Cited by 57Wireless Networks and ProtocolsCryptographic Implementations and SecurityAdvanced Authentication Protocols Security

Release the Kraken: New KRACKs in the 802.11 Standard

Open access
Vanhoef, Mathy, Piessens, Frank·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

Abstract

We improve key reinstallation attacks (KRACKs) against 802.11 by generalizing known attacks, systematically analyzing all handshakes, bypassing 802.11's official countermeasure, auditing (flawed) patches, and enhancing attacks using implementation-specific bugs. Last year it was shown that several handshakes in the 802.11 standard were vulnerable to key reinstallation attacks. These attacks manipulate handshake messages to reinstall an already-in-use key, leading to both nonce reuse and replay attacks. We extend this work in several directions. First, we generalize attacks against the 4-way handshake so they no longer rely on hard-to-win race conditions, and we employ a more practical method to obtain the required man-in-the-middle (MitM) position. Second, we systematically investigate the 802.11 standard for key reinstallation vulnerabilities, and show that the Fast Initial Link Setup (FILS) and Tunneled direct-link setup PeerKey (TPK) handshakes are also vulnerable to key reinstallations. These handshakes increase roaming speed, and enable direct connectivity between clients, respectively. Third, we abuse Wireless Network Management (WNM) power-save features to trigger reinstallations of the group key. Moreover, we bypass (and improve) the official countermeasure of 802.11. In particular, group key reinstallations were still possible by combining EAPOL-Key and WNM-Sleep frames. We also found implementation-specific flaws that facilitate key reinstallations. For example, some devices reuse the ANonce and SNonce in the 4-way handshake, accept replayed message 4's, or improperly install the group key. We conclude that preventing key reinstallations is harder than expected, and believe that (formally) modeling 802.11 would help to better secure both implementations and the standard itself.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3243734.3243807

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In their follow-up paper, Vanhoef & Piessens (2018) presented several extensions of original KRACKs that are performed using the improved variant.

    “Despite some KRACKs discussed in the previous section, in their follow-up paper, (Vanhoef & Piessens, 2018) presented several extensions of original KRACKs that are performed using the improved variant.”

    From Multi-Channel Man-in-the-Middle attacks against protected Wi-Fi networks: A state of the art review (2022) · cites this paper as Vanhoef & Piessens, 2018

    The Introduction and Abstract say this follow-up paper extends the original KRACK work in several directions, including an improved 4-way-handshake attack and attacks on additional handshakes. They do not say that the several extensions are all performed using the improved variant; the improved attack is described specifically for the 4-way handshake. The passages supplied have section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • These new KRACKs result in the encryption of data frames using an old session key so that the attacker can trivially decrypt the Wi-Fi traffic.

    “These new KRACKs result in the encryption of data frames using an old session key so that the attacker can trivially decrypt the Wi-Fi traffic.”

    From Multi-Channel Man-in-the-Middle attacks against protected Wi-Fi networks: A state of the art review (2022) · cites this paper as Vanhoef & Piessens, 2018

    Section 7.1 describes a variant that reinstalls an old session key, causing nonce reuse; Section 2.4 says nonce reuse makes frames decryptable. But the paper does not say all the new KRACKs encrypt data frames with an old session key or that an attacker can trivially decrypt Wi-Fi traffic. The Introduction also describes attacks involving group keys and frame replay. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Vanhoef & Piessens (2018) showed a set of new key reinstallation techniques on 4-way and group-key handshake mechanisms to bypass the WFA's official KRACK countermeasures by replaying WNM sleep mode frames.

    “Most importantly, they showed a set of new key reinstallation techniques on 4-way and group-key handshake mechanism to bypass the WFA's official KRACK countermeasures by replaying the WNM (Wireless Network Management) sleep mode frames.”

    From Multi-Channel Man-in-the-Middle attacks against protected Wi-Fi networks: A state of the art review (2022) · cites this paper as Vanhoef & Piessens, 2018

    The Abstract reports new attacks on the 4-way handshake and group-key reinstallations using WNM-Sleep frames. Section 6.3.1 shows that combining WNM-Sleep frames with group-key handshake frames bypasses the official 802.11 countermeasure. It does not show the 4-way-handshake attack bypassing that countermeasure by replaying WNM-Sleep frames. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The improved MC-MitM variant uses channel switch announcements (CSAs) to trick the client into connecting to the rogue channel.

    “With this improved variant, the MC-MitM attacker uses channel switch announcements (CSA) to trick the client into connecting to his rogue channel.”
  • To trigger MC-MitM attacks, the attacker need not always be close to the victim.

    “To trigger MC-MitM attacks, the attacker need not be always close to the victim.”

    From Multi-Channel Man-in-the-Middle attacks against protected Wi-Fi networks: A state of the art review (2022) · cites this paper as Vanhoef, 2018

    Section 3.3 describes obtaining a multi-channel MitM position by forging Channel Switch Announcements instead of using jamming equipment, but it does not address how close the attacker must be to the victim. Searches for proximity, distance, and remote triggering found no passage that settles the claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Nadhem J. AlFardan, Daniel J. Bernstein, Kenneth G. Paterson, Bertram Poettering, and Jacob C. N. Schuldt. 2013. On the Security of RC4 in TLS and WPA. In USENIX Security.
  2. Andrea Bittau, Mark Handley, and Joshua Lackey. 2006. The Final Nail in WEP's Coffin. In IEEE S&P.
  3. Hanno Böck, Aaron Zauner, Sean Devlin, Juraj Somorovsky, and Philipp Jo- vanovic. 2016. Nonce-Disrespecting Adversaries: Practical Forgery Attacks on GCM in TLS. In USENIX WOOT.
  4. Nikita Borisov, Ian Goldberg, and David Wagner. 2001. Analysis of 802.11 Security, or Wired Equivalent Privacy Isn't. In Mac Crypto Workshop.
  5. Laurent Butti and Julien Tinnes. 2008. Discovering and exploiting 802.11 wireless driver vulnerabilities. Journal in Computer Virology 4, 1 (2008), 25-37.
  6. Aldo Cassola, William Robertson, Engin Kirda, and Guevara Noubir. 2013. A Practical, Targeted, and Stealthy Attack Against WPA Enterprise Authentication. In NDSS Symp.
  7. Google. 2017. Android Security Bulletin-September 2017. Retrieved 18 August 2018 from https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2017-09-01.
  8. Finn M. Halvorsen, Olav Haugen, Martin Eian, and Stig F. Mjølsnes. 2009. An Improved Attack on TKIP. In 14th Nordic Conference on Secure IT Systems (NordSec '09). 13.
  9. Dan Harkins and Jouni Malinen. 2017. Addressing the Issue of Nonce Reuse in 802.11 Implementations. Retrieved 8 February 2018 from https://mentor.ieee.org/ 802.11/dcn/17/11-17-1602-03-000m-nonce-reuse-prevention.docx.
  10. Changhua He, Mukund Sundararajan, Anupam Datta, Ante Derek, and John C Mitchell. 2005. A modular correctness proof of IEEE 802.11i and TLS. In CCS.
  11. IEEE Std 802.
  12. IEEE Std 802.11ai. 2016. Amendment 1: Fast Initial Link Setup.
  13. IEEE Std 802.11i. 2004. Amendment 6: Medium Access Control (MAC) Security Enhancements.
  14. IEEE Std 802.11v. 2011. Amendment 8: IEEE 802.11 Wireless Network Management.
  15. IEEE Std 802.11z. 2008. Amendment 7: Extensions to Direct-Link Setup (DLS).
  16. Eduardo Novella Lorente, Carlo Meijer, and Roel Verdult. 2015. Scrutinizing WPA2 password generating algorithms in wireless routers. In USENIX WOOT.
  17. John Mitchell and Changhua He. 2005. Security Analysis and Improvements for IEEE 802.11i. In NDSS.
  18. Masakatu Morii and Yosuke Todo. 2011. Cryptanalysis for RC4 and Breaking WEP/WPA-TKIP. IEICE Transactions (2011), 2087-2094.
  19. 4-Way Handshake. In Proceed- ings of the European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS).
  20. Adam Stubblefield, John Ioannidis, Aviel D Rubin, et al. 2002. Using the Fluhrer, Mantin, and Shamir Attack to Break WEP. In NDSS.
  21. Yosuke Todo, Yuki Ozawa, Toshihiro Ohigashi, and Masakatu Morii. 2012. Falsifi- cation Attacks against WPA-TKIP in a Realistic Environment. IEICE Transactions 95-D, 2 (2012).
  22. Mathy Vanhoef and Frank Piessens. 2016. Predicting, Decrypting, and Abusing WPA2/802.11 Group Keys. In USENIX Security.
  23. Mathy Vanhoef and Frank Piessens. 2017. Denial-of-Service Attacks Against the 4-way Wi-Fi Handshake. In 9th International Conference on Network and Communications Security (NCS).
  24. Mathy Vanhoef and Frank Piessens. 2018. Symbolic Execution of Security Protocol Implementations: Handling Cryptographic Primitives. In USENIX WOOT.
  25. Mathy Vanhoef, Domien Schepers, and Frank Piessens. 2017. Discovering logical vulnerabilities in the Wi-Fi handshake using model-based testing. In ASIA CCS. ACM.
  26. Erik Zenner. 2009. Nonce Generators and the Nonce Reset Problem. In Interna- tional Conference on Information Security.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vanhoef, M., & Piessens, F.
Affiliations
IMEC (BE)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-10-15
Pages
299-314
ISSN
1543-7221 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2892310063
Cited by
57
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7
FWCI
5.58
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • KU Leuven
  • Vlaamse regering
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Wireless Networks and Protocols
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptographic Implementations and Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Advanced Authentication Protocols Security
Keywords
Wi-Fi security, 4-way handshake, nonce reuse, replay attacks, wireless network management, group key, man-in-the-middle attacks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review