Detroit man steals 800 gallons using Bluetooth to hack gas pumps at station::undefined

  • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wait so they haven’t caught them yet? The article gave no names. And why do these pumps have Bluetooth? You might as well put in a USB service port.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      USB is way safer lol.

      Bluetooth is notoriously bad with security. Especially Bluetooth 4 and earlier. I’d put money on a gas station pumps Bluetooth to not be using the most up to date protocol.

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        58
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s like saying TCP has bad security. That is to say, pointless comparison. Bluetooth is just transport layer and security is done on higher level. This is most likely the classic example of “security through obscurity”. Meaning they did nothing special and hoped no one will figure it out, just like recent TETRA vulnerability.

        • foggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Transport layer is absolutely a security vulnerability vector.

          TCP is absolutely low security if not configured correctly.

          I don’t know what it is you’re trying to say. I agree that this instance was probably security through obscurity failing, but to say that Bluetooth, TCP, and other transport layer protocols are not security considerations is absolutely ridiculous (see for example, heartbleed). It’s exactly the reason there are multiple versions of Bluetooth. It’s why FTP is (should be) all but deprecated and SFTP and FTPS are standard. It’s why Google doesn’t index webpages without an SSL certificate.

          USB is way safer

          • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Of course wired connection is inherently safer than wireless. There’s no question about it. And yes you can absolutely exploit at every layer of communication, but this here is not the case of exploiting Bluetooth as transport layer. It’s simply someone not configuring anything or adding any additional verification and just hoping no one finds out.