Hanno's blog

On Tuesday details about the security vulnerability GHOST in Glibc were published by the company Qualys. When severe security vulnerabilities hit the news I always like to take this as a chance to learn what can be improved and how to avoid similar incidents in the future (see e. g. my posts on Heartbleed/Shellshock, POODLE/BERserk and NTP lately).

GHOST itself is a Heap Overflow in the name resolution function of the Glibc. The Glibc is the standard C library on Linux systems, almost every software that runs on a Linux system uses it. It is somewhat unclear right now how serious GHOST really is. A lot of software uses the affected function gethostbyname(), but a lot of conditions have to be met to make this vulnerability exploitable. Right now the most relevant attack is against the mail server exim where Qualys has developed a working exploit which they plan to release soon. There have been speculations whether GHOST might be exploitable through Wordpress, which would make it much more serious.

Technically GHOST is a heap overflow, which is a very common bug in C programming. C is inherently prone to these kinds of memory corruption errors and there are essentially two things here to move forwards: Improve the use of exploit mitigation techniques like ASLR and create new ones (levee is an interesting project, watch this 31C3 talk). And if possible move away from C altogether and develop core components in memory safe languages (I have high hopes for the Mozilla Servo project, watch this linux.conf.au talk).

GHOST was discovered three times

But the thing I want to elaborate here is something different about GHOST: It turns out that it has been discovered independently three times. It was already fixed in 2013 in the Glibc Code itself. The commit message didn't indicate that it was a security vulnerability. Then in early 2014 developers at Google found it again using Address Sanitizer (which – by the way – tells you that all software developers should use Address Sanitizer more often to test their software). Google fixed it in Chrome OS and explicitly called it an overflow and a vulnerability. And then recently Qualys found it again and made it public.

Now you may wonder why a vulnerability fixed in 2013 made headlines in 2015. The reason is that it widely wasn't fixed because it wasn't publicly known that it was serious. I don't think there was any malicious intent. The original Glibc fix was probably done without anyone noticing that it is serious and the Google devs may have thought that the fix is already public, so they don't need to make any noise about it. But we can clearly see that something doesn't work here. Which brings us to a discussion how the Linux and free software world in general and vulnerability management in particular work.

The “Never touch a running system” principle

Quite early when I came in contact with computers I heard the phrase “Never touch a running system”. This may have been a reasonable approach to IT systems back then when computers usually weren't connected to any networks and when remote exploits weren't a thing, but it certainly isn't a good idea today in a world where almost every computer is part of the Internet. Because once new security vulnerabilities become public you should change your system and fix them. However that doesn't change the fact that many people still operate like that.

A number of Linux distributions provide “stable” or “Long Time Support” versions. Basically the idea is this: At some point they take the current state of their systems and further updates will only contain important fixes and security updates. They guarantee to fix security vulnerabilities for a certain time frame. This is kind of a compromise between the “Never touch a running system” approach and reasonable security. It tries to give you a system that will basically stay the same, but you get fixes for security issues. Popular examples for this approach are the stable branch of Debian, Ubuntu LTS versions and the Enterprise versions of Red Hat and SUSE.

To give you an idea about time frames, Debian currently supports the stable trees Squeeze (6.0) which was released 2011 and Wheezy (7.0) which was released 2013. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has currently 4 supported version (4, 5, 6, 7), the oldest one was originally released in 2005. So we're talking about pretty long time frames that these systems get supported. Ubuntu and Suse have similar long time supported Systems.

These systems are delivered with an implicit promise: We will take care of security and if you update regularly you'll have a system that doesn't change much, but that will be secure against know threats. Now the interesting question is: How well do these systems deliver on that promise and how hard is that?

Vulnerability management is chaotic and fragile

I'm not sure how many people are aware how vulnerability management works in the free software world. It is a pretty fragile and chaotic process. There is no standard way things work. The information is scattered around many different places. Different people look for vulnerabilities for different reasons. Some are developers of the respective projects themselves, some are companies like Google that make use of free software projects, some are just curious people interested in IT security or researchers. They report a bug through the channels of the respective project. That may be a mailing list, a bug tracker or just a direct mail to the developer. Hopefully the developers fix the issue. It does happen that the person finding the vulnerability first has to explain to the developer why it actually is a vulnerability. Sometimes the fix will happen in a public code repository, sometimes not. Sometimes the developer will mention that it is a vulnerability in the commit message or the release notes of the new version, sometimes not. There are notorious projects that refuse to handle security vulnerabilities in a transparent way. Sometimes whoever found the vulnerability will post more information on his/her blog or on a mailing list like full disclosure or oss-security. Sometimes not. Sometimes vulnerabilities get a CVE id assigned, sometimes not.

Add to that the fact that in many cases it's far from clear what is a security vulnerability. It is absolutely common that if you ask the people involved whether this is serious the best and most honest answer they can give is “we don't know”. And very often bugs get fixed without anyone noticing that it even could be a security vulnerability.

