Friday, March 29, 2024

7 New Bugs in Bluetooth Let Hackers Impersonate As Legitimate Device & Launch DDoS Attacks

Bluetooth is currently used in millions of devices, and the Carnegie Mellon CERT Coordination Center (CERT/CC) has recently reported 7 security flaws in Bluetooth that allow attackers to impersonate as legitimate devices and launch DDoS attacks.

In total seven vulnerabilities were revealed, including the vulnerabilities affected during device pairing and provisioning to join a mesh network. 

Researchers at the French National Agency for the Security of Information Systems (ANSSI) discovered and reported to the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (Bluetooth SIG), it’s a group that supervises the development of Bluetooth standards.

The security experts have pointed out these two specifications as vulnerabilities, and here they are mentioned below:-

  • Core Specification 5.2
  • Mesh Profile 1.0.1

However, just after the discovery, the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (Bluetooth SIG) has already provided the recommendations for each vulnerability, that are affecting the Core Specification 5.2, and Mesh Profile 1.0.1.

List of vulnerabilities

  • CVE ID: CVE-2020-26559
  • Vulnerability: Bluetooth Mesh Profile AuthValue leak
  • Affected specs: Mesh Profile Spec, v1.0 to v1.0.1
  • Notice: SIG Security Notice (https://www.bluetooth.com/learn-about-bluetooth/key-attributes/bluetooth-security/authvalue-leak/)
  • CVE ID: CVE-2020-26556
  • Vulnerability: Malleable commitment in Bluetooth Mesh Profile provisioning
  • Affected specs: Mesh Profile Spec, v1.0 to v1.0.1
  • Notice: SIG Security Notice (https://www.bluetooth.com/learn-about-bluetooth/key-attributes/bluetooth-security/malleable/)
  • CVE ID: CVE-2020-26557
  • Vulnerability: Predictable Authvalue in Bluetooth Mesh Profile provisioning leads to MITM
  • Affected specs: Mesh Profile Spec, v1.0 to v1.0.1
  • Notice: SIG Security Notice (https://www.bluetooth.com/learn-about-bluetooth/key-attributes/bluetooth-security/predicatable-authvalue/)
  • CVE ID: CVE-2020-26560
  • Vulnerability: Impersonation attack in Bluetooth Mesh Profile provisioning
  • Affected specs: Mesh Profile Spec, v1.0 to v1.0.1
  • Notice: SIG Security Notice (https://www.bluetooth.com/learn-about-bluetooth/key-attributes/bluetooth-security/impersonation-mesh/)
  • CVE ID: CVE-2020-26555
  • Vulnerability: Impersonation in the BR/EDR pin-pairing protocol
  • Affected specs: Core Spec, v1.0B to 5.2
  • Notice: SIG Security Notice (https://www.bluetooth.com/learn-about-bluetooth/key-attributes/bluetooth-security/impersonation-pin-pairing/)
  • CVE ID: N/A
  • Vulnerability: Authentication of the Bluetooth LE legacy-pairing protocol
  • Affected specs: Core Spec, v4.0 to 5.2
  • Notice: SIG Security Notice (https://www.bluetooth.com/learn-about-bluetooth/key-attributes/bluetooth-security/legacy-pairing/)
  • CVE ID: CVE-2020-26558
  • Vulnerability: Impersonation in the Passkey entry protocol
  • Affected specs: Core Spec, v2.1 to 5.2
  • Notice: SIG Security Notice (https://www.bluetooth.com/learn-about-bluetooth/key-attributes/bluetooth-security/passkey-entry/)

The devices that support the core technology of “Bluetooth” are vulnerable to the passkey input protocol that is used in Secure Simple Pairing (SSP), Secure Connections (SC), and LE Secure Connections (LESC). 

In these circumstances, if a man-in-the-middle attack is received, then an attacker can easily spoof the device.

Moreover, the cybersecurity experts have asserted that in the Bluetooth Core Specification versions 4.0 – 5.2 the vulnerabilities are correlated with LE Legacy Pairing authentication.

So, here, if the attacker doesn’t know the temporary key, then it will be possible for the attacker to succeed in Phase 2 of legacy authentication by exploiting the confirmation items and random numbers of the other device in LE legacy pairing.

Affected vendors

Till now the Carnegie Mellon CERT Coordination Center (CERT/CC) has identified the following vendors who are affected:- 

  • Red Hat
  • Cisco
  • Android Open Source Project (AOSP)
  • Cradlepoint
  • Intel
  • Microchip Technology

Among all these affected vendors, AOSP and Cisco is the first to respond and already working to distribute the security updates to fix the following flaws:-

  • CVE-2020-26555
  • CVE-2020-26558

While CERT/CC noted that the other affected vendors like Intel, Red Hat, and Cradlepoint have not yet issued any statements on this matter.

Website

Latest articles

Beware Of Weaponized Air Force invitation PDF Targeting Indian Defense And Energy Sectors

EclecticIQ cybersecurity researchers have uncovered a cyberespionage operation dubbed "Operation FlightNight" targeting Indian government...

WarzoneRAT Returns Post FBI Seizure: Utilizing LNK & HTA File

The notorious WarzoneRAT malware has made a comeback, despite the FBI's recent efforts to...

Google Revealed Kernel Address Sanitizer To Harden Android Firmware And Beyond

Android devices are popular among hackers due to the platform’s extensive acceptance and open-source...

Compromised SaaS Supply Chain Apps: 97% of Organizations at Risk of Cyber Attacks

Businesses increasingly rely on Software as a Service (SaaS) applications to drive efficiency, innovation,...

IT and security Leaders Feel Ill-Equipped to Handle Emerging Threats: New Survey

A comprehensive survey conducted by Keeper Security, in partnership with TrendCandy Research, has shed...

How to Analyse .NET Malware? – Reverse Engineering Snake Keylogger

Utilizing sandbox analysis for behavioral, network, and process examination provides a foundation for reverse...

GoPlus’s Latest Report Highlights How Blockchain Communities Are Leveraging Critical API Security Data To Mitigate Web3 Threats

GoPlus Labs, the leading Web3 security infrastructure provider, has unveiled a groundbreaking report highlighting...
Balaji
Balaji
BALAJI is an Ex-Security Researcher (Threat Research Labs) at Comodo Cybersecurity. Editor-in-Chief & Co-Founder - Cyber Security News & GBHackers On Security.

Mitigating Vulnerability Types & 0-day Threats

Mitigating Vulnerability & 0-day Threats

Alert Fatigue that helps no one as security teams need to triage 100s of vulnerabilities.

  • The problem of vulnerability fatigue today
  • Difference between CVSS-specific vulnerability vs risk-based vulnerability
  • Evaluating vulnerabilities based on the business impact/risk
  • Automation to reduce alert fatigue and enhance security posture significantly

Related Articles