German expert's statement on SMS sender identification in Amphon's case

Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen, lawyer for Amphon Tangnoppakul, has published a letter from an expert on telecommunication technology in Germany on her Facebook page.  The letter was intended to be used in the Appeals Court before the appeal was withdrawn.

000

SR Security Research Labs GmbH   Veteranenstr 25   10119 Berlin

Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF)
111 Soi Sitthichon Samsennork Huaykhwang
Bangkok 10310
Thailand

Dr. Karsten Nohl
Chief Scientist
....

 
Berlin, January 30th 2012

 
Expert statement on SMS sender identification

 
To whom it may concern:

 
Security Research Labs is a risk management think tank in Berlin, Germany that advises European telecommunication network operators and governments in mitigating risks arising from cell phone technology.

We were asked to provide a subject matter expert opinion on the reliability of mobile phones identifiers used in determining the sender of an SMS message.

The attached statement was prepared based on extensive knowledge of GSM standard, the operation of GSM networks in general, and measurements of the GSM networks in Bangkok, Thailand in particular. The statement reflects the current state of GSM security research and was prepared to the best of our knowledge.

 
Best Regards,

 
Dr. Karsten Nohl

-------------

 
Expert statement on SMS sender identification

This statement discusses the question of whether a mobile phone sending a text message can be identified reliably based on data records in the phone network. This question is to be investigated for the dtac GSM network in Bangkok, Thailand.

Question 1: Does an SMS identify a phone (IMEI)?

An SMS transaction contains multiple small data packets exchanged between a phone and the radio network. These packets negotiate encryption, establish the transaction type, and exchange data. One example SMS transition on the dtac network included 107 packets.

Phones are identified by their IMEI numbers, which act as serial numbers.

One packet, called the “Cipher Mode Command”, can ask the phone to send its IMEI number in the next packet. However, the dtac network does not use this option in SMS transactions as shown in Figure 1. This was verified at multiple locations in Thailand.

No other message in an SMS transaction can include the IMEI number.

Answer 1: An SMS transaction on the dtac network does not identify a phone (IMEI).

[See images below]

Figure 1. Partial trace of an SMS transaction on the dtac network in Bangkok, Thailand. The “Ciphering Mode Command” message does not ask the phone to send its IMEI number.

 

Question 2: How does the dtac network assign an IMEI to an SMS transaction?

The mobile network and phones execute different types of transactions including SMS messages and voice calls. The only type of transaction on the dtac network that include the IMEI number are “Location Update” transactions. These transactions are done when the phone is switched on, when it changes location significantly (ie, to a different part of a city), and also periodically.

The phone identity included in a dtac SMS record most likely is copied from the most recent “Location Update” the network observed for a given subscriber account.

Answer 2: The IMEI is most likely copied from an older transaction into the dtac SMS record.

Question 3: How does the dtac network assign a location to an SMS transaction?

Answer 3: The possibility exists that the location is copied from an older transaction into the dtac SMS record. Further information from dtac is needed for a conclusive answer.

 

Question 4:  Can an SMS message be sent without a phone?

Answer 4: SMS messages can be sent from the Internet with arbitrary spoofed sender numbers. If the dtac network creates delivery records for such transactions, it would likely include the IMEI number of the most recent “Location Update” message from the spoofed phone number. Further information from dtac is needed for a conclusive answer.

 

Question 5: Can individuals observe IMEI numbers on the GSM network?

“Location Update” transactions that include a phone’s IMEI number are sent encrypted over the air. The GSM standard uses outdated security that can be broken within seconds.

Software that has been available on the Internet since 2008 can be used to break the encryption of a “Location Update” message in less than one minute on a standard computer.

Since the release of the software, it has been installed in hundreds of locations around the world. Engineering students take less than one week to create a functioning intercept and decryption setup.

Answer 5: Technologically-savy individuals can extract IMEI numbers from GSM messages.

 

Question 6: Can SMS be sent from a phone using somebody else’s identify?

The IMEI number on almost all phones can be changed using widely available software.

Answer 6: An individual can easily change the IMEI of his/her phone to the IMEI of somebody else’s phone.

 

Conclusion

The dtac SMS transaction records are not reliable in identifying a phone as the emitter of an SMS message. At least two possibilities exits where the data diverts from reality:

  • SMS injected into the phone network from the Internet or SS7 network may be falsely linked to a “Location Update” message of somebody else’s phone
  • Phone identities can be changed to the phone of somebody else in the same part of a city after observing a transaction of the other phone with the GSM network which requires only readily available hardware and software

Comments

This is why a judges only

This is why a judges only system of trials is out of date, prejudicial and illegal by international standards, ot to say, of course, anything about how things are done in Thailand - including an occasional outburst by a "decision maker" who says he does not even need to listen to evidence for an upcoming trial as the prosecutor has given him all he needs to make a decision.
The differences between judges in countries that have been colonized vs. those that have not ought to be studied.

That's an interesting thing

That's an interesting thing to say, and it may well be a big part of the problem, however I think it is a big indirect part of the problem. Let me explain, or rather, probe a little.

What is it about the psychology (or perhaps the self-image) of the judiciary that be that might be different had Thailand been colonised, assuming that the extensive 'back-door' colonisation by the Chinese does not count in this instance? Might the judiciary have been different had the Burmese stayed after they kicked the Thais out of their own capital at Ayudhya? If so, why?

That's an interesting thing

That's an interesting thing to say, and it may well be a big part of the problem, however I think it is a big indirect part of the problem. Let me explain, or rather, probe a little.

What is it about the psychology (or perhaps the self-image) of the judiciary that be that might be different had Thailand been colonised, assuming that the extensive 'back-door' colonisation by the Chinese does not count in this instance? Might the judiciary have been different had the Burmese stayed after they kicked the Thais out of their own capital at Ayudhya? If so, why?

SMS injected into the phone

SMS injected into the phone network from the Internet or SS7 network may be falsely linked to a “Location Update” message of somebody else’s phone

So the actual sender of the SMSs for which Amphol received his life sentence may have been unaware that his messages were "traceable" to anyone. Might have thought that by using the internet to send the SMSs that his/her messages were untraceable ... which in fact they were ... except in the case of misconfigured dtac central office software which arbitrarily repeated the IMEI of a previous call.

Phone identities can be changed to the phone of somebody else in the same part of a city after observing a transaction of the other phone with the GSM network which requires only readily available hardware and software

It was testified at Amphol's trial that an IMEI could be changed in the handset hardware, that it had been common practice in Thailand to do so, that most mobile phone shops could do so, and that Amphol's handset had been 'in the shop' around the time the SMS messages were sent,

The judge, of course, admitted that the prosecution was unable to prove his case. Now it is apparent that the IMEI of a message could be changed without even having access to the handset.

In either case the judges only choice was to acquit. But instead the judge sentenced Amphol to what turned out to be life in prison because ... Amphol could not prove he was not guilty.

I hope the poor judges in this case are on suicide watch, They may be sorely tempted to take their own lives out of guilt and shame that their malfeasance has sent an innocent man to his death.

There's no appeal from the

There's no appeal from the grave, but a certificate of innocence for Ampon's family is due. Clearly, these technology experts know more than any Thai judge on this matter.

Isn't it time for the courts to admit that Ampon was not the person who sent those messages?