
SecTor 2025 | Ghost SIM Attack: Hacking Mobile Network Authentication Policies
Security researchers from Ethon Shield introduce the Ghost SIM attack, demonstrating how extracting non-cryptographic SIM metadata without the secret key (Ki) enables cellular network impersonation across 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G networks. The exploit takes advantage of permissive, event-based or time-based carrier authentication policies that skip cryptographic verification during network attachment. Defenses include enforcing SIM PINs on end-user devices and mandating cryptographic authentication on all initial network attachments by cellular operators.
Overview
In this technical briefing presented at SecTor, security researchers Miguel and Pedro from Ethon Shield (a telecommunications security firm based in Madrid, Spain) introduce the Ghost SIM Attack. Traditional SIM cloning requires extracting a card’s secret cryptographic key ($K_i$) through cryptanalysis or physical side-channel analysis, while modern SIM swapping relies heavily on social engineering customer service representatives.
The Ghost SIM attack establishes a middle ground: it extracts essential, non-cryptographic Elementary Files (EFs)—such as the IMSI and ICCID—from a victim’s device and clones them onto a programmable SIM card. The cloned "Ghost SIM" exploits permissive, event-based or time-based authentication policies enforced by mobile network operators to attach to 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G networks without ever possessing the secret cryptographic key ($K_i$). This document provides an exhaustive technical reference of the presentation, covering SIM architecture, extraction vectors (smartcard readers, AT commands, ADB), network authentication flows, real-world operator testing across North America, Europe, and Asia, live and recorded exploit demonstrations (including WhatsApp 2FA account takeover), and concrete remediations for operators and end users.
Contents
0:00 Introduction and Problem Definition
Miguel opens the presentation by outlining the current threat landscape regarding mobile identity theft. Historically, mobile fraud relied heavily on SIM card swapping attacks driven by social engineering. Attackers impersonate victims to convince mobile network operators to transfer phone numbers to an attacker-controlled SIM card, leading to downstream account takeovers and financial fraud.
flowchart TD
subgraph Traditional Attacks
A[Social Engineering SIM Swap] -->|Con Customer Support| D[Take Over Number]
B[Full SIM Cloning] -->|Side-Channel / Break Comp128| C[Extract Secret Key Ki] --> D
end
subgraph Ghost SIM Attack
E[Extract Public SIM Metadata IMSI, ICCID] -->|No Ki Needed| F[Write to Programmable SIM]
F --> G{Weak Operator Auth Policy?}
G -->|Yes: No Auth Challenge| H[Attach Cloned SIM to 2G / 3G / 4G / 5G Network]
G -->|No: Auth Challenge| I[Attachment Rejected]
endThe speaker defines the core thesis of their research:
"The Ghost SIM attack extracts essential SIM card information to take advantage of weak authentication policies to perform fraud in 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G mobile networks."
To validate this thesis, Miguel breaks down the inquiry into three architectural questions:
- SIM Storage & Extraction: What data structures exist within a SIM card, how is identity information stored, and what vectors allow extracting this information without physical destruction?
- Authentication Policies: What constitutes an operator's authentication policy, how does authentication operate across generations (2G through 5G), and what causes an authentication policy to be considered "weak"?
- Exploitation Feasibility: Why can an attacker maintain network connectivity and commit fraud across cellular generations without possessing the cryptographic root key ($K_i$)?
At 2:03, Miguel introduces the research team from Ethon Shield, a Madrid-based cybersecurity company specializing in telecommunications and baseband research, before handing the stage over to Pedro.
2:23 SIM Card Hacking History and SIM Swapping Fraud
Pedro provides historical context on smartcard and SIM security evolution from the 1990s onward:
- 1993–1998 (The Pay-TV Satellite Era): Microcontrollers such as the Microchip PIC16C84 (surface-mount implementation paired with external EEPROM, known as "GoldWafer") and PIC16F876 ("Silver card") gained notoriety in satellite television pay-TV pirating. Hackers used smartcard programmers (e.g., Phoenix/Smartmouse readers) to emulate smartcards.
- 1997–1998 (The Fall of COMP128v1): GSM operators utilized the COMP128-1 algorithm for authentication. Researchers reverse-engineered and broke COMP128v1, demonstrating that the card's secret key ($K_i$) could be extracted after querying the SIM card with approximately $2^{18}$ challenge-response pairs. Software-based emulators (such as
SIM-EMU) allowed users to clone physical SIM cards within ~8 hours of physical extraction using standard PC/SC smartcard readers. - 2015 (Side-Channel Vulnerabilities in 3G/4G): At Black Hat USA 2015, researchers Yu Yu, Junrong Liu, F-X Standaert, Zheng Guo, Dawu Gu, Sun Wei, Yijie Ge, and Xinjian Xie published research titled "Cloning 3G/4G SIM Cards with a PC and an Oscilloscope: Lessons Learned in Physical Security." By measuring the power consumption variations of SIM chips using an oscilloscope during cryptographic operations, they extracted $K_i$ from Milenage-based 3G and 4G USIM cards in 1 to 2 hours.
- Fraudster Evolution: Because physical side-channel attacks require expensive laboratory hardware (oscilloscopes, decapping tools, differential power analysis setups), criminals abandoned hardware attacks in favor of social engineering SIM swaps.
Pedro references data illustrating the explosion of SIM swap fraud over time 5:27:
| Period | Key Milestone | Notable Countries |
|---|---|---|
| 2007 – 2010 | First reported cases of SIM duplication fraud | South Africa, Brazil |
| 2011 – 2013 | Large-scale incidents; "SIM hijacking" terminology emerges | US, Mexico, Spain |
| 2014 – 2016 | The term "SIM swap fraud" becomes mainstream | US, UK |
| 2017 – 2019 | Surge in attacks driven by cryptocurrency exchange account takeovers | US, Europe, LATAM |
| 2020 – 2025 | Global prevalence; operators face stricter regulatory mandates | Worldwide |
Pedro cites an FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) report noting that across thousands of reported incidents, SIM swapping losses exceeded $26 million within single reporting periods, highlighting the criminal incentive to bypass cellular identity mechanisms.
6:10 SIM Card Internals and Filesystem Architecture
Pedro explains the underlying data structures of SIM/USIM cards:
Key SIM Parameters
- ICCID (Integrated Circuit Card Identifier): The globally unique hardware serial number of the SIM card chip (up to 20 digits).
- IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity): The primary user identity within the mobile network. It is structured hierarchically: $$\text{IMSI} = \text{MCC (3 digits)} + \text{MNC (2–3 digits)} + \text{MSIN (up to 10 digits)}$$ Where $\text{MCC} + \text{MNC}$ forms the PLMN (Public Land Mobile Network) identifying the carrier and country, and the MSIN identifies the individual subscriber line.
- $K_i$ (Authentication Key): A 128-bit secret cryptographic key assigned by the operator and stored in secure, non-readable SIM storage. It is shared exclusively between the SIM card and the Home Subscriber Server / Authentication Center (HSS/AuC).
- OP / OPc (Operator Code): Operator-specific configuration parameters used in 3G/4G/5G Milenage algorithms to derive cryptographic run-time parameters.
Smartcard Pinout (ISO/IEC 7816-2)
- C1: $V_{CC}$ (Power supply)
- C2: RST (Reset signal)
- C3: CLK (Clock signal)
- C4: RFU (Reserved for future use)
- C5: GND (Ground)
- C6: $V_{PP}$ (Programming voltage, legacy)
- C7: I/O (Input/Output data line)
- C8: RFU (Reserved for future use)
SIM Filesystem Hierarchy
SIM cards follow a hierarchical filesystem defined by telecommunication standards (3GPP TS 31.102 / TS 51.011):
- MF (Master File,
3F00): The root directory. - DF (Dedicated Files): Intermediate directories (e.g.,
DF_GSMat7F20,DF_TELECOMat7F10). - EF (Elementary Files): Individual data files storing parameters:
EF_IMSI(6F07underADF_USIM/3F00/7F20): Stores the subscriber IMSI.EF_ICCID(2FE2underMF): Stores the ICCID.
Each Elementary File enforces an access control list (ACL) based on privileges:
- Always (ALW): Readable/writable without authentication.
- PIN1 / CHV1: Requires user PIN entry.
- ADM (Administrative): Requires carrier-level administrative keys (
ADM PIN) to modify.
Pedro points out an industry security gap: Many mobile carriers ship SIM cards with the PIN disabled by default. Consequently, EF_IMSI and EF_ICCID are world-readable over the I/O pin without supplying a PIN.
Extracting Data via Smartcard Reader
At 7:38, Pedro demonstrates reading a physical SIM plugged into a USB smartcard reader using the open-source utility pySim-shell.py:
Using PC/SC reader interface
pySim-shell (MF)> select ADF.USIM
pySim-shell (MF/ADF.USIM)> select EF.IMSI
pySim-shell (MF/ADF.USIM/EF.IMSI)> read_binary_decoded
{
"imsi": "21407XXXXXXXXXX"
}
pySim-shell (MF/ADF.USIM)> select EF.ICCID
pySim-shell (MF/EF.ICCID)> read_binary_decoded
{
"iccid": "893407XXXXXXXXXXXXX"
}8:25 Smartphone Architecture and Attack Surfaces (AT Commands & ADB)
Pedro asks the audience: "How many operating systems does a smartphone terminal have?" Audience members guess numbers ranging from two to four. Pedro clarifies that a modern smartphone contains three distinct operating systems:
- User OS: Android or iOS (running on the application processor / SoC).
- SIM Card OS: Java Card runtime environment (running on the secure smartcard IC).
- Baseband OS: A Real-Time Operating System (RTOS) such as Nucleus, ThreadX, or proprietary microkernels (running on the baseband processor / modem).
flowchart LR
subgraph Smartphone Host
A[User OS: Android / iOS] <-->|RIL / SMD| B[Modem RTOS: Baseband]
end
subgraph External Interfaces
C[USB Port: CDC-ACM / ADB] -->|Direct AT Commands| B
C -->|ADB Shell| A
end
B <-->|ISO 7816 APDU| D[SIM Card: Java Card OS]To extract SIM parameters without physically removing the SIM tray, an attacker can leverage hardware communication interfaces between the host SoC and the baseband modem:
Vector 1: The AT Command Interface 9:16
Originating from the 1981 Hayes Smartmodem standard, AT (Attention) commands remain integrated into all modern cellular basebands. 3GPP standards (TS 27.007) standardize AT commands for cellular interactions:
AT+CGMI– Returns modem manufacturer.AT+CGMM– Returns modem model.AT+CGMR– Returns firmware version.AT+CGSN– Returns IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity).AT+CIMI– Returns the IMSI directly from the SIM.AT+CRSM– Restricted SIM Access: Passes raw APDUs directly to the SIM filesystem.
Pedro highlights research from USENIX Security 2018 ("Attention Spanned: Comprehensive Vulnerability Analysis of AT Commands Within the Android Ecosystem"), which discovered undocumented AT commands exposed over USB interfaces. For example, on certain LG G4 devices, sending AT%KEYLOCK=0 instantly bypassed the Android lock screen.
Vector 2: Direct USB-to-Modem Serial Endpoints 10:40
When a smartphone is connected via USB to a host PC, it may expose a USB CDC-ACM communications device (/dev/ttyACM*).
Pedro demonstrates sending AT+CRSM commands directly through /dev/ttyACM0 to query Elementary Files:
- To read
EF_IMSI(6F07), the command format passes the APDU read instruction: ``bash echo -e 'AT+CRSM=176,28423,0,0,9\r\n' > /dev/ttyACM0 # Output: +CRSM: 144,0,"082901010000001090"`` - To read
EF_ICCID(2FE2/ decimal12258): ``bash echo -e 'AT+CRSM=176,12258,0,0,10\r\n' > /dev/ttyACM0 # Output: +CRSM: 144,0,"98440702101000000190"``
The hexadecimal strings match the IMSI and ICCID decoded earlier via the PC/SC hardware reader.
Vector 3: Android Debug Bridge (ADB) 11:35
If USB Debugging is active, an attacker with physical access can open an ADB shell. Android’s Radio Interface Layer (RIL) communicates with the modem via internal shared memory driver (SMD) device nodes (e.g., /dev/smd7, /dev/smd11, or /dev/at_mdm0).
From an ADB shell session, an attacker can directly inject AT commands into the modem device nodes:
adb shell
cat /dev/smd7 &
echo -e "AT+CRSM=176,28423,0,0,9\r\n" > /dev/smd7This returns the encoded IMSI and ICCID even while the user-facing screen lock remains active.
Android OS Security Matrix
Pedro summarizes security constraints across Android versions 13:42:
| Function | Android < 4.4.2 | Android 4.4.2 – Android 10 | Android 11+ | Android 15+ (Identity Check) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enable ADB | No unlock required | Unlock + accept RSA key required | Same as 4.4.2 | Requires unlock + biometric authentication |
| Use ADB (authorized host) | Full access even if locked | Partial access when locked | Some critical operations require unlocking | Same as Android 11 |
| AT commands via USB | Almost always accessible, even if locked | Some OEMs blocked them; Google didn't enforce yet | Since Android 9 Pie, most commands are blocked when locked | Same as Android 11 |
| Biometric authentication | Not available | Optional for screen unlock | Lockdown mode allows disabling biometrics temporarily | Mandatory biometrics for sensitive settings |
14:38 Mobile Network Authentication Procedures and Policies
Miguel returns to explain mobile network core architectures and authentication protocols.
Network Architecture Overview
Cellular networks consist of two primary subsystems:
- Radio Access Network (RAN): Base stations (BTS in 2G, NodeB in 3G, eNodeB in 4G, gNodeB in 5G) managing radio links over the air interface.
- Core Network (CN): Handles call routing, mobility management, internet connectivity, and subscriber databases (HLR/AuC in 2G/3G, HSS/MME in 4G, UDM/AUSF in 5G).
Authentication Protocols by Generation
- 2G (GSM): Utilizes unilateral authentication. The network challenges the mobile device with a random challenge ($RAND$), and the SIM calculates a response ($SRES$) using $K_i$ and the A3 algorithm. Crucially, the mobile station never authenticates the network. This unilateral trust boundary enables IMSI catchers (Stingrays) and fake base stations.
- 3G, 4G, and 5G: Implement mutual authentication via the Authentication and Key Agreement (AKA) protocol (e.g., UMTS-AKA, EPS-AKA, 5G-AKA). Both the network and the mobile device independently compute authentication vectors ($RAND, AUTN, XRES$). The SIM verifies the network token ($AUTN$) to ensure the base station is legitimate, preventing rogue base stations from intercepting traffic.
sequenceDiagram
autonumber
participant UE as Mobile Device (UE)
participant Core as Mobile Core Network
Note over UE,Core: Standard Initial Registration
UE->>Core: Registration Request (IMSI / TMSI)
Core->>UE: Authentication Request (RAND, AUTN)
Note over UE: UE computes RES using Ki
UE->>Core: Authentication Response (RES)
Core->>UE: Security Mode Command (Ciphering / Integrity)
Core->>UE: Registration Accept
Core->>UE: Registration CompleteAuthentication Policies: Time-Based vs. Event-Based
An operator's authentication policy governs when an authentication handshake is required. Executing an authentication challenge requires cryptographic overhead and signaling bandwidth across the core network. Consequently, operators do not authenticate subscribers on every transmission. Policies fall into two categories 16:37:
- Time-Based Authentication Policy: Subscribers are challenged only after a specific timer expires. Operator A: Authentication timer set to 24 hours. Operator B: Authentication timer set to 30 minutes. * An attacker attempting a Ghost SIM attachment against Operator A has an exploitable window of up to 24 hours, whereas Operator B closes the window in 30 minutes.
- Event-Based Authentication Policy: The network challenges the subscriber only after $N$ events occur (e.g., $N$ SMS messages, $N$ voice calls, or $N$ routing area/tracking area updates).
Measuring Operator Policies via Automated Testing
At 18:12, Miguel presents their custom testing apparatus: a laptop controlling a Quectel cellular modem via automated scripts while capturing signaling frames via Wireshark.
In an automated SMS test 18:58, the script registered with a legitimate SIM, then systematically transmitted outbound SMS messages:
- SMS #1 through #15 passed without authentication challenges.
- Upon transmitting SMS #16, the network triggered a
DTAP (MM) Authentication Request. - This proved the operator enforced an event-based authentication ratio of $1:16$ for SMS traffic.
At 19:30, Miguel displays an empirical comparison of four 2G operators:
| Event Type / Metric | Operator A | Operator B | Operator C | Operator D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Registrations CS (Circuit Switched) | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Authentication Procedures Triggered | 1 | 1 | 15 | 13 |
| Registrations PS (Packet Switched) | 20 | 20 | 19 | 21 |
| Authentication Procedures Triggered | 20 | 20 | 15 | 20 |
| SMS Sent | 20 | 20 | 14 | 23 |
| Authentication Procedures Triggered | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 |
| Phone Calls Placed | 20 | 20 | 14 | 9 |
| Authentication Procedures Triggered | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Analysis of the Table:
- Packet Switched (Data) Attachments: Highly protected. Operators A, B, and D challenged nearly 100% of packet-switched registrations.
- Circuit Switched (Voice/SMS) Attachments: Weakly enforced. Operators A and B challenged only 1 out of 20 CS registration attempts.
- Phone Calls: Operators A, B, C, and D challenged calls only 1 to 2 times out of 10–20 calls.
20:30 The Ghost SIM Attack Mechanism
The Ghost SIM attack takes advantage of these permissive authentication gaps:
- Prerequisite: Attacker gains brief physical or logical access to the target phone (or SIM card).
- Extraction: The attacker extracts
EF_IMSIandEF_ICCID(along with operator profile metadata) via a smartcard reader, USB serial AT commands, or an ADB shell. The secret key ($K_i$) is neither extracted nor required. - Cloning: The extracted metadata is programmed onto a blank, programmable smartcard (e.g., a Sysmocom sysmoUSIM-SJS1 card) using the known default
ADM PIN. - Network Attachment: The cloned programmable SIM (the Ghost SIM) is inserted into the attacker’s phone. The attacker attempts a network registration. Case A (Strict Policy): The core network responds with an
Authentication Request. Because the Ghost SIM lacks $K_i$, it cannot generate the correct $SRES$ or $RES$ token. The network rejects the registration with aLocation Updating Reject21:58. Case B (Permissive Policy): The core network skips the authentication handshake and directly issues aLocation Updating Accept22:22. The Ghost SIM is now registered under the victim's identity.
flowchart TD
A[Victim Phone] -->|Extract IMSI / ICCID| B(Attacker Script)
B -->|Write Metadata via ADM PIN| C[Programmable Sysmocom SIM]
C -->|Insert| D[Attacker Phone: Ghost SIM]
D -->|Registration Request| E{Core Network Policy}
E -->|Triggers Auth Challenge| F[Requires Ki: Fails & Disconnects]
E -->|No Auth Challenge| G[Location Updating Accept]
G --> H[Cloned Device Connected: Intercept SMS / 2FA]23:25 Live Demonstration and Hardware Implementation
Pedro demonstrates a portable, standalone hardware implementation of the attack:
- Hardware Unit: A Raspberry Pi 3 housed in an acrylic casing equipped with a small LCD screen, a connected USB smartcard reader holding a Sysmocom programmable SIM, a power bank, and a USB cable.
- Operation: When an attacker connects a target smartphone to the Raspberry Pi via USB: 1. The script detects the mobile device (
/dev/ttyACM0). 2. The system executes automated AT commands to read nine standard Elementary Files (1/9through9/9). 3. The LCD displays "Mirroring SIM..." while writing the parameters to the programmable card using its administrative PIN. 4. The screen flashes green with "SIM Mirrored".
During the live stage attempt in Toronto 27:30, Pedro inserts the freshly mirrored Ghost SIM into an attacker phone and toggles Airplane Mode. The live attempt fails to attach immediately because the Canadian operator challenged the registration request (matching their statistical observation that initial attachment success on Canadian carriers is roughly 1 in 15 attempts).
27:57 Recorded Demonstrations (Singapore and Canada)
To substantiate the exploit, the speakers display recorded field demonstrations conducted in international cellular markets:
Demo 1: Singapore (4G LTE Data & SMS) 28:00
- Setup: Three phones (Victim phone on the left, Fraudulent Ghost SIM phone in the middle, Legitimate auxiliary device on the right).
- Execution: Elementary files are cloned via the laptop script into a Sysmocom SIM.
- Results:
- The Ghost SIM phone toggles Airplane Mode and immediately attaches to the Singaporean carrier's 4G LTE network.
- The attacker browses the web, loading the Singapore Airlines homepage (
singaporeair.com). - The auxiliary phone sends an SMS to the victim’s phone number. The incoming text message lands directly on the attacker's Ghost SIM phone 29:22.
Demo 2: Canada (4G LTE Data Connection) 29:28
- Setup: Samsung Galaxy smartphone on a Canadian carrier in Montreal/Toronto.
- Execution: A laptop extracts SIM metadata over USB, writes to the programmable SIM, and inserts it into a Samsung Galaxy S22.
- Results:
- Upon exiting Airplane Mode, the device registers on 4G LTE.
- The attacker searches Google and opens
whatismyipaddress.com, verifying active internet connectivity and displaying a public Canadian IP address mapped to Montreal 30:58.
31:08 Global Operator Vulnerability Matrix
Pedro presents a consolidated vulnerability matrix detailing empirical testing across telecommunication operators worldwide:
Vulnerability Status:
[ Vulnerable ] Exploitation Confirmed (Ghost SIM attached successfully)
[ N/A ] Technology Decommissioned or Not Available on Prepaid
[ Red ] Protected / Secure (Authentication challenged 100% of the time)The on-screen table displays testing results across European and Asian operators 31:08:
| Country / Operator | 2G CS | 2G PS | 3G CS | 3G PS | 4G PS | 5G PS (SA) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EUR Country #1 Operator #1 (Spain) | Vulnerable | Vulnerable | Vulnerable | Vulnerable | Vulnerable | Vulnerable |
| EUR Country #1 Operator #2 (Spain) | Vulnerable | Protected (Red) | Vulnerable | Protected (Red) | Vulnerable | Vulnerable |
| EUR Country #2 Operator #3 (Netherlands) | Vulnerable | Protected (Red) | N/A | N/A | Vulnerable | N/A* |
| EUR Country #3 Operator #4 (Germany) | Vulnerable | Protected (Red) | N/A | N/A | Vulnerable | N/A* |
| EUR Country #4 Operator #5 (Germany) | Vulnerable | Protected (Red) | N/A | N/A | Vulnerable | N/A* |
| ASIA Country #1 Operator #6 (Singapore) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Vulnerable | N/A* |
| ASIA Country #1 Operator #7 (Singapore) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Vulnerable | N/A* |
\Note on 5G Standalone (SA) testing:* Pedro clarifies that true 5G Standalone (SA) prepaid SIM cards could only be obtained in Spain without signing long-term identity contracts. In other foreign jurisdictions, 5G prepaid offerings were Non-Standalone (NSA, utilizing the 4G LTE core), meaning 5G SA tests were recorded as N/A due to regulatory/contract limitations rather than technical immunity.
Key Architectural Insights from the Matrix:
- 5G Standalone is Vulnerable: In Spain, 5G SA networks with native 5G cores attached to the Ghost SIM without issuing an authentication challenge.
- 4G LTE is Universally Vulnerable: Every single tested operator across Europe and Asia allowed Ghost SIM attachments on 4G LTE packet-switched data networks.
- Decommissioning Legacy Networks Does Not Fix the Problem: Singapore decommissioned 2G and 3G completely, yet its 4G network remained fully vulnerable to Ghost SIM attachments.
34:20 Post-Exploitation: WhatsApp 2FA Hijacking
Pedro explores the real-world impact of the attack, focusing on two-factor authentication (2FA) bypass and identity theft.
WhatsApp Account Hijacking Walkthrough 35:40
- Target Identification: The victim's phone number is mirrored into a Ghost SIM.
- Victim Neutralization: To prevent race conditions on incoming traffic, the attacker places the victim's physical device into Airplane Mode or powers it off.
- Ghost SIM Initialization: The attacker inserts the Ghost SIM into a Samsung Galaxy A52 and connects to the cellular network via 4G LTE.
- Registration: The attacker launches a fresh installation of WhatsApp and submits the victim’s phone number.
- Verification Trigger: WhatsApp attempts automated verification via a flash phone call. The attacker’s device receives the incoming phone call 36:12. The attacker ignores the call to test the SMS fallback. After the one-minute timer expires, the attacker selects "Send SMS".
- Code Interception & Takeover: At 36:50, the carrier network routes the one-time passcode (OTP) SMS directly to the Ghost SIM device. WhatsApp reads the incoming SMS (
WhatsApp code: 891-222), verifies subscriber ownership, and prompts to restore the victim's backed-up chats from cloud storage 36:58.
37:05 Limitations and Key Facilitators (CVEs)
Pedro details the technical limitations and exploitation prerequisites for executing the Ghost SIM attack.
Attack Prerequisites
- Physical access to the victim's smartphone or SIM card.
- If targeting the SIM via USB:
- Screen unlocked OR an unpatched screen lock bypass vulnerability.
- USB Debugging enabled (for ADB vector) OR 3GPP AT commands exposed over USB.
- If targeting the physical SIM directly:
- SIM PIN disabled (the default setting for many carriers).
Enabling Vulnerabilities (Facilitators)
Attackers can leverage known Android vulnerabilities to bypass physical access barriers:
Screen Lock Bypasses (NIST NVD):
CVE-2019-16273CVE-2023-43484CVE-2020-0028CVE-2023-20943CVE-2024-0044CVE-2024-31320
Exposed ADB and Modem Ports:
- Thousands of Android devices worldwide expose ADB listening over TCP port
5555without authentication. Pedro references data from the Shadowserver Foundation showing ~7,000 publicly exposed ADB instances on the open internet 38:28. - Recent baseband modem vulnerabilities allow executing arbitrary AT commands:
CVE-2025-26412(SIMCom modems: Undocumented AT commands grant root privilege on modem firmware) 38:50.CVE-2016-4030,CVE-2016-4031,CVE-2016-4032.
39:14 Countermeasures for Users and Operators
Pedro outlines defensive actions for both subscribers and cellular network operators:
User Countermeasures 39:30
- Always Activate the SIM Card PIN: Enabling the SIM PIN locks the filesystem. Without the user PIN, Elementary Files (
EF_IMSI,EF_ICCID) cannot be read over ISO 7816, AT commands, or ADB. - Never Leave Phones Unattended: Physical access remains the primary attack vector.
- Strict Lock Screen Configurations: Disable lock screen widgets, USB debugging, and notification previews.
- Deactivate USB Debugging & 3GPP AT Commands: In Android Developer Options, ensure USB Debugging is turned off when not actively in use, and disable the "3GPP AT commands" toggle if provided by the device OEM.
Operator Countermeasures 40:05
- Mandatory Cryptographic Authentication on Initial Attach: Operators must configure core network nodes (MME, SGSN, AMF) to enforce mandatory cryptographic challenges ($K_i$-based AKA) on all initial registration requests across both Circuit-Switched (CS) and Packet-Switched (PS) domains.
- Stricter Time Counters: Reduce periodic authentication timers (e.g., in VoLTE/VoNR and data registration), challenging subscribers every 3,600 seconds rather than allowing 24-hour windows.
- Event-Based Counter Hardening: Eliminate high $1:N$ ratios for SMS and calls. While authenticating every single SMS may cause signaling overhead, operators should establish dynamic, risk-based thresholds rather than predictable static counters.
Pedro concludes the formal presentation at 41:09, directing attendees to their complete academic paper published on ResearchGate: "Ghost SIM Attack: How to take advantage of weak authentication policies in 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G mobile networks."
41:46 Audience Q&A
Q1: Difficulty of Extracting Elementary Files 42:02
- Question: In terms of getting those Elementary Files off the SIM card, was that already broken or was it an easy thing to do once you had debugger access? Are SIM cards fairly locked down?
- Answer (Pedro): Extracting the files is straightforward copy-and-paste if the PIN is disabled because the 3GPP specification standardizes those files as world-readable. The real difficulty lies in reverse-engineering the network operator's specific authentication policies to determine the minimal parameter subset needed to attach to the network without provoking a cryptographic challenge.
Q2: Concurrent Operation and Dual-SIM Behavior 43:15
- Question: What happens with the original SIM card? Would both phones receive calls and SMS at the same time?
- Answer (Pedro & Miguel): Cellular networks do not support simultaneous ringing across duplicated identities; it creates a race condition in the core network's paging subsystem. Whichever device responds to the page first receives the call or SMS. Attackers mitigate this by either forcing the victim's phone into Airplane Mode, powering it off, or forcing the Ghost SIM onto a different Radio Access Technology (RAT)—for example, locking the Ghost SIM to 2G while the victim remains on 4G.
Q3: Impact of 5G SUPI and SUCI Privacy Enhancements 43:52
- Question: In 5G, they upgraded the IMSI to SUPI (Subscription Permanent Identifier) and SUCI (Subscription Concealed Identifier). Does that change anything in this case?
- Answer (Pedro): No. SUCI is an ephemeral encryption of the SUPI designed to prevent eavesdroppers on the radio interface from identifying subscribers. However, the underlying identity files still reside in the USIM filesystem, which the attacker reads directly. Because the Spanish 5G Standalone core network accepted the Ghost SIM registration without issuing an authentication challenge, the SUCI/SUPI mechanism offered no defense against this attack.
Q4: Applicability to eSIMs 44:27
- Question: Is there any difference between a physical SIM and an eSIM regarding this attack?
- Answer (Pedro): Researching eSIM profiles and embedded secure elements (eSE) constitutes future work. The presentation and published paper focus strictly on physical SIM cards, though the core network authentication policies remain fundamentally identical regardless of the subscriber profile form factor.
Q5: Forensic Artifacts Left on Target Devices 46:48
- Question: Does this attack leave any forensic trace on the victim's device? Is there any way to discover if this happened?
- Answer (Pedro & Miguel): If extracted via USB serial or AT commands, almost no traces remain because baseband modems execute commands entirely within volatile memory; rebooting the device clears active states. ADB interactions may leave command history logs if logged by system daemons, but physical SIM removal or serial extraction leaves zero device artifacts. From the network operator's perspective, the cloned Ghost SIM appears as the legitimate subscriber unless the network explicitly requests the terminal's hardware IMEI and correlates it with anomalous baseband switches.
Data & Visuals Index
| Timestamp | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 0:30 | Slide | Core thesis defining the Ghost SIM attack and key research questions. |
| 2:03 | Slide | Presentation outline and speaker introductions (Ethon Shield, Madrid). |
| 2:29 | Slide | Historical smartcard microcontrollers: PIC16C84 (GoldWafer) and PIC16F876 (Silver card). |
| 3:14 | Slide | COMP128v1 cryptanalysis news clipping and SIM-EMU emulator timeline. |
| 4:48 | Slide | Black Hat USA 2015 side-channel attack citation (oscilloscope power analysis on USIMs). |
| 5:27 | Table | Historical timeline of SIM swapping fraud from 2007 to 2025 with FBI IC3 statistics. |
| 6:09 | Diagram | SIM card pinout (ISO 7816-2) and IMSI structure decomposition (MCC, MNC, MSIN). |
| 6:39 | Diagram | SIM card filesystem tree structure (MF, DF, EF) and elementary file access control list. |
| 7:38 | Demo | Shell recording of pySim-shell.py extracting EF_IMSI and EF_ICCID via PC/SC reader. |
| 8:24 | Diagram | Generic smartphone internal architecture: Application Processor SoC, Modem RTOS, SIM Java Card. |
| 9:16 | Slide | History and syntax of Hayes AT command set and 3GPP cellular AT commands. |
| 10:06 | Slide | USENIX Security 2018 study citation on AT command screen lock bypasses. |
| 10:55 | Demo | Dual-terminal session executing AT+CRSM commands over /dev/ttyACM0 to extract IMSI. |
| 11:36 | Diagram | Android RIL and ADB communications architecture routing AT commands to baseband. |
| 12:40 | Demo | Injecting AT+CRSM via ADB shell through modem SMD device /dev/smd7. |
| 13:42 | Table | Summary of Android security controls across versions (< 4.4.2 through Android 15). |
| 14:38 | Diagram | Mobile network 101 registration and authentication signaling ladder (UE to Core). |
| 16:37 | Diagram | Comparison of time-based vs. event-based mobile network authentication policies. |
| 18:12 | Demo | Test rig setup: laptop controlling Quectel cellular modem board with Wireshark. |
| 18:58 | Code/Capture | Wireshark packet trace displaying authentication triggered after 16 consecutive SMS messages. |
| 19:30 | Table | Experimental authentication procedure policy results across four 2G operators (A, B, C, D). |
| 20:30 | Diagram | Step-by-step schematic overview of the complete Ghost SIM attack vector. |
| 21:58 | Code/Capture | Wireshark trace showing network authentication failure and Location Updating Reject. |
| 22:22 | Code/Capture | Wireshark trace showing network authentication bypass and Location Updating Accept. |
| 22:32 | Diagram | Standalone field exploit setup (Raspberry Pi 3, reader, programmable SIM). |
| 23:45 | Demo | Live hardware demonstration displaying automated SIM extraction on custom LCD screen. |
| 28:00 | Demo | Video demonstration of Ghost SIM attaching to 4G in Singapore, web browsing, and receiving SMS. |
| 29:28 | Demo | Video demonstration of Ghost SIM attaching to 4G in Canada and confirming public IP address. |
| 31:08 | Table | Global operator vulnerability matrix across 7 operators in Spain, Netherlands, Germany, and Singapore. |
| 35:40 | Demo | Video walkthrough hijacking victim WhatsApp account via voice and SMS 2FA codes. |
| 37:05 | Slide | Attack prerequisites and Android system limitations. |
| 37:49 | Slide | Android lock screen bypass CVE list (CVE-2019-16273 through CVE-2024-31320). |
| 38:14 | Slide | Exposed ADB statistics from Shadowserver Foundation and modem AT CVEs. |
| 39:14 | Slide | Practical user countermeasures (SIM PIN, lock screen, AT/ADB disabling). |
| 40:05 | Slide | Operator countermeasures: mandatory authentication, counter review. |
| 41:09 | Slide | QR code and link to full academic white paper on ResearchGate. |
Key Takeaways
- $K_i$ Extraction is Not Mandatory for Cellular Impersonation: While cloning cryptographic root keys ($K_i$) remains difficult, cloning basic Elementary Files (
EF_IMSI,EF_ICCID) into a programmable SIM card allows an attacker to impersonate subscribers on networks that fail to issue cryptographic challenges. - Cellular Authentication Policies are Inconsistent: Operators optimize for signaling overhead and network capacity by spacing out authentication challenges using time-based counters (up to 24 hours) or event-based counters (e.g., challenging only 1 in 16 SMS or 1 in 20 registration attempts).
- 4G LTE and 5G SA are Vulnerable: Insecurity is not limited to legacy 2G/3G networks. The research proved that 4G LTE packet networks across multiple continents—and native 5G Standalone in Spain—permit Ghost SIM attachments when authentication challenges are skipped.
- Modern Privacy Enhancements (SUPI/SUCI) Do Not Prevent This Attack: 5G SUPI concealment protects over-the-air radio eavesdropping, but does not prevent an attacker from reading the stored USIM identity files and presenting them to an unchallenging core network.
- Enabling the SIM PIN Neutralizes the Extraction Vector: Activating the standard 4-digit SIM PIN prevents unauthorized readers, USB serial interfaces, and ADB commands from querying
EF_IMSIandEF_ICCID. - Operators Must Enforce Strict Attachment Verification: Carriers can mitigate the Ghost SIM attack by requiring full cryptographic authentication ($K_i$-based AKA) on all initial network attachments across circuit-switched and packet-switched domains.
Transcript
Englishen40.2k chars
Organisations named here
- Ethon Shield
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
- Quectel
- Samsung
- SIMCom
- Sysmocom
CVEs named here
- CVE-2016-4030
- CVE-2016-4031
- CVE-2016-4032
- CVE-2019-16273
- CVE-2020-0028
- CVE-2023-20943
- CVE-2023-43484
- CVE-2024-0044
- CVE-2024-31320
- CVE-2025-26412
Technologies named here
- Android
- pySim-shell
- 2G GSM mobile networks
- 3G UMTS mobile networks
- iOS
- SIM-EMU
- Wireshark
- 4G LTE mobile networks
- Linux
- Windows
- 5G Standalone and Non-Standalone mobile networks
- ADB
- SIMCom modems
- Python
- LG G4 smartphone
- Samsung Galaxy S22
- Samsung Galaxy A25
- Samsung Galaxy A52
- LG Nexus 5X
- Android OS
- Shadowserver Foundation
- NIST
Techniques named here
- Ghost SIM attack
- SIM swapping and cloning
- Side-channel power analysis on smartcards
- Android lock screen bypass
- SMS and voice call interception for 2FA bypass
Related in Mobile Security
thomasbuilds/Spectre
