[Ovmsdev] Registered phone / password security issue

Thu Jul 23 06:12:43 HKT 2015

Tom, Mark,

FYI: I can now confirm both security issues.

Setting the registered phone empty will allow access from any mobile
phone, and setting the password empty will allow using any password.

I've already included the fix, but now need to exclude some more
functions to make the Twizy build fit into the ROM space once again...
*sigh*

Regards,
Michael

Am 22.07.2015 um 13:18 schrieb Michael Balzer:
> Tom, Mark,
>
> I haven't tried myself, but the code is quite clear:
>
> https://github.com/openvehicles/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System/blob/master/vehicle/OVMS.X/net_sms.c#L237
>
> strlen(p) is 0 on an empty REGPHONE, so the result is true. Only
> "REGISTER" and "AP" need the password, all other commands should
> succeed from any phone with an empty REGPHONE.
>
> The acc module is not included in the Twizy firmware (due to ROM space).
>
> Securing par_write() is a good idea, but the data loss need not have
> been caused by a par_write() operation. I know of at least one user
> module that loses and garbles EEPROM contents frequently. There may be
> some general hardware issue, at least with the modules delivered
> during the last 6-9 months or so.
>
> I'm also having single byte EEPROM errors occasionally after flashing.
> These mostly affect the first byte of some parameter slot, only bit
> flips up to now but a change to 0 would empty that slot.
>
> If I can confirm the problem I will include both the par_write()
> securing and the auth fail-close change into the fix.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
>
>
> Am 22.07.2015 um 04:02 schrieb Mark Webb-Johnson:
>> Michael, Tom,
>>
>> Not sure how the entire EEPROM can be erased. The code in
>> par_write(), par_set() and par_setbin() seems to limit the write
>> to PARAM_MAX_LENGTH. The EEPROM can’t be overwritten by normal code
>> and it takes quite a bit of register mashing to write to it. Can
>> someone have a look over the params.c functions and see if you have
>> any guesses as to the cause? I think it is important to identify the
>> root cause.
>>
>> I did fix an error in the acc code, December last year, that caused
>> an off-by-one parameter to be set:
>>
>>     commit 5269c870b1858f58098b16b39d10beb2b0e3b330
>>     Author: Mark Webb-Johnson <mark at webb-johnson.net
>>     <mailto:mark at webb-johnson.net>>
>>     Date:   Mon Dec 8 13:11:32 2014 +0800
>>
>>         Setting acc params, without location, when not in a location,
>>     leads to off-by-one index parameter write
>>
>>     diff --git a/vehicle/OVMS.X/acc.c b/vehicle/OVMS.X/acc.c
>>     index 4935590..1bf430c 100644
>>     --- a/vehicle/OVMS.X/acc.c
>>     +++ b/vehicle/OVMS.X/acc.c
>>     @@ -948,7 +948,7 @@ BOOL acc_cmd_params(BOOL sms, char* caller,
>>     char *arguments)
>>          }
>>
>>        net_send_sms_start(caller);
>>     -  if (k<0)
>>     +  if (k<=0)
>>          {
>>          s = stp_rom(net_scratchpad,ACC_NOTHERE);
>>          }
>>
>>
>> That is in the development branch, but is not in the standard
>> firmware. But, the worst affect of that would be to
>> overwrite PARAM_COOLDOWN (#15) (and easy to see as the overwritten
>> value is base64).
>>
>> It seems to be that params.c sets the default values to be:
>>
>>     #0 PARAM_REGPHONE = NOPHONE
>>     #1 PARAM_MODULEPASS = OVMS
>>     #2 PARAM_MILESKM = K
>>
>>
>> My only concern with removing the fail-open to both PARAM_REGPHONE
>> (net_sms_checkcaller) */and/* PARAM_MODULEPASS (net_sms_checkpassarg)
>> is that if they were both blank then the user would be completely
>> locked out of the module. Only solution would be a complete re-flash
>> and reset to default parameters.
>>
>> Another option would be to hard-code change par_write() to *refuse*
>> to write a blank password to #1. Then, we could go ahead and change
>> net_sms_checkcaller() to not fail open for registered phone number.
>> From what I can see, *all* writes to EEPROM go through par_write() in
>> params.c.
>>
>> Regards, Mark.
>>
>>> On 22 Jul, 2015, at 8:39 am, Tom Saxton <tom at idleloop.com
>>> <mailto:tom at idleloop.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> Have you confirmed the security problem? I've had time when the
>>> EEPROM got
>>> zeroed out and I couldn't access the module via SMS at all. I had to
>>> reflash with a valid EEPROM image in order to re-register my cell
>>> number.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty careful not to share my OVMS phone number with anyone. If
>>> someone unfriendly had it, they could send it a bunch of SMS
>>> messages each
>>> of which costs me a penny. Do that 1,000 times, and they've disabled my
>>> box until I refill my H2O account.
>>>
>>>   Tom
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Michael Balzer <dexter at expeedo.de <mailto:dexter at expeedo.de>>
>>> Reply-To: OVMS Developers <ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk
>>> <mailto:ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk>>
>>> Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 9:23 AM
>>> To: OVMS Developers <ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk
>>> <mailto:ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk>>
>>> Subject: [Ovmsdev] Registered phone / password security issue
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> some users including me experienced loss or garbling of eeprom
>>>> parameters. I once saw by chance that my registered phone number had
>>>> turned empty -- I seldom need to use SMS, so I only saw this when
>>>> checking the parameter list on the App for another config.
>>>>
>>>> The same now also occured to another user I'm in contact with, and it
>>>> now turned out that's not only annoying but a security issue:
>>>>
>>>> The current logic of net_sms_checkcaller() allows access to any phone
>>>> number if the parameter is empty. The same applies to
>>>> net_sms_checkpassarg(), which will allow any password to be used if no
>>>> password is stored.
>>>>
>>>> As this kind of data loss can only be detected by checking the
>>>> parameters, it's possible to check for "open" modules by just trying to
>>>> access them from time to time -- you only need to know the SIM card
>>>> number.
>>>>
>>>> I'm about to submit a change for both functions to NOT allow access if
>>>> their respective param slots are empty.
>>>>
>>>> As the initial flash contents has the "OVMS" standard password, a
>>>> completely lost module should still be restorable by re-flashing.
>>>>
>>>> Do I miss something? Is there any reason for the "empty=wildcard"
>>>> behaviour?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Michael
>
> -- 
> Michael Balzer * Paradestr. 8 * D-42107 Wuppertal
> Fon 0202 / 272 2201 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OvmsDev mailing list
> OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hk
> http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev

-- 
Michael Balzer * Helkenberger Weg 9 * D-58256 Ennepetal
Fon 02333 / 833 5735 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openvehicles.com/pipermail/ovmsdev/attachments/20150723/d4752774/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dexter.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openvehicles.com/pipermail/ovmsdev/attachments/20150723/d4752774/attachment-0002.vcf>