News: Encrypted GSM Voice Calls & SMS Messages Hacked in Minutes

Uh oh. Don't be doing any telephone banking or credit card ordering on
your GSM phone.

"A pair of researchers has created a low-cost and simple hack to crack
the encryption in GSM mobile phones and intercept voice conversations
and SMS text messages -- within minutes."

http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=146616

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47be0f7e$0$36330$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Uh oh. Don't be doing any telephone banking or credit card ordering on
> your GSM phone.


Why not? We used to do it on unencrypted analog cordless and cellphones all
the time. We simply relied on the law of averages- while it was POSSIBLE
our calls were being monitored, it was extremely UNLIKELY they were.

> "A pair of researchers has created a low-cost and simple hack to crack the
> encryption in GSM mobile phones and intercept voice conversations and SMS
> text messages -- within minutes."
>
> http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=146616

Low cost and simple? A thousand bucks for a dedicated piece of hardware?

"Low cost and simple" was cutting a diode on your RadioShack police scanner
to re-enable the locked-out 800-MHz analog cellular band. This is neither
low cost nor simple.

And BTW, why cross-post to five different carriers' NGs when we have a
perfectly good "generic" NG- alt.cellular- for topics applicable to all
cellphone users?

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Why not? We used to do it on unencrypted analog cordless and cellphones
> all the time. We simply relied on the law of averages- while it was
> POSSIBLE our calls were being monitored, it was extremely UNLIKELY they
> were.

Not me, at least on analog cellular. I had picked up analog cellular
calls on my SW radio (at least half of the conversation) and that
convinced me to be cautious. For cordless phones the danger was a bit
less as you'd have had to be so close to the handset in order to pick it up.

> And BTW, why cross-post to five different carriers' NGs when we have a
> perfectly good "generic" NG- alt.cellular- for topics applicable to all
> cellphone users?

It's applicable to these carriers. The alt.cellular group isn't well used.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:35 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>It's applicable to these carriers. The alt.cellular group isn't well used.

Don't post GSM crap in the Verizon, Sprint or Alltel newsgroups. Last
I checked, we use CDMA, which is much more secure! :)

Diamond Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:35 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It's applicable to these carriers. The alt.cellular group isn't well used.
>
> Don't post GSM crap in the Verizon, Sprint or Alltel newsgroups. Last
> I checked, we use CDMA, which is much more secure! :)

Yes, this is true. But it's still applicable, IMVAIO, because at least
it presents one valid issue that those CDMA users should consider if
they are considering switching carriers.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47be16be$0$36342$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

>> Why not? We used to do it on unencrypted analog cordless and cellphones
>> all the time. We simply relied on the law of averages- while it was
>> POSSIBLE our calls were being monitored, it was extremely UNLIKELY they
>> were.
>
> Not me, at least on analog cellular. I had picked up analog cellular calls
> on my SW radio (at least half of the conversation) and that convinced me
> to be cautious. For cordless phones the danger was a bit less as you'd
> have had to be so close to the handset in order to pick it up.

I guess. I knew such eavesdropping was possible, but it wasn't widespread.
After all, credit card fraud is too easy to blame it on an overheard
cellular conversation. Every waiter or store clear I hand my card to
"overhears" it.


>> And BTW, why cross-post to five different carriers' NGs when we have a
>> perfectly good "generic" NG- alt.cellular- for topics applicable to all
>> cellphone users?
>
> It's applicable to these carriers. The alt.cellular group isn't well used.

Catch-22- it's not "well used" because we're posting generic cellular info
to five other NGs! I'm just as guilty, at least sort of- I was going to
post the Voicestick stuff to the alt.cellular NG but used the carrier NGs
instead because I thought you'd be interested, and since I couldn't find a
single posting from you in the alt.cellular group, I assumed you didn't read
it! ;-)

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:58:56 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Diamond Dave wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:35 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's applicable to these carriers. The alt.cellular group isn't well used.
>>
>> Don't post GSM crap in the Verizon, Sprint or Alltel newsgroups. Last
>> I checked, we use CDMA, which is much more secure! :)
>
>Yes, this is true. But it's still applicable, IMVAIO, because at least
>it presents one valid issue that those CDMA users should consider if
>they are considering switching carriers.

Perhaps, but it still makes you seem no better than Navas, Oxturd, or
Butler.

The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:58:56 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Diamond Dave wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:35 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's applicable to these carriers. The alt.cellular group isn't well used.
>>> Don't post GSM crap in the Verizon, Sprint or Alltel newsgroups. Last
>>> I checked, we use CDMA, which is much more secure! :)
>> Yes, this is true. But it's still applicable, IMVAIO, because at least
>> it presents one valid issue that those CDMA users should consider if
>> they are considering switching carriers.
>
> Perhaps, but it still makes you seem no better than Navas, Oxturd, or
> Butler.

Hmm, since I have all of them blocked I don't know what exactly you
mean. I only occasionally post links to any news stories, and only when
they are directly relevant to the specific newsgroup.

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:47be0f7e$0$36330
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Uh oh. Don't be doing any telephone banking or credit card ordering on
> your GSM phone.
>
> "A pair of researchers has created a low-cost and simple hack to crack
> the encryption in GSM mobile phones and intercept voice conversations
> and SMS text messages -- within minutes."
>
> http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=146616
>

Anything the cops can listen to....is insecure by design.

That's why there's Skype....(c;

2.3 Session Cryptography
All traffic in a session is encrypted by XORing the plaintext with key
stream generated by 256-bit AES (also known as Rijndael) running in integer
counter mode (ICM). The key used is SKAB. Skype sessions contain multiple
streams. The ICM counter depends on the stream, on salt, and the sequency
within the stream

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-02-22, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> That's why there's Skype....(c;

It's only 256 bits. It's crackable too.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol