![]() Firstly an initial known start direction and secondly a time to hight function. To do this you need atleast two pieces of information. Thus you need some way to get two dimensional “path” information out of the one dimensional time intervals. However the ridge to ridge time function is “one dimensional” where as the ridge to ridge positions fall in one of a number of “path” positions on a physical grid that is two dimensional. Thus you need to start with “multiple ridge key one pin lock” model which gives you a crudly aproximate ridge to ridge time function based on the time between the lock pin clicks. Thus a “one ridge key, six pin lock” model will enumerate the distance between the lock pins and give you very little information other than the key insertion or removal speed and acceleration. To see why knowing this is important to get SpiKey to work you have to understand that you need to pick the correct degenerate or base model to start from (and when to switch back and forth between both). Put more simply “This is a key present attack” and “The lock is the tool that enumerates the key to produce a time based serial attack vector of a two dimensional path”. But most lock pickers would be starting in the wrong mind set as they usually “enumerate the lock” as they do not have access to the key. I know that once you understand what is going on it will sound obvious when you say it. So to get a grip on how spikey does what it is doing you need to know some basic facts in the right way, that do not come out very well in either the paper or the presentation.įirstly unlike lock picking you are not “enumerating the lock” you are infact “enumerating the key”… However both the paper and the presentation assume a certain base level of information / knowledge that many may not be actually aware of in the right way. ![]() However putting them together in an application and writing it all up in an accademic paper is as far as I’m aware a first. There is actually nothing new in the individual steps as I discuss below, nor in pulling them all together and assembling them into a neat little attack. Whilst I’ve been aware of how to do this for quite some time as have quite a few other engineers, we tended not to talk about it as the only defence is reengineering all the pin and tumbler locks out there, and the methods to avoid the attack of seperating the pins from the keyway whilst the key is inserted or withdrawn (yes the attack works both ways) are nearly all patented or very expensive to implement. With regards “SpiKey” it was presented at this years “HotMobile” conferance. ![]() Tags: eavesdropping, keys, locks, physical security “Given that the profile of the key is publicly available for commonly used keys, we can 3D-print the keys for the inferred bitting codes, one of which will unlock the door,” says Ramesh. The result of all this is that SpiKey software outputs the three most likely key designs that will fit the lock used in the audio file, reducing the potential search space from 330,000 keys to just three. If a key is inserted at a nonconstant speed, the analysis can be ruined, but the software can compensate for small speed variations. These clicks are vital to the inference analysis: the time between them allows the SpiKey software to compute the key’s inter-ridge distances and what locksmiths call the “bitting depth” of those ridges: basically, how deeply they cut into the key shaft, or where they plateau out. Once they have a key-insertion audio file, SpiKey’s inference software gets to work filtering the signal to reveal the strong, metallic clicks as key ridges hit the lock’s pins. Researchers are using recordings of keys being used in locks to create copies. Copying a Key by Listening to It in Action
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |