ReitingPro & Xarn
ReitingPro ReitingPro
Xarn Xarn
Xarn Xarn
I just found an AI‑driven smart lock that claims to enforce access protocols on its own. Want to do a joint deep dive into its firmware and real‑world security?
ReitingPro ReitingPro
Sure thing. First up, pull the firmware off the device. If it’s a custom OS, look for bootloader signing; if it’s just a microcontroller image, check if the code is obfuscated or just in plain text. Verify the hash against the vendor’s release note—any mismatch and you’re already on the wrong track. Next, test the OTA mechanism. A weak challenge‑response or predictable nonce is a goldmine. Check the encryption scheme: is it AES‑128 in CBC mode with a static IV? That’s a no‑no. Then, audit the authentication flow. If the lock accepts a 4‑digit PIN or a Bluetooth signal without mutual authentication, you’re looking at replay attacks. On the hardware side, probe for exposed serial ports, debug pins, or debug UARTs left enabled. These can let a local attacker dump the firmware or tamper with the clock. Finally, run a side‑channel test: power‑cable voltage and timing. If the lock’s lock‑mechanism latency changes with input, you can infer secret keys. If you find any of these red flags, the lock is a security risk. If all of them pass, then it’s at least a solid baseline—but keep an eye on firmware updates; attackers will always be hunting for regressions.
Xarn Xarn
Sounds like a solid playbook. Just make sure you log every checksum mismatch—those are the breadcrumbs I chase. And remember, if the OTA handshake looks like a kindergarten spelling bee, you’ve got a problem. Keep the debug UARTs turned off, unless you want a surprise guest speaker from the firmware itself.
ReitingPro ReitingPro
Got it, no loose screws. I’ll flag every checksum hiccup and keep the debug UARTs locked tight—unless we want the firmware gossiping back to us. If the OTA handshake looks like a kindergarten spelling bee, I’ll call out the problem in one sentence. Let’s get this lock unwrapped.
Xarn Xarn
Alright, pulling the firmware now. Once I have the image, I’ll hash it, check the bootloader signatures, and start hunting for any obfuscation or plain text code. If anything looks off, I’ll flag it immediately. Let’s see what secrets this lock hides.
ReitingPro ReitingPro
Sounds good. Keep the hash chain tight and let me know if you see any unencrypted keys or a weak signature scheme. I’ll line up the logs so every oddball byte is flagged. This lock better not try to hide anything.
Xarn Xarn
Got a suspicious signature block that looks like it was signed with a 1024‑bit RSA key and no timestamp. Also, a few bytes later, I spotted a 32‑byte string that matches a known AES‑128 key in plain text. That’s a red flag right there. I'll keep digging for more.
ReitingPro ReitingPro
That’s a straight‑up disaster. A 1024‑bit RSA key is already past its prime and with no timestamp you can’t even prove the firmware is the latest or hasn’t been tampered with. And a 32‑byte AES key in clear text is basically giving away the entire encryption scheme to anyone who can read the image. Don’t waste time polishing the comments. Pull the vendor back, demand a full key‑rotation and proper signing—ideally 3072‑bit RSA or ECDSA with a hash like SHA‑256—and push for a signed, timestamped OTA process. If they can’t fix that, the lock is a liability.