To be more clear on what i do https://imgur.com/Cl8eiy4 Next step is to crack Kc before T3210 ends (5s) and you have full impersonnation ;)
Le lun. 22 août 2022 à 10:11, Tomcsanyi, Domonkos <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hey, > > Could you elaborate a bit what is happenning on the video? > > Thanks > > Domonkos > > 21.08.2022 dátummal, 21:26 időpontban Bastien Baranoff < > [email protected]> írta: > > > 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~ >>> >>
