security secret, or intellectual property byproduct that is typed, at risk of eavesdropping and capture by attackers. The affected manufacturers' products do not encrypt data transmitting between their keyboards and the USB dongle that wirelessly connects it to a computer.

According to Marc Newlin, the member of Bastille Research Team who made the discovery, eight of the 12 manufacturers tested for KeySniffer were vulnerable, including Hewlett-Packard, Toshiba, Kensington, Insignia, Radio Shack, Anker, General Electric, and EagleTec.

Whereas previous wireless keyboard attack discoveries such as 2010's KeyKeriki and 2015's KeySweeper exploited weaknesses in Microsoft's encryption for its keyboards, this one is different because it shows that the affected manufacturers didn't encrypt transmissions at all. Even worse, attackers can sniff out KeySniffer-prone victims without them actively typing at their workstation.

"Previously demonstrated vulnerabilities affecting wireless keyboards required the attacker to first observe radio packets transmitted when the victim typed on their keyboard," Newlin says. "The keyboards vulnerable to KeySniffer use USB dongles which continuously transmit radio packets at regular intervals, enabling an attacker to quickly survey an environment such as a room, building, or public space, for vulnerable devices regardless of the victim’s presence."

As a result, it becomes all the easier for attackers to quickly find vulnerable devices and set up shop to capture information once the user does start to type. What's more, the flaw also makes it possible to inject malicious keystrokes into the victim's machine, opening up a whole other world of attacks for the bad guys, including easier installation of malware, exfiltration of data, or execution of malicious commands, without any user interaction required.

The KeySniffer attack is made possible by a common vulnerability in undocumented USB transceivers from MOSART Semiconductor, Signia Technologies, and one unknown manufacturer, all of which Bastille reverse-engineered in order to properly examine data it found through exploratory attacks. The packet capture itself was conducted using an amplified USB dongle called the Crazyradio PA[6], which is more commonly used on open-source drones and for which Bastille developed custom firmware and software to communicate with the keyboards vulnerable to KeySniffer.

Black Hat USA returns to the fabulous Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, Nevada July 30 through Aug. 4, 2016. Click for information on the conference schedule and to register.

According to researchers, this vulnerability fortunately does not affect Bluetooth and higher-end wireless keyboards, including those from Logitech, Dell, and Lenovo, none of which were impacted. However, the bad news is that keyboards that are susceptible to KeySniffer cannot be upgraded and the risk can only be mitigated by replacing them.

This vulnerability discovery by Bastille is the second peripheral attack found by the firm in five months. The first was MouseJack, a similar flaw in non-Bluetooth mouse devices that also had them transmitting information in the clear.

Related Content:

 

 

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
7 Tips for Infosec Pros Considering A Lateral Career Move
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2020
For Mismanaged SOCs, The Price Is Not Right
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
IT 2020: A Look Ahead
Are you ready for the critical changes that will occur in 2020? We've compiled editor insights from the best of our network (Dark Reading, Data Center Knowledge, InformationWeek, ITPro Today and Network Computing) to deliver to you a look at the trends, technologies, and threats that are emerging in the coming year. Download it today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-8003
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
A double-free vulnerability in vrend_renderer.c in virglrenderer through 0.8.1 allows attackers to cause a denial of service by triggering texture allocation failure, because vrend_renderer_resource_allocated_texture is not an appropriate place for a free.
CVE-2019-20427
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
In the Lustre file system before 2.12.3, the ptlrpc module has a buffer overflow and panic, and possibly remote code execution, due to the lack of validation for specific fields of packets sent by a client. Interaction between req_capsule_get_size and tgt_brw_write leads to a tgt_shortio2pages integ...
CVE-2019-20428
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
In the Lustre file system before 2.12.3, the ptlrpc module has an out-of-bounds read and panic due to the lack of validation for specific fields of packets sent by a client. The ldl_request_cancel function mishandles a large lock_count parameter.
CVE-2019-20429
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
In the Lustre file system before 2.12.3, the ptlrpc module has an out-of-bounds read and panic (via a modified lm_bufcount field) due to the lack of validation for specific fields of packets sent by a client. This is caused by interaction between sptlrpc_svc_unwrap_request and lustre_msg_hdr_size_v2...
CVE-2019-20430
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
In the Lustre file system before 2.12.3, the mdt module has an LBUG panic (via a large MDT Body eadatasize field) due to the lack of validation for specific fields of packets sent by a client.