P25 Security

[ivahri]

Bass Junkie, I respect anyone who wants to scan radio services as a hobby. But emergency services networks aren't there to be a plaything for the perpetually bored or unfulfilled. They are there to keep the community safe by ensuring emergency services can respond to problems safely & efficiently. Encryption is used because those communications need to be secure- and not for the public to hear. Whether you or I agree or disagree with that doesn't matter- that isn't our call to make. These transmissions aren't "public", they are on a frequency that is licenced AND encrypted to prevent unauthorised reception.

By all means be curious, but remember what curiosity did to the cat.

Cheers,

Richard

[Longreach]

Hi Richard, Point taken. The main reason i asked about TETRA is because i know its an expensive system to operate (ive head about the problems with costs in the UK) and weather its worth it.
Like anything i guess, build up something secure and people will try to break it(bit simplistic look i know but it seems to have been happening on computers for years, theres a raft of bad 80's movies to prove that )
cheers
Matt

[matthewn1983]

Its like Foxtel, forever changing encryption methods as they keep getting broken. Just depends on how much money gets thrown at the problem.

[ivahri]

I totally agree Matt. Not that I would condone either (given the $110 a month I reluctantly pay Foxtel) but I think there is a difference between hacking a commercial service to hacking an emergency service. One I think should be treated for what it is- theft, while the other is far more serious & I'd actually like to see gaol time as an option for people who are convicted of interfering and/or illegally "accessing" encrypted or trunked networks used by emergency services. Sadly the courts don't have the balls to hand out fair dinkum sentences- take that of the ham in Victoria recently... a 3 month suspension on his ham licence plus confiscation of the radio gear is barely a slap on the wrist.

Cheers,


Richard

[Scotty]

...& I'd actually like to see gaol time as an option for people who are convicted of interfering and/or illegally "accessing" encrypted or trunked networks used by emergency services. Sadly the courts don't have the balls to hand out fair dinkum sentences...

Before anybody is convicted they need to have committed an offence - and in Australia there is no offence for accessing encryted or trunked networks.

Interfering with these networks is a different kettle of fish, but anybody is able to access the trunked networks with a scanner and, if they have the ability, decrypt any encrypted networks.

Different story in other parts of the world, and probably a big reason why serious attempts to crack TETRA have not been made.

[matthewn1983]

Hmm Im not so sure about that.. There's a very big case in court at the moment. Relating to computer networks. Im sure this would apply to accessing encrypted radio networks.

The AFP has charged the man with the following offences:

one count of unauthorised modification of data to cause impairment, contrary to Section 477.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail.
48 counts of unauthorised access to, or modification of restricted data, contrary to Section 478.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). This offence carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail.

So if you had a radio and the appropriate keys to monitor an encrypted network it wouldn't be illegal, So in the case above you had the passwords for a particular network and either just sat and monitored or caused havoc on it that would be ok? The above charges prove that wrong.

[Scotty]

So if you had a radio and the appropriate keys to monitor an encrypted network it wouldn't be illegal, So in the case above you had the passwords for a particular network and either just sat and monitored or caused havoc on it that would be ok? The above charges prove that wrong.

You need to compare apples with apples Matt - not apples with oranges!

The offences you mentioned relate to crimes involving data on computers, ie modifying information on/through a terminal, not decrypting a transmission received over a radio frequency using your own equipment.

[citabria]

Hi Richard, I agree totally!

Poor key management is definitely the failing of current networks, not the actual technology being used. I'd say no one has recovered the key using the cryptographic breaks we have published, and every single instance of unauthorised access has been due to poor key management and stolen radios. I would say that instead of "most problems are caused by human weaknesses" to "ALL problems are caused by human weaknesses"

TETRA has security built into the protocol properly. The only problem that I can see with it, is, that the crypto algorithms are proprietary. On the surface this might seem like a good idea, but from an "intellectual" point of view, history proves this to be a bad idea in terms of cryptography. An open and proven standard like AES256 (now 254 ) would be a better choice since it's theoretically and practically unbreakable. Proprietary standards usually are proprietary for good reason and have holes/flaws/backdoors built into them.

Regardless of all that, TETRA is a well designed system and I would go so far as to say if the police were using it, we would not be reading in the paper about how towies and bikies are listening into their network.

Cheers,
Matt

Matt,

You need to balance risk against cost. You may disagree, I'm not sure, but at this time the risk of significant numbers of individuals being able to get past P25 encryption (in an RF environment) is not proven or demonstrated. The fact that it has been done by individuals is a concern, but I'd suggest the greater concern is the loss/theft of radios combined with very poor cycling of keys. Frankly, I think much of this is a bit of an intellectual wank- most problems are caused by low tech, human weaknesses, not high tech issues.

The issue with TETRA is cost, pure & simple. While the Police have supported TETRA for its greater inherent security how NSW could ever hope to fund a state wide TETRA network is something no-one can get past. For example to do the North Coast in P25 requires 70-80 sites. In TETRA you could probably multiply that by 3 or 4. Alternately you opt for TETRA in Sydney, P25 elsewhere... again to just cover Sydney in TETRA is very expensive, and the need for a dual TETRA/P25 radio is another challenge (I believe such a radio is available).

Cheers,

Richard

[ivahri]

...& I'd actually like to see gaol time as an option for people who are convicted of interfering and/or illegally "accessing" encrypted or trunked networks used by emergency services. Sadly the courts don't have the balls to hand out fair dinkum sentences...

Before anybody is convicted they need to have committed an offence - and in Australia there is no offence for accessing encryted or trunked networks.

Interfering with these networks is a different kettle of fish, but anybody is able to access the trunked networks with a scanner and, if they have the ability, decrypt any encrypted networks.

Different story in other parts of the world, and probably a big reason why serious attempts to crack TETRA have not been made.

Hi Scotty,

There is no problem at all with using a scanner or any other receiver for that matter. They can't interfere, nor can they currently decode an encrypted transmission. Clearly I wasn't referring to genuine scanner using enthusiasts. What I was referring to is people who "acquire" a transceiver and have it programmed to operate on any radio network without the licensee's consent. If it affiliates that constitutes interference, if it has a radio ID then my view is that should constitute hacking because it is intended to divert data (as in radio traffic) to them instead of a legitimate radio.

I come from the golden age of 27MHz in the 1970s... I appreciate some think it is their right to wander around hamfests carrying their XTS5000 or the like, but the whole notion of this "causing no harm" is BS. It bl#$dy well does cause harm- I've been the one that has had to deal with the harm caused. The only reason, I think, that someone hasn't gone for a row over this is that most network managers don't care as much as they should (current GRN manager excepted), and most agency/user advisers haven't understood the extent of the problem. I think they do now- hence the introduction of authentication as fast as it becomes possible to do.

Cheers,

Richard

[matthewn1983]

You need to compare apples with apples Matt - not apples with oranges!

The offences you mentioned relate to crimes involving data on computers, ie modifying information on/through a terminal, not decrypting a transmission received over a radio frequency using your own equipment.

Yeah I understand that, but wouldn't the charges be the same? weather using a computer to decrypt/decode/crack a password to gain access to data, or decrypting using the same methods, a transmission using your own equipment. My question is, would it come under the same laws? (More pointing to the 48 charges in the quote above, the accessing of unauthorised data) I'm trying not to get this off topic, if you get what I mean.