Encryption made for police and military radios may be easily cracked
180 points
14 hours ago
| 16 comments
| wired.com
| HN
https://archive.ph/5GMa5
WrongOnInternet
9 hours ago
[-]
Kevin Mitnick figured out how to get around police radio encryption in the 90's. From 'Ghost in the Wires': "Whenever I heard any hiss of communication, I’d hold down my Transmit button. That would send out a radio signal on the same exact frequency, which would jam the signal. Then the second agent wouldn’t be able to hear the first agent’s transmission. After two or three tries back and forth, the agents would get frustrated with the radio. I could imagine one of them saying something like, “Something’s wrong with the radio. Let’s go in the clear.” They’d throw a switch on their radios to take them out of encryption mode, and I’d be able to hear both sides of the conversation! Even today I’m amused to remember how easy it was to work around that encryption without even cracking the code."
reply
HexPhantom
6 minutes ago
[-]
It's a perfect example of why security is never just about the algorithm
reply
jvanderbot
7 hours ago
[-]
That is the most 90s story I've heard. Nowadays you'd be shot.
reply
tptacek
8 hours ago
[-]
It's an odd story, since until pretty recently most North American police radio was plaintext to begin with.
reply
Sanzig
5 hours ago
[-]
The first P25 standards came out in 1989, so encrypted police radios were certainly starting to be deployed in the early 90s. Obviously, adoption rate depended on the department budget, with many rural departments taking until the 2010s to finally switch.
reply
WrongOnInternet
7 hours ago
[-]
I should have said FBI radio encryption. I wonder if the technique would still work today...
reply
extraduder_ire
3 hours ago
[-]
If the user can fallback to not using encryption and that solves a problem they think they have, enough annoyance will make them do so. It's the entire reason HSTS exists.
reply
daveevad
6 hours ago
[-]
> hiss of communication

Allow me to speculate massively. Hiss sounds more like weak signal acquisition. Perhaps in this case, Mitnick was interfering but not defeating encryption.

reply
WrongOnInternet
4 hours ago
[-]
A bit more from the book (which is a great read, and available in it's entirety on archive.org): "To enable its agents to communicate over greater distances, the government had installed “repeaters” at high elevations to relay the signals. The agents’ radios transmitted on one frequency and received on another; the repeaters had an input frequency to receive the agents’ transmissions, and an output frequency that the agents listened on. When I wanted to know if an agent was nearby, I simply monitored the signal strength on the repeater’s input frequency. That setup enabled me to play a little game. Whenever I heard any hiss of communication..."
reply
user3939382
8 hours ago
[-]
Not IA
reply
eru
7 hours ago
[-]
What's IA?
reply
loeg
6 hours ago
[-]
Internal Affairs? But I'm not sure why that's relevant to encryption or Mitnick.
reply
user3939382
3 hours ago
[-]
I have heard of them having stricter radio protocols which strikes me as sensible
reply
WrongOnInternet
5 hours ago
[-]
Intelligence Agencies
reply
mindcrime
10 hours ago
[-]
For anyone who's curious, the closest equivalent in the US is P25[1] or "Project 25". And if you're wondering, yes, P25 systems have been known to have their own share of vulnerabilities of various sorts. My favorite one[2] is the one that lets an attacker force a P25 radio to broadcast tokens "on demand" allow you to (theoretically, with the right receiving setup and software) track the location of P25 radios more or less in real-time.

And on a related note, for anyone who is interested in listening in on any local P25 transmissions, you can do so in a fairly inexpensive manner, using an RTL-SDR dongle and the Open Source op25[3] software package. No listening to encrypted traffic, but IME, many (maybe most) public safety agencies keep most of their traffic in the clear. More so for fire/ems traffic. Law enforcement is more likely to be encrypted, but even then, I find that many jurisdictions only encrypt a small number of channels, like maybe a dedicated vice/narc squad channel, SWAT team channel, etc. General LE dispatch and tac channels are still in the clear in many areas.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_25

[2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/tacticalgear/comments/1f4d5dr/psa_p...

