Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday March 23 2018, @11:48AM   Printer-friendly
from the And-I-would-have-gotten-away-with-it-too,-if-it-weren't-for-you-meddling-kids^H dept.

Never say can't.

For years, executives at France-based Ledger have boasted their specialized hardware for storing cryptocurrencies is so securely designed that resellers or others in the supply chain can't tamper with the devices without it being painfully obvious to end users. The reason: "cryptographic attestation" that uses unforgeable digital signatures to ensure that only authorized code runs on the hardware wallet.

"There is absolutely no way that an attacker could replace the firmware and make it pass attestation without knowing the Ledger private key," officials said in 2015. Earlier this year, Ledger's CTO said attestation was so foolproof that it was safe to buy his company's devices on eBay.

On Tuesday, a 15-year-old from the UK proved these claims wrong. In a post published to his personal blog, Saleem Rashid demonstrated proof-of-concept code that had allowed him to backdoor the Ledger Nano S, a $100 hardware wallet that company marketers have said has sold by the millions. The stealth backdoor Rashid developed is a minuscule 300-bytes long and causes the device to generate pre-determined wallet addresses and recovery passwords known to the attacker. The attacker could then enter those passwords into a new Ledger hardware wallet to recover the private keys the old backdoored device stores for those addresses.

Oops. To be fair, he's a very clever 15 year old.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Friday March 23 2018, @01:33PM

    by Arik (4543) on Friday March 23 2018, @01:33PM (#657111) Journal
    "If you let someone get at the firmware of the device you can make it do quite a bit. It's not that this isn't legitimate, only that any device that hasn't adequately secured its firmware is likely vulnerable to something similar."

    Well one thing that seems rather important which you don't mention is that this is a device that is *specifically* marketed as being designed and built so that physical security isn't necessary. The company makes a big deal out of the claim, so it's not like he's demonstrating this sort of attack against a typical consumer device that's not supposed to be able to withstand it.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5