Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) wrote: > Hi all, > > am i wrong or the semi-active interception is much more 'easy' than > the passive one? > > I mean, it appears like 'less hidden' (so detectable in case of real- > world-attack-usage) but much simpler in terms of 'requirements'. > > Does semi-active approach is simpler and does not require huge rainbow > tables? >
It is correct that an active MITM is much easier than a passive attack.
It is also infinitely more detectable. If you can cause a handset to
join your network, you don't need to crack any kind of crypto at all.
Here's a recording that I made of my GSM phone call using one of my base
stations and my very own telephone:
http://crypto.nsa.org/f-21/cell-tap.ogg
To capture this recording I configured my phone to join my network and I
terminated the outgoing call over VOIP. Recording the audio was as
simple as running tcpdump. Nothing special and of course quite easy to do.
Best,
Jacob
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ A51 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lists.reflextor.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a51
