SOUPS July 24, 2008SOUPS July 24, 2008

Universal Device Pairing using an Auxiliary Device

Nitesh Saxena, Md. Borhan Uddin and Jonathan VorisNitesh Saxena, Md. Borhan Uddin and Jonathan Voris

Polytechnic Institute of New York University

2

The "Pairing" Problem

How to bootstrap secure communication between two wireless devices when they have No prior association No common trusted third partyExamples

o Pairing a Bluetooth cell phone with a headset

o Pairing a WLAN laptop with an access point

3

Main Solution Idea

Utilize an Out-Of-Band (OOB) channel between the

deviceso Created with human perceptible (audio, visual, tactile) output

o The OOB channel is physically authenticatable

Place a minimal burden on device userso Usability is of extreme importance

4

Security Model

Devices are connected by two channel types:o An insecure, high bandwidth wireless channelo An authenticable, (typically) low bandwidth OOB channel

Adversary has complete control over the wireless channel

o Can eavesdrop on, delay, drop, replay, reorder, and modify messages

Adversary has a limited control over the OOB channel

o Can not modify messages, but can eavesdrop on, delay, drop, replay, and reorder messages

5

Prior Work

Seeing-is-Believing by McCune et al. [Oakland’05]o Based on protocol by Balfanz et al. [NDSS’02]

A B

pkA

pkB

H(pkA)

H(pkB)

Insecure Channel

Secure with:o A weakly CR H()

o An 80 bit permanent key

o A 48 bit ephemeral key

Authenticated Channel

6

SAS Protocol

A

Wireless ChannelUnidirectional OOB Channel

Short Authenticated Strings (SAS) pairing protocol

by Pasini-Vaudenay [PKC’06]

An adversary can not succeed with

a probability greater than 2-k

k=15 offers reasonable security in

practice

pkA,H(RA,pad)

pkB,RB

RA,pad

)( BRBA pkHRSASA

)( BRBB pkHRSASA

B

Accept (pkB,B) if Accept (pkB,A) if )( BRBB pkHRSAS

A )( BRBA pkHRSAS

A

7

Drawbacks of Prior Research

Geared for specific pairing scenarios None are universally applicable

o Require hardware and interfaces not common across all devices

User doesn’t know what method to use with what pair of devices confusion!

We believe: universality would immensely improve security as well as usability

8

A Universal Pairing Method (1)

Prasad-Saxena [ACNS’08] Use existing SAS protocols The strings transmitted by both devices over OOB

channel are o the same, if everything is fineo different, if there is an attack or fault

Both devices encode these strings using a pattern of o Synchronized beeping/blinkingo The user acts as a reader and verifies if the two patterns

are the same or not

9

A Universal Pairing Method (2)

Usability?o Previous work has shown that human users are capable of

efficiently performing Blink-Blink Beep-Blink

However, in practice users will commit mistakeso Due to a slight distraction, for example

Motivation for this paper: can we do better?

10

The Proposed Scheme Automate the prior scheme based on manual comparison Utilize an Auxiliary Third Device (ATD) to perform the comparison

S

ucce

ss/F

ailu

reDevice1

or

Device2

ATD

11

Manual vs Automated

or

Manual Pairing using Blink-Blink or Audio-Blink

Automated Pairing using Blink-Blink or Audio-Blink

Device1 Device2

ATD

Success/Failure

Device1

or

Device2

12

Role of the User

When performing automated pairing, a user is responsible foro Pressing a button on one device to start pairingo Adjusting the ATD’s inputs to focus on the devices being

pairedo Pressing a button to activate the ATD’s receivers o Pressing a button on one device to start SAS transmissiono Accepting or rejecting the pairing session based on the

ATD’s output Users do not have to remember what steps to take

o The ATD will provide instructions

13

ATD Requirements In the Blink-Blink setup, the ATD requires a camera

as a receiver For the Audio-Blink setup, the ATD requires a

camera and a microphone as receivers Both require a screen or speaker to output the pairing

outcome Today’s camera phones are suitable ATDs The ATD does not connect over the wireless channel

with the devices being paired The ATD does not need to trusted with any

cryptographic secret

14

Implementation

For testing, a laptop computer was used as an ATDo 2.0 megapixel, 30 FPS webcam

Devices being paired were simulated using a desktop computero Visual output interface: LEDs connected via a parallel porto Audio output interface: Desktop speakers

15

Experimental Setup

Overall setup

LEDs used to simulate visual output interfaces

Laptop used as an ATD

Speaker used to simulate an audio output

interface

ATD’s receivers:Camera andmicrophone

16

Encoding Method

A ‘1’ SAS bit is expressed by activating the output interface for a given signal interval A ‘0’ SAS bit is represented by disabling the output interface for the duration of the signal intervalOptimal intervals determined experimentally

o Dependant on the ATD’s processing speed Which output interfaces are used depends on which pairing scheme is in use In our experiments, we used a 15-bit SAS

17

Visual Data Processing/Decoding Visual data was encoded using blinking LEDs

o Signal interval: 250 ms The ATD used saturation and luminance

measurements to detect LEDs and capture their encoded SAS data

Overall transmission time: 4.5 seconds to transmit and capture 18 frameso 15 data frameso 3 control frames: All-OFF, All-ON, SYNC

18

Audio Data Processing/Decoding

Audio data was encoded as spoken English words using the Microsoft Speech API (SAPI) 5.0 Text-To-Speech engineo Signal interval: 400 ms

The ATD captured the audio data via a microphone and decoded it using the SAPI Speech Recognition engine

Overall transmission time: 7.2 seconds

19

Usability Testing Schemes tested with 20 subjects The same tests were performed with the manual and automated setup Each subject was presented 24 test cases

o 20 reliability tests for the Blink-Blink and Audio-Blink schemeso 4 tests for the robustness of the ATD

Test goals:o Determine if the ATD could be used to reliably pair deviceso Determine which scheme:

Demonstrated the least amount of errors Safe errors or false positives, and Fatal errors or false negatives

Users qualitatively preferred

20

Usability Testing Results

Combination Average Timing (seconds)

Safe Error Rate (%) Fatal Error Rate (%)

Blink-Blink 13.079 (sd=3.524) 1.43 0.00

Audio-Blink 15.261 (sd= 3.387) 7.14 0.00

Combination Average Timing (seconds)

Safe Error Rate (%) Fatal Error Rate (%)

Blink-Blink 20.983 (sd=3.107) 2.00 2.00

Beep-Blink 13.583 (sd=2.659) 1.00 20.00

Results of Automated Comparison Tests

Results of Manual Comparison Tests

80% of the subjects (16 out of 20) preferred the automated scheme 20% of the subjects (4 out of 20) preferred the manual scheme.

21

Discussion (1)

Results indicate that the use of an ATD makes the pairing process safer and less burdensome

o No fatal errorso Reduced safe error rate

The higher safe error rate of Audio-Blink is attributable to the ATD picking up background noise

o The ATD’s audio robustness is expected to improve when implemented on a smartphone as opposed to the current proof-of-concepto Users of this scheme must be sure of the origin of the SAS audio to guard against attacks

22

Discussion (2)

Whether the ATD is a help or hindrance in terms of speed is dependant on its decoding rate for a particular setup

o Blink-Blink: Automated is faster than manual due to the fast visual decoding processo Audio-Blink: Automated is slower than manual due to the relatively slower audio decoding process

23

Conclusion

Both the manual and automated schemes are universally applicable to any pairing scenario

Use of an ATD is not mandatory, but test results show it increases usability when available

An ATD can handle SAS data that is longer than what a human user can

24

Thank you!