[3]: https://github.com/boatbod/op25

reply
theoreticalmal
8 hours ago
[-]
I wonder if it would be illegal to employ this method. Tracking law enforcement isn’t explicitly illegal, right?
reply
mindcrime
8 hours ago
[-]
It's an active attack (requires you to transmit traffic to trick the radio into sending the response beacons) so at the very least you'd almost certainly be in violation of some FCC regs. So the charge might not be "tracking law enforcement" but rather would be "illegally transmitting on a public safety frequency without a license" or something along those lines. And if somebody got caught doing this, I'm reasonably sure they'd find a way to pile on a few more charges as well.

And note that since it is an active attack that requires the attacker to transmit, it opens up the possibility of the attacker giving up their own location in turn.

My take is that it's fun to think about, but largely lacking in real world applicability in most situations.

reply
privatelypublic
8 hours ago
[-]
Transmitting on spectrum you don't have a license for- especially when the government WILL cast it as "interfering with emergency services" or just Big-T- very much is.
reply
eru
7 hours ago
[-]
What's 'Big-T'?
reply
mindcrime
7 hours ago
[-]
Terrorism
reply
privatelypublic
6 hours ago
[-]
Yup. And I'll note phrasing it the way I did is openly derisive of its overuse by law enforcement.
reply
sam1r
2 hours ago
[-]
That’s quite the private phrase to be presenting publicly.
reply
gloyoyo
7 hours ago
[-]
The local PD in my area has/had the laptops in their vehicles set to ad-hoc mode, and each broadcast static MAC addresses in the open, and could simply be looked up on the Wigle database. At about 100-yards, you could pick up the broadcast on any phone, and it would be trivial for someone to deduce that you could setup an active monitor w/ alerts for when these specific MAC addresses were present in a designated area, let alone what a distributed monitoring/alert effort would be capable of...
reply
HexPhantom
3 minutes ago
[-]
What's wild is how often agencies spend millions on comms gear and security tools, but overlook basics like this
reply
mindcrime
6 hours ago
[-]
a distributed monitoring/alert effort would be capable of...

Thinking out loud... an RTL-SDR dongle costs like $35.00 or so (well maybe more now due to tariffs, I haven't bought one in a while), plenty of relevant software is open source (GNURadio etc.), drones are cheap, small solar panels are fairly inexpensive. Hmm... I almost think a motivated individual (or small group of individuals) could piece together a rather capable "distributed monitoring/alert" system.

Not that I'm encouraging anyone to do such a thing, of course.

reply
BobaFloutist
6 hours ago
[-]
I don't even know that it's explicitly illegal. Google maps is allowed to warn you about speed traps.
reply
mindcrime
6 hours ago
[-]
I agree, it probably isn't really explicitly illegal. But if one put together such a thing, depending on how they decided to use it, I have a hunch that the State would find something to charge them with. I'll resist the temptation to say more, to avoid going too overtly political here.
reply
gloyoyo
6 hours ago
[-]
I'm pretty sure it's not outside of the range of ANYONE to whip up in a fortnight, and have distributed near instantaneously.

If anything, it's the most basic of "wireless site survey" applications.

reply
NitpickLawyer
2 hours ago
[-]
> an RTL-SDR dongle costs like $35.00 or so

FuzzyDunlop has graduated to HissyMarconi in The Wire season 12 :)

reply
tptacek
13 hours ago
[-]
The funny thing about this is that my municipality just recently started encrypting their radios at all. And it was controversial! Residents liked being able to listen in to the scanners.
reply
HexPhantom
2 minutes ago
[-]
And yeah, the scanner culture thing is real
reply
LeoPanthera
11 hours ago
[-]
> Residents liked being able to listen in to the scanners.

They're a public service funded by taxpayer dollars. Knowing what they're doing seems reasonable.

reply
hypercube33
10 hours ago
[-]
Many many years ago a buddy of mine loved listening to the scanners.

