ABUS Secvest Hybrid module (FUMO50110) suffers an authentication bypass vulnerability. The hybrid module does not have any security mechanism that ensures confidentiality or integrity of RF packets that are exchanged between the ABUS Secvest alarm panel and the ABUS Secvest Hybrid module. Thus, an attacker can spoof messages of the ABUS Secvest Hybrid module based on sniffed status RF packets that are issued by the ABUS Secvest Hybrid module on a regularly basis (~2.5 minutes).
a68c00c7fb616a3cbbfa44b0ab74d7e727e98d5025f0aa73c1c04de2a4b77175The wireless communication of the ABUS Secvest Wireless Control Device (FUBE50001) for transmitting sensitive data like PIN codes or IDs of used proximity chip keys (RFID tokens) is not encrypted.
c954871e4ce41c0235fc5678748e8f2021e5da793d086a13df9bd48b2b66af7cThomas Detert found out that the jamming detection of the ABUS alarm central does not detect short jamming signals that are shorter than normal ABUS RF messages. Thus, an attacker is able to perform a "reactive jamming" attack. The reactive jamming simply detects the start of a RF message sent by a component of the ABUS Secvest wireless alarm system, for instance a wireless motion detector (FUBW50000) or a remote control (FUBE50014 or FUBE50015), and overlays it with random data before the original RF message ends. Thereby, the receiver (alarm central) is not able to properly decode the original transmitted signal. This enables an attacker to suppress correctly received RF messages of the wireless alarm system in an unauthorized manner, for instance status messages sent by a detector indicating an intrusion. Version 3.01.01 is affected.
e98fe47d41ddf0ca24e6f78dac777943006f689fe3cefe75519fcbab7d77131dThomas Detert found out that the claimed "Encrypted signal transmission" of the Secvest wireless remote control FUBE50014 is not present and that the implemented rolling codes are predictable. By exploiting these two security issues, an attacker can simply desynchronize a wireless remote control by observing the current rolling code state, generating many valid rolling codes, and use them before the original wireless remote control. The Secvest wireless alarm system will ignore sent commands by the wireless remote control until the generated rolling code happens to match the window of valid rolling code values again. Depending on the number of used rolling codes by the attacker, a resynchronization without actually reconfiguring the wireless remote control could take quite a lot of time and effectless button presses. SySS found out that the new ABUS Secvest remote control FUBE50015 is also affected by this security vulnerability.
1e8bdcc2aac5543c46a47138bfd7aaeba7d32444b036b9f6db96a45e4987806aThomas Detert found out that the claimed "Encrypted signal transmission" of the Secvest wireless remote control FUBE50014 is not present at all. Thus, an attacker observing radio signals of an ABUS FUBE50014 wireless remote control is able to see all sensitive data of transmitted packets as cleartext and can analyze the used packet format and the communication protocol. For instance, this security issue could successfully be exploited to observe the current rolling code state of the wireless remote control and deduce the cryptographically weak used rolling code algorithm. SySS found out that the new ABUS Secvest remote control FUBE50015 is also affected by this security vulnerability.
4fb6b1bb33c005b26a8192228bc5ffdcbbcb440ba5889e85c120133752973a41Thomas Detert found out that the rolling codes implemented as replay protection in the radio communication protocol used by the ABUS Secvest wireless alarm system (FUAA50000) and its remote control (FUBE50014, FUB50015) is cryptographically weak.
92648a845f9e728c6b9724e16f7b0148e4f4b7d7c8d97744a46937db2cabc861
© 2022 Packet Storm. All rights reserved.
%7Cutmcsr%3D(direct)%7Cutmcmd%3D(none)){kind=small}
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Subscribe to an RSS Feed