When we do defcon, Bluetooth is one of the easiest protocols to take control of. It’s funny. It’s also easy to spoof, easy to mess with, and generally very insecure.
I’m curious, what about Bluetooth makes it insecure? Is it that vendors create insecure implementations, like Android, or is it a human issue like connecting to things by default? I recall the Bluetooth spec being unbelievably complex and verbose, which obviously increases risk and makes it harder to audit, but it doesn’t get many updates, and I don’t recall seeing many issues with the spec itself. I mean it’s not like it’s fixing a CVE every quarter like with netty packages.
Its more complex than I can talk about here in any kind of depth, but it comes down to it being a very old protocol. It has known security issues that are just not fixed as it would break backwards compatibility with a lot of devices. So the same issues that were chosen to not be fixed are still out there. You can, with very little effort, take control of just about any Bluetooth device(or partial). Or at least knock it out if commission.
It’s too complicated. Bluetooth is complicated. It tries to do way too much, and not even the experts can implement it in a consistent fashion because different Bluetooth stacks are forced to make assumptions where the specification is unclear.
When you have a large, complex, and poorly designed specification, you’re going to get bugs. The main limiting factor has been the short range of Bluetooth preventing widespread exploitation.
When we do defcon, Bluetooth is one of the easiest protocols to take control of. It’s funny. It’s also easy to spoof, easy to mess with, and generally very insecure.
was at 37c3 and people were constantly spamming BLE pairing requests lmao
I’m curious, what about Bluetooth makes it insecure? Is it that vendors create insecure implementations, like Android, or is it a human issue like connecting to things by default? I recall the Bluetooth spec being unbelievably complex and verbose, which obviously increases risk and makes it harder to audit, but it doesn’t get many updates, and I don’t recall seeing many issues with the spec itself. I mean it’s not like it’s fixing a CVE every quarter like with netty packages.
Its more complex than I can talk about here in any kind of depth, but it comes down to it being a very old protocol. It has known security issues that are just not fixed as it would break backwards compatibility with a lot of devices. So the same issues that were chosen to not be fixed are still out there. You can, with very little effort, take control of just about any Bluetooth device(or partial). Or at least knock it out if commission.
It’s too complicated. Bluetooth is complicated. It tries to do way too much, and not even the experts can implement it in a consistent fashion because different Bluetooth stacks are forced to make assumptions where the specification is unclear.
When you have a large, complex, and poorly designed specification, you’re going to get bugs. The main limiting factor has been the short range of Bluetooth preventing widespread exploitation.