My Bad IT WORKS !!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-fEFbX5QeE
Le dim. 21 août 2022 à 16:18, Bastien Baranoff <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hello I admit that I mess a little with my assertion... What I mean is we > have to begin by something like this, (which not work yet i don't know > why...) > Cause I inject the kc to the ms and answer withe the sres to the bts > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J40EAVK-LHI > https://imgur.com/4PjzMjw > https://imgur.com/qWGVmOk > if you want to help you have the procedure in YT description tnahk you all > > Le jeu. 3 mars 2022 à 04:02, Mychaela Falconia < > [email protected]> a écrit : > >> Neels Hofmeyr wrote: >> >> > Networks and user equipment capable of UTRAN a.k.a. R99+ ("release 99"), >> > do use full Milenage AKA even on 2G networks. >> >> Important correction: "capable of UTRAN" and R99+ are NOT one and the >> same. Consider an ME implementation with GSM-only radio (no UTRAN) >> that is made to R99 specs - there are several real-world examples of >> such, including Nokia C3-00 and TI's LoCosto chipset (not Calypso) >> with its corresponding TCS3.2 reference fw. Are such MEs required to >> support USIM protocol and 3G-style AKA? Answer given in 3GPP TS 33.102 >> section 6.8.1.4: support for USIM-ME interface (and thus 3G AKA) on >> such MEs is optional ("may support") for R99 and Rel-4, and only >> becomes mandatory from Rel-5 onward. >> >> In real life: Nokia C3-00 supports USIM-ME interface, but TI's TCS3.2 >> (LoCosto) fw does not, despite supporting R99 otherwise. >> >> > For pre-R99 MS on a UTRAN capable >> > network, the HLR and USIM may use the 3G key material as basis to >> generate >> > shorter authentication tokens -- this is not seen in practice at all >> these >> > days. It is reasonable to expect full Milenage Authentication and Key >> > Agreement everywhere. >> >> Consider this scenario: >> >> * The operator's network is predominantly 3G/4G/5G, with GERAN support >> only as legacy. >> >> * Operator-issued "SIM" cards are USIM/ISIM native, with GSM 11.11 SIM >> support only as a backward compatibility feature. >> >> * However, the human end user of the mobile service principally, >> philosophically and ideologically insists on using an ancient ME >> implementation that is not only limited to GSM/2G in terms of radio, >> but also does NOT speak UICC/USIM protocol, only speaks GSM 11.11 >> protocol to the SIM. >> >> As you can surely tell, what I just outlined is my real, actual, >> everyday real-life use case. So what happens in *this* use case? >> Obviously the authentication mode can only be classic GSM, as the ME >> firmware doesn't speak anything else. The authentication command sent >> to the SIM is RUN GSM ALGO from GSM 11.11, the input is just RAND (no >> AUTN), and the response from SIM is 8 bytes of Kc + 4 bytes of SRES. >> >> But what does the (U)SIM actually do internally to produce this >> 2G-style Kc+SRES response? Prior to my most recent careful reading of >> 3GPP TS 33.102, I thought there were two possibilities: >> >> 1) I thought that dual-mode SIMs had the option of using different >> algorithms for 2G and 3G modes, i.e., some version of COMP128 for 2G >> and Milenage for 3G. I thought this possibility was valid because >> Sysmocom USIM/ISIM cards support such configuration, and it is my >> understanding that original sysmoUSIM-SJS1 cards were shipped with 2G >> algo set to COMP128v1 and 3G also set to Milenage. >> >> 2) The other possibility is for the (U)SIM (and HLR correspondingly) >> to have only 3G key material and Milenage internally, with 2G >> authentication requests returning the result of c2 and c3 conversion >> functions from 3GPP TS 33.102 section 6.8.1.2. >> >> Now my reading of 33.102 tells me that only option 2 out of the above >> is valid (see section 6.8.1.5), whereas option 1 appears to be >> disallowed. Considering the separation between HLR/AuC and MSC/VLR, >> I don't see any way for an operator to implement a scheme with COMP128 >> for 2G and Milenage for 3G: if MSC/VLR is 3G-aware, then whenever HLR >> supplies auth vectors to MSC/VLR, these vectors have to be quintets, >> and if the user's ME turns out to be a refusenik, then it is MSC/VLR >> and not HLR who gets to apply c2 and c3 conversion functions - hence >> there is no place for the operator to apply COMP128 for 2G mode. >> >> Two questions now: >> >> 1) Is my analysis above correct, or have I missed something or gone >> astray somewhere? >> >> 2) If my analysis is correct, then why did sysmoUSIM-SJS1 cards ship >> with the algorithm combination of COMP128v1 for 2G and Milenage for >> 3G? Isn't this combination invalid with regard to 3GPP architecture? >> And to make matters worse, some of those cards were sold at a cheaper >> price without ADM keys, making this factory configuration unchangeable. >> An invalid config that is also unchangeable?? >> >> Just trying to understand... >> >> M~ >> >