One evening we are on AIM chatting and he explains what is going on: noise complaint at a house down the block (kids partying)

He looks the address up and calls them to warn them and sits back to see if they do anything.

sounds like they managed to bail before anyone showed up to the address.

reply
baby_souffle
10 hours ago
[-]
Not all heros wear capes. Some of them keep their ears glued to the scanners...
reply
zdragnar
9 hours ago
[-]
Now replace "kids" with gangs and other organized crime, and it makes a little more sense why they'd want to encrypt it.
reply
radicaldreamer
8 hours ago
[-]
Gangs and organized crime have more sophisticated ways of avoid law enforcement
reply
tptacek
8 hours ago
[-]
Do they? What are they?
reply
radicaldreamer
8 hours ago
[-]
Bribery is a common one, counterintelligence is another, compromising people who are investigating them (or their family members)
reply
defrost
7 hours ago
[-]
Along with radicaldreamer suggestions it's also common to be really effective at stonewalling police while on secure wire cameras with audio recording and to have very good criminal lawyers on retainer. Also having patches and wannabes who are prepared to scapegoat themselves.

This isn't so much directly evading law enforcement but it's effective as it can easily cause police take actions that cause evidence and cases to be thrown out, raise reasonable doubt, etc.

Depleting resources and diversions are also relatively common, creating a 'fake' public threat or hate crime to investigate bleeds police resources away from ongoing investigations, etc.

The tango between gang squads and organized criminal groups is an ongoing escalating battle. The EncroPhone transcripts revealed a lot.

reply
chillingeffect
9 hours ago
[-]
...so the gangs will continue the crimes?
reply
zdragnar
7 hours ago
[-]
So the organization can't alert each other when they hear one of their locations or operations on dispatch.
reply
lukan
7 hours ago
[-]
Huh?

In europe when the police comes to a loud party, they come and tell the people to please be more silent. (And if it is just minor kids, ask for a adult) So if the party dispersed in panic before they even arrive .. problem solved fpr them?

Or does the US police busts loud parties gun blazing in general?

reply
throw-qqqqq
1 hour ago
[-]
> Or does the US police busts loud parties gun blazing in general?

Nah, but lots of these parties have kids below than 21 (or whatever the legal drinking age is). So they get fined or arrested if caught so they leg it.

A friend attended a Chicago-suburb high school for a year (exchange student). Said he had to run from cops at private parties about a handful of times in that year, and that it was pretty normal in his group.

reply
sokoloff
7 hours ago
[-]
Many times they’ll take an interest in underage drinking or recreational drug use, which the party attendees might prefer they didn’t get tagged for.
reply
SoftTalker
7 hours ago
[-]
Also depends on which neighborhood and whose house it is.
reply
tptacek
11 hours ago
[-]
reply
beambot
9 hours ago
[-]
Oversight & accountability are different from operational security.

Leaving the radios unencrypted merely lends advantage to more-sophisticated bad actors.

reply
protocolture
9 hours ago
[-]
Its literally opsec for the bad actors, the cops, to more effectively terrorise the civilian population.
reply
LeoPanthera
9 hours ago
[-]
But in the USA there is ample evidence that the police are often bad actors.
reply
mulmen
7 hours ago
[-]
How does one perform oversight of a police department if the comms are encrypted? Do I FOIA all the communications? How specific does that request have to be? Are the comms even recorded? How long are they retained? What happens when the recordings are "lost"?
reply
jMyles
9 hours ago
[-]
...I'd like to see evidence for that claim.

Much more likely is that the opacity of encryption lends advantage to the unsophisticated bad actors (ie, the 'official' ones).

I think most of us, at least in the USA, are far more ready to take our chances with these hypothetical sophisticated bad actors than to reduce the real-time transparency of verified ones.

reply
nonameiguess
12 hours ago
[-]
I'll never forget 8 years ago someone managed to set off every tornado siren in Dallas for an entire Friday night, apparently because they're controlled by radio and the control signal was not encrypted, so the "hacker" just recorded it during a real alert and then played it back to attack the system.
reply
bilegeek
9 hours ago
[-]
The majority of EAS equipment responds this way. That's why the tones are so strictly regulated on broadcasts.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-758A1.pdf

reply
andrewflnr
11 hours ago
[-]
That might still work even with encryption, if they don't specifically prevent replay attacks.
reply
lazide
12 hours ago
[-]
Previously you could hear what was going on in town - a degree of transparency around police.

Now you can’t. For better or worse, eh?

reply
tptacek
11 hours ago
[-]
Yeah, it's complicated! Europe goes the other way on this, apparently, so much so that it's headline news when someone comes up with cryptographic attacks on their police radios. Here, on the other hand, people committing crimes can (or could, a few months ago) just listen on their iPhones to see if anybody is on to them.

The City of Chicago makes decrypted audio available, just on a 30 minute delay. That's a sane compromise, I think.

reply
eru
7 hours ago
[-]
> The City of Chicago makes decrypted audio available, just on a 30 minute delay. That's a sane compromise, I think.

It sounds sane! Though I wonder if like body cams the decrypted channel will have mysterious malfunctions every so often when anything interesting happens?

reply
stevage
9 hours ago
[-]
That's a great compromise.
reply
mulmen
7 hours ago
[-]
Seems reasonable on the surface. Has anyone ever audited this? Are there gaps in the recordings? If the PD fails to reproduce the recordings what are the consequences?
reply
lazide
1 hour ago
[-]
If it ‘helps’, every police force was already using personal text messages/signal/etc for sensitive calls and discussions anyway.
reply
jMyles
9 hours ago
[-]
At some point, this needs to turn a corner into real-time resistance, and massive community presence to assist regular people in asserting their rights.

A 30-minute delay crushes that.

reply
tptacek
8 hours ago
[-]
Most communities are far more victimized by property crime than they are by the police. Anti-police activists tend to premise their arguments on the idea that everybody opposes police intervention, but read transcripts of neighborhood meetings in Black neighborhoods: the more common complaint is that the police aren't responding and aren't taking their complaints seriously.
reply
mulmen
7 hours ago
[-]
Does a 30 minute delay assist the police in preventing or responding to property crime?
reply
tptacek
7 hours ago
[-]
Yes? The concern is people committing crimes with the scanner playing waiting to see if the police are on to them.

I don't care one way or another, but it's silly to say there's no actual concern there, I think.

reply
mulmen
5 hours ago
[-]
So the bad guys scope out a Hyundai or whatever and then listen to the scanner for a while until they're confident there are no cops in the area and then steal the car? Is it feasible to call in a distraction and listen for that?

I'm not saying there's no concern. I'm just not sure if this 30 min delay is as effective as it sounds at first glance. My gut reaction has been wrong enough times in my life that I have gotten in the habit of challenging my own assumptions.

reply
lazide
1 hour ago
[-]
Criminals generally don’t have that type of impulse control. Ain’t nobody waiting 30 minutes to decide if they’re going to steal a Hyundai.
reply
throwawayoldie
9 hours ago
[-]
Boston?
reply
cptskippy
11 hours ago
[-]
San Diego?
reply
ronsor
13 hours ago
[-]
And now they're going to be unencrypted again, but not by choice!
reply
tptacek
12 hours ago
[-]
No, this story is about TETRA radios, which are used in Europe; I'm in Chicago, on Motorola's STARCOM (P25), which is ostensibly AES (it wouldn't be shocking to find vulnerabilities; in fact shocking not to, but it won't be as crazy as TETRA, which freelanced its entire encryption stack).
reply
colmmacc
12 hours ago
[-]
I listened to your great podcast and the remark along the lines of "unencrypted police comms let the robbers know when the police are getting close" made me wonder if anyone has built a simple signal intensity detector for the encrypted radios. You don't need to hear the contents to know that the radios are closing in on you. I can't imagine police forces practice RF silence like special forces do.

It really would be better to hide in the noise of 5G.

reply
mystraline
12 hours ago
[-]
I have a BT scanner app for my phone. "BLE Radar".

