Security Comparison: Bluetooth
Short summary:
security architectures. With the differences between Bluetooth technology and ... Accordingly practical studies on Bluetooth security have been focused on ...
Long summary:
Security Comparison: Bluetooth Security Comparison: Bluetooth TM Communications vs. 802.11 Thomas G. Xydis Ph.D. Simon Blake-Wilson Bluetooth Security Experts Group 11-10-2001 revised 5-15-2002 1.0 Introduction Several attacks on IEEE 802.11b have been described in the media 1 . It has been shown that the WEP security framework used in IEEE 802.11 is susceptible to both attacks on data content and user authentication. These exposures allow an attacker to both inappropriately intercept data and also gain access to a network by impersonating a valid user. Bluetooth and IEEE 802.11b are different, complementary technologies 10 . IEEE 802.11b is largely applied to LAN access, while Bluetooth LAN access is only one of many applications, most of which focus on smaller personal area networks (PANs). Different target applications and technology dictate different security architectures. With the differences between Bluetooth technology and IEEE 802.11b in mind, one may question the validity of comparing the security architectures of the two technologies. We feel, however, that such a comparison is valid. Indeed, from a user perspective the two technologies are really quite similar. Both are methods which allow computers to communicate to other devices, both use wireless technology, both operate in the 2.4 GHz spread spectrum band, etc. Due to these similarities, the public sometimes confuses Bluetooth communications with IEEE 802.11b. In addition, 802.11b security concerns have been unjustifiably applied to Bluetooth communications. However, these attacks do not apply to Bluetooth technology. Here we discuss the two main attacks on 802.11b that have been described in the literature. We also explain why these attacks are not effective with Bluetooth wireless communications. 2.0 802.11b Eavesdropping When a user sends data over a wireless network, he has a reasonable expectation that such data is not easily readable by unauthorized persons. Unlike a wired network, which requires a physical intrusion, wireless data packets can be received by anyone nearby with an appropriate receiver, potentially outside of the physical security barriers of an organization. This allows, so called parking lot attacks, in which an attacker sits in a car in the parking lot of the intended victim. Accordingly, both Bluetooth and 802.11 technologies utilize data encryption in lower network layers. The 802.11b specification utilizes a security framework called wireless equivalent privacy (WEP) protocol. A key component of WEP is the use of the stream cipher RC4. RC4 is a well-known and commonly used stream cipher, but its use in 802.11b is questionable owing to the nature of a wireless packet network. RC4 operates by XORing the plaintext data with an encryption key stream. The result is commonly called ciphertext. RC4 is initialized with a secret WEP key and a public 24 bit long IV (initialization vector). If an attacker knows a plaintext and ciphertext pair a-priori, he can ...
Source: www.bluetooth.com
Search Terms:
Related
Secure Access Control Using Mobile Bluetooth Devices, digital keys on Bluetooth-enabled mobile
phones providing wireless ... It is on
border of being a hack, but it is our
opinion. that it obeys the standard. ...,
more
Connecting devices wirelessly with Bluetooth wireless technology., file transfers and secure logins.
Bluetooth technology offer
version-specific security measures as
well. For example, version 1.2 has added
an anonymity Mode to bolster the security.
To prevent hacking during the pairing
process, many Bluetooth devices, ...,
more
Bluetooth Security & Hacks, Bluetooth Security & Hacks. Andreas
Becker. August 16, 2007 ... devices for
his own purpose, or just the drive of
hacking into a computer system, ...,
more
