As part of our research into the Auracast feature set in Bluetooth, we also started looking into vendor implementations. At the time we started with our research, there weren’t a lot of products on the market yet. But new products are coming out pretty frequently now.
One of the vendors that had Auracast implemented pretty early was Samsung. At the time the Samsung Galaxy S23 and S24 phones were able to broadcast Audio, while the Galaxy Buds were able to join these broadcasts.
In our previous blog post we analyze the security of Auracast broadcasts. In short, broadcasts can be encrypted by specifying a so-called Broadcast Code (or Passcode). We show that the key derivation used to derive an AES key from the Broadcast Code is not sufficient to properly protect the broadcast. The weak key derivation, combined with the way the encryption works, allows an attacker to perform an efficient offline brute-force attack against captured Auracast packets. However, when the Broadcast Code is chosen properly, this attack can be made very difficult and likely economically unreasonable.
However, we found that the Bluetooth specification is lacking in this regard. Both the specification of the Broadcast Code itself, and the example values given in the specification and other documents are inadequate.
This, in our opinion, inadequate specification and the poorly chosen examples of Broadcast Codes lead us to suspect that vendors may not be aware of the requirements for a secure Broadcast Code.
This is essentially what happened with Samsung’s implementation.
Continue reading
About two months ago the Bluetooth SIG 