I have a detection on there for the MAC address "00:25:DF:*". That's the MAC OUI prefix for Taser International.

I keep it on while driving, because the badgecams and hardware in cop cars spurts this out regularly. So even unmarked cars show themselves.

reply
jasonjayr
12 hours ago
[-]
https://www.krakenrf.com/

For about $700, you can get some pre-made kit to use SDR to do Radio direction finding. IIRC this device uses the same chips as a RTL-SDR, but it uses 4-5 of them, all synchronized and has a signal emitter for calibration, and a nice web ui to report the data.

(I have not used it, but I've been learning about all sorts of neat radio products as I'm dabling and learning about SDR)

reply
nullc
11 hours ago
[-]
No current ability to track trunked radio units, though arguably thats 'just a software problem'.

I have one and have found it to be quite easy to hunt down ham repeaters that you can get to transmit more or less non-stop... but relatively hard to use for intermittent transmitters.

I need to see if I can figure out how to plub in my GNSS compass output because inferring orientation from motion requires an awful lot of moving around and is less reliable than I'd like.

reply
buildbot
12 hours ago
[-]
I’ve long wanted to do this with an SDR and maybe some simple ML, build a dataset by driving by cars/things with frequencies of interest.

Now I wonder if you can fingerprint antennas…

reply
dumah
12 hours ago
[-]
You can fingerprint transmitters.

Antennas would be much more difficult and likely moot.

https://arxiv.org/html/2402.06250v1

reply
mindcrime
9 hours ago
[-]
Some transmitters have such a distinct sound that you can identify them with just your unassisted human hearing. Back in my firefighting days, I remember that certain trucks or stations had transmitters where you could identify them from the half second or so of "hum" between the time somebody keyed up the mic and the time they started talking. Using ML / signal processing stuff on a computer, yeah, you can probably get pretty fine grained at discriminating these things.
reply
nullc
11 hours ago
[-]
> the remark along the lines of "unencrypted police comms let the robbers know when the police are getting close"

Criminals sophisticated enough to do that are usually not going to get caught regardless, encryption or no and are generally savvy enough to not make themselves a serious threat to public comfort and order.

I don't think its a long reach to say that the public may be better off with more ability to monitor police activity at a cost of being weaker against that kind of criminal.

reply
tptacek
11 hours ago
[-]
I think that was truer 15 years ago, but every criminal now carries a police scanner with them (in the form a phone), and the residents in my area who most avidly follow police scanners are not the most technical people in the area.

(Having said all that, our muni voted against encrypting radios; we lost 2-1 in a vote with the 2 other munis we share dispatch with).

Unless you're talking about criminals doing traffic analytic RF attacks, in which case, I agree, who cares?

reply
raggi
8 hours ago
[-]
"which is ostensibly AES" in the 5% or less of deployments that turn that on

Both of the systems are crap, when we were evaluating them for nationwide purchase we chose TETRA because of systemic safety features (like local DMO handover modes for public safety use in noisy environments), but when I read their crypto choices I made screwy faces constantly, I wasn't in the slightest bit surprised when this research came out.

I remember at the time some ex signals military folks trying to tell me that the encryption barely matters as the channel selection rate is so high you'd need multi-site intercepts to even make heads of tails of it, sadly they didn't really seem to understand how far SDR and compute has come. The whole experience to this day flavors a lot how I think about military and telco thinking around the whole space, everything touching that boundary feels infected with oldthink.

reply
fc417fc802
30 minutes ago
[-]
> everything touching that boundary feels infected with oldthink.

I'd guess that's due to the expense of the equipment and all the regulations coupled with the lack of immediate usefulness to a casual hobbyist. Without the sort of vibrant wild west ecosystem that FOSS provides innovation happens much more slowly and most of the participants will be entrenched.

reply
HexPhantom
18 minutes ago
[-]
This is what happens when security is treated like a checklist item instead of a core requirement
reply
genocidicbunny
12 hours ago
[-]
Huh, I was catching up on DEFCON videos recently, and just earlier this morning watched the talk about Tetra. How serendipitous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGINoIYQwak

reply
drewnick
13 hours ago
[-]
Note this affects TETRA which is not used in North America. Most US systems use P25 which is not mentioned in the article.
reply
LeoPanthera
11 hours ago
[-]
Northern California services use P25 but with encryption turned off. They also have analogue repeaters. Presumably because that way they can still use old radios and don't have to worry about key rotation.

