Re: [BlueZ PATCH 0/2] HID and HOGP connections from non-bonded devices.

From: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Cc: Alain Michaud <alainm@chromium.org>,
	Bluez mailing list <linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BlueZ PATCH 0/2] HID and HOGP connections from non-bonded devices.
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 23:27:15 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABBYNZKbc71WvOA34cFcKXVRcG-hYedJBT5LeTK9c3+H5Trjwg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87A4E633-63CF-4C71-9BF6-916894790EED@holtmann.org>

Hi Marcel,

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:26 PM Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Alain,
>
> > It was discovered that BlueZ's HID and HOGP profiles implementations
> > don't specifically require bonding between the device and the host.
> >
> > This creates an opportunity for an malicious device to connect to a
> > target host to either impersonate an existing HID device without
> > security or to cause an SDP or GATT service discovery to take place
> > which would allow HID reports to be injected to the input subsystem from
> > a non-bonded source.
> >
> > This patch series addresses the issue by ensuring that only connections
> > from devices that are bonded are accepted by the HID and HOGP profile
> > implementation.
> >
> > More information about the vulnerability is available here:
> > https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/intel-sa-00352.html
> >
> > Alain Michaud (2):
> >  HOGP must only accept data from bonded devices.
> >  HID accepts bonded device connections only.
> >
> > profiles/input/device.c   | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > profiles/input/device.h   |  1 +
> > profiles/input/hog.c      |  4 ++++
> > profiles/input/input.conf |  8 ++++++++
> > profiles/input/manager.c  | 13 ++++++++++++-
> > 5 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> both patches have been applied.
>
> However I changed BrBondedOnly configuration name into ClassicBondedOnly since that name seemed more obvious to me. The prefix Br has never been used and the Bluetooth SIG started calling it Classic a while back.

Looks like you were quicker than me, anyway I do fill like we should
attempt to bump to security instead of just refuse to connection in
case of HoG since we are the central and the peripheral is not
mandated to started it either it may be just the client application is
attempting to connect to trigger pairing on demand, that would usually
kick latter when reading the characteristics but with this changes it
doesn't even get to that point if the devices was not bonded already.

-- 
Luiz Augusto von Dentz