palowireless
          Bluetooth Resource Center


Advanced search


palowireless
Wireless
Bluetooth WPAN Specs Specifications RF Intro

Bluetooth
Access Points
Antennas
Articles
Audio
Bluejacking
Car Kits
Cathal's Corner
Consultants
Design Tools
Dev Tools
Downloads
FAQ
Forums
Glossary
Headsets
InfoTooth
News
Phones
Printers
Products
Profiles
Research
Security
Shop
SIG
Software
Technology
Testing
Training
Tutorial
USB
WLANs & BT

Protocol Stack Analyzers Testing Security





 
wireless

Members

Member:

Password:

Forgot your
password?


New Member
palowireless
 
CATHAL'S CORNER    Cathal Mc Daid
March 2001

Bluetooth Security - Evaluation & Conclusion

Bluetooth security 3 Nothing has caused more concern and confusion in Bluetooth than the nature of Bluetooth security implementation. From those who insist that its security is a disaster area, prey to any half-capable opportunist, to the contrary view that’s its security is second to none. The nature of its microwave link, as opposed to a fixed cable connection means that it is especially vulnerable to attack. We examine the nature of the security features implemented and their effectiveness.

 

    As shown in parts 1 & 2 of this article, Bluetooth has a comprehensive set of security features, at both upper and lower levels. However for all of it's security features, Bluetooth does have some security issues. These have been thorough documented elsewhere, most notably in [3]. The following is a list of the major outstanding problems:

 

Known Problems

    The major problem is likely to be a partial user one. The atypical 4-digit PIN code, is used in combination with other variables to generate the Link Key and Encryption Key. In fact it is the only truly secret key generation variable, the only one (a random number) is transmitted over the air. Add to this the fact that the same PIN has to be inputted in both Bluetooth devices to initialize a secure connection. Obviously users are going to get sick of this, and either store the PIN within both devices, or use an easy to remember number ('0000') being the obvious example. Thus the PIN code is subject to a litany of attacks

    One way to solve this would to use the option of the longer 16 octet PIN code, or a key exchange system.

    Another problem arises with the use of the Link key. Authentication and encryption are based on the assumption that the link key is the participants' shared secret. All other information used in the procedures is generally public.  However this can lead to fundamental problems:

  1. Assume that devices A and B use A's unit key as their link key.
  2. Later on, or at the same time, device C may communicate with device A and use A's unit key as the link key.
  3. B uses A's Link key to decrypt the communication between A & C

Bluetooth Security Link Key

    As shown above, device B, having obtained A's unit key earlier, can use the unit key with a faked BD_ADDR (see below) to calculate the encryption key and therefore listen to the traffic. It can also authenticate itself to device A as device C and to device C as device A. This attack is not as easy as it's sounds though, and requires some work, but was shown to be possible by Lucent Technologies - Bell Labs [8].

  • Spoofing Bluetooth Device Address (BD_ADDR)

    The Bluetooth Device Address, is unique to each and every Bluetooth device. However due to its uniqueness it introduces another problem. Once this ID is associated with a person, individuals can be traced and their activities easily logged, thus privacy is violated.

 

Realistic Bluetooth Security Expectations & the Future

    All of these problems might lead one to believe that Bluetooth security is highly suspect, however one major factors :The nature of the data being transmitted across the Bluetooth link, is often not taken into account

    Bluetooth was never originally designed for truly sensitive data transmission. Bluetooth is not a true competitor of WLAN (such as IEEE 802.11), where security is paramount, but rather Bluetooth was intended to form PANs (Personal Area Networks), where security is desirable but not absolutely essential, as shown by Bluetooth's goal to facilitate for cordless applications instead of being used for networking purposes.

    In this case, who would really want to intercept your mp3 transfer ? Also one fact rarely mentioned is that the range for Bluetooth is only 10 meters (for the standard popular power class), and in a real environment, the range is most likely shortened to 5 meters, in this case a hacker is across the room from you, a bit closer that most hackers have been observed.

    However it seems that due to the apparent Bluetooth success and uptake, it is being extended to become a higher end wireless standard (such as multimedia transmission), and become a real competitor to WLAN. To accommodate this one could either seek to improve existing security or implement new versions. Both are being pursued:

  • Improving Existing Security: Users requiring stalwart protection are encouraged to use stronger security mechanisms available in network transport protocols and application programs. i.e to use Security Mode 2 (Service Security), the security protocols on adopted protocols, such as PPP, and security application designed to improve general or specific security.
  • Implement New Security: There is no getting away from the fact that no matter how more secured transmission can be made in the application level, Bluetooth still has the fundamental problems as featured above. If the Bluetooth SIG is pushing Bluetooth towards 2 and 10Mbit speeds, evidently in opposition to 802.11, then it must also be working on security comparable to 802.11, rather than being exposed as a 'poor man's' version of WLAN  

 

Conclusion

    It seems (to me at least), that Bluetooth has come into a lot of undeserving attack, from those who assume its security is not up to the job. The problem here is that that the job in question is not shared by all. If the required use for Bluetooth is to transmit highly confidential data between your Bluetooth-enabled mobile phone and a credit card machine, then perhaps more rigorous security is needed (nevermind that you're much more likely to be ripped off by nefarious store clerks taking credit card details, rather than devious technical masterminds struggling to crack your codes).

    However if you're simply want access to a Bluetooth equipped building, or browse the web, then the level of security on Bluetooth is perfectly adequate. No method of communicate is entirely safe, if a malicious entity wishes to obtain information there is always the possibility it will succeed. The most we can do is make its as difficult as possible,and Bluetooth in it's current state is quite capable to resist most attacks. However its security does have some major issues, and thus Bluetooth should not generally be used to transmit highly confidential/sensitive data, unless the above issues are corrected.

 

With thanks to Vincent Ma

 

References:

[1] Bluetooth, The Bluetooth Specification, v.1.1 http://www.bluetooth.com/dev/specifications.asp

[2] Müller T., Bluetooth Security Architecture, 1999-07-15
http://www.bluetooth.com/developer/download/download.asp?doc=174

[3] Vainio J., Bluetooth Security, 2000-05-25
http://www.niksula.cs.hut.fi/~jiitv/bluesec.html

[4] InfoTooth Knowledge Base
http://www.palowireless.com/infotooth/knowbase.asp

[5] Träskbäck M, Security in Bluetooth: An overview of Bluetooth security, 2000-11-2
http://www.cs.hut.fi/Opinnot/Tik-86.174/Bluetooth_Security.pdf

[6] Ullgren T.  Security in Bluetooth: Key management in Bluetooth
http://www.cs.hut.fi/Opinnot/Tik-86.174/sectopics.html

[7] Sutherland E. Bluetooth has Security Issues that cannot be Ignored, 2000-11-28 http://www.mcommercetimes.com/Technology/41

[8] Jakobsson M., Wetzel S. Security Weakness in Bluetooth: RSA 2001 http://www.bell-labs.com/user/markusj/bt.html

 

 Security Part 1  |  Security Part 2  |  Security Part 3  |  Cathal's Corner  |   Bluetooth Articles