The audio quality on the analogue signal is a lot better than the P25 version, which is often harder to understand.

reply
kotaKat
13 hours ago
[-]
Not like there’s not enough problems with P25… until the day they can deploy LLE (link-layer encryption) across all P25 systems, there will always be a way to gather some kind of intelligence about the system and its radio traffic.

(And the fact that it’s taking so long to implement link layer authorization, barely a scratch in the security dent…)

reply
tonetegeatinst
12 hours ago
[-]
I believe TETRA was already vulnerable to being broken based of some research that a group did into the protocol. They showed a proof video but didn't release any technical info or poc due to security fear.
reply
tamimio
10 hours ago
[-]
reply
theturtle
12 hours ago
[-]
Cool! Maybe all the apps and sites intended to let you keep track of what your local kopz are doing will work again!
reply
HexPhantom
30 seconds ago
[-]
Right? All it took was some deeply flawed encryption and a couple researchers pulling the thread
reply
anfractuosity
12 hours ago
[-]
Very interesting, curious how long it would take to brute force the 56 bit key, with something like a GPU/FPGA. It looks like hashcat supports DES, which is also 56 bit.
reply
dokyun
11 hours ago
[-]
> The flaws remained unknown publicly until their disclosure, because ETSI refused for decades to let anyone examine the proprietary algorithms.

Got what they asked for.

reply
fortran77
3 hours ago
[-]
Good. I used to listen to police calls in the US. I don’t like the fact that my police is now the “secret police” with encrypted digits radios.
reply
drumhead
12 hours ago
[-]
I mean, in this day and age is it such a bad thing that police and military radio is crackable?
reply
dist-epoch
13 hours ago
[-]
Is it still illegal in Europe to buy radios with 128 bit encryption?
reply
cluckindan
13 hours ago
[-]
As in TETRA? Probably not, as SDRs are widely available anyway, as are scanners capable of decrypting TETRA traffic.

You do need authorization to buy a transmitter though, at least where I live.

reply
dist-epoch
13 hours ago
[-]
I meant like hand-held walkie talkies. But with 128 bit encryption.

Weird it's regulated, given you can use mobile phones like that (sure, you need coverage).

reply
kevin_thibedeau
9 hours ago
[-]
Mobile phones are backdoored and trackable by default.
reply
extraduder_ire
3 hours ago
[-]
I think on most public bands here, transmitting with encryption of any kind is banned regardless of the strength.
reply
sneak
10 hours ago
[-]
I think what you may be thinking of is the export from the US of strong encryption products under ITAR. It was challenged by djb (of qmail/djbdns fame, among many other things) and the result was roughly that publishing software is protected expression like any other publishing (prior to that it was classified as munitions and required an export license).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States

reply
GauntletWizard
13 hours ago
[-]
It's still illegal to point out that the emperor has no clothes
reply
mystraline
12 hours ago
[-]
Its also illegal to report hospitals that post PHI (protected health information) over POCSAG or FLEX - pager networks. Of course, theres no encryption or anything. The encoding is plain text.

Yes, it is also illegal to post PHI over pagers, due to HIPAA addendum in 2016.

But 1986 ECPA law forbids decoding pager messages unless they were intended for you.

reply
eitland
12 hours ago
[-]
> You’ve read your last free article.

Haven't read a Wired article in months :-|

And thanks to poster for adding archive link.

reply
robterrell
12 hours ago
[-]
Wired is killing it with great reporting this year. Worth subscribing and supporting.
reply
kstrauser
12 hours ago
[-]
I've done that. It seemed like Wired got lost on the road for a while, but lately they're back with a vengeance, which I'm delighted to see (and to support).
reply