Then there are projects where the number of security vulnerabilities found and fixed is really huge. The latest Chrome 40 release had 62 security fixes, version 39 had 42. Chrome releases a new version every two months. Browser vulnerabilities are found and fixed on a daily basis. Not that extreme but still high is the vulnerability count in PHP, which is especially worrying if you know that many webhosting providers run PHP versions not supported any more.

So you probably see my point: There is a very chaotic stream of information in various different places about bugs and vulnerabilities in free software projects. The number of vulnerabilities is huge. Making a promise that you will scan all this information for security vulnerabilities and backport the patches to your operating system is a big promise. And I doubt anyone can fulfill that.

GHOST is a single example, so you might ask how often these things happen. At some point right after GHOST became public this excerpt from the Debian Glibc changelog caught my attention (excuse the bad quality, had to take the image from Twitter because I was unable to find that changelog on Debian's webpages):



What you can see here: While Debian fixed GHOST (which is CVE-2015-0235) they also fixed CVE-2012-6656 – a security issue from 2012. Admittedly this is a minor issue, but it's a vulnerability nevertheless. A quick look at the Debian changelog of Chromium both in squeeze and wheezy will tell you that they aren't fixing all the recent security issues in it. (Debian already had discussions about removing Chromium and in Wheezy they don't stick to a single version.)

It would be an interesting (and time consuming) project to take a package like PHP and check for all the security vulnerabilities whether they are fixed in the latest packages in Debian Squeeze/Wheezy, all Red Hat Enterprise versions and other long term support systems. PHP is probably more interesting than browsers, because the high profile targets for these vulnerabilities are servers. What worries me: I'm pretty sure some people already do that. They just won't tell you and me, instead they'll write their exploits and sell them to repressive governments or botnet operators.

Then there are also stories like this: Tavis Ormandy reported a security issue in Glibc in 2012 and the people from Google's Project Zero went to great lengths to show that it is actually exploitable. Reading the Glibc bug report you can learn that this was already reported in 2005(!), just nobody noticed back then that it was a security issue and it was minor enough that nobody cared to fix it.

There are also bugs that require changes so big that backporting them is essentially impossible. In the TLS world a lot of protocol bugs have been highlighted in recent years. Take Lucky Thirteen for example. It is a timing sidechannel in the way the TLS protocol combines the CBC encryption, padding and authentication. I like to mention this bug because I like to quote it as the TLS bug that was already mentioned in the specification (RFC 5246, page 23: "This leaves a small timing channel"). The real fix for Lucky Thirteen is not to use the erratic CBC mode any more and switch to authenticated encryption modes which are part of TLS 1.2. (There's another possible fix which is using Encrypt-then-MAC, but it is hardly deployed.) Up until recently most encryption libraries didn't support TLS 1.2. Debian Squeeze and Red Hat Enterprise 5 ship OpenSSL versions that only support TLS 1.0. There is no trivial patch that could be backported, because this is a huge change. What they likely backported are workarounds that avoid the timing channel. This will stop the attack, but it is not a very good fix, because it keeps the problematic old protocol and will force others to stay compatible with it.

LTS and stable distributions are there for a reason

The big question is of course what to do about it. OpenBSD developer Ted Unangst wrote a blog post yesterday titled Long term support considered harmful, I suggest you read it. He argues that we should get rid of long term support completely and urge users to upgrade more often. OpenBSD has a 6 month release cycle and supports two releases, so one version gets supported for one year.

Given what I wrote before you may think that I agree with him, but I don't. While I personally always avoided to use too old systems – I 'm usually using Gentoo which doesn't have any snapshot releases at all and does rolling releases – I can see the value in long term support releases. There are a lot of systems out there – connected to the Internet – that are never updated. Taking away the option to install systems and let them run with relatively little maintenance overhead over several years will probably result in more systems never receiving any security updates. With all its imperfectness running a Debian Squeeze with the latest updates is certainly better than running an operating system from 2011 that stopped getting security fixes in 2012.

Improving the information flow

I don't think there is a silver bullet solution, but I think there are things we can do to improve the situation. What could be done is to coordinate and share the work. Debian, Red Hat and other distributions with stable/LTS versions could agree that their next versions are based on a specific Glibc version and they collaboratively work on providing patch sets to fix all the vulnerabilities in it. This already somehow happens with upstream projects providing long term support versions, the Linux kernel does that for example. Doing that at scale would require vast organizational changes in the Linux distributions. They would have to agree on a roughly common timescale to start their stable versions.

What I'd consider the most crucial thing is to improve and streamline the information flow about vulnerabilities. When Google fixes a vulnerability in Chrome OS they should make sure this information is shared with other Linux distributions and the public. And they should know where and how they should share this information.

One mechanism that tries to organize the vulnerability process is the system of CVE ids. The idea is actually simple: Publicly known vulnerabilities get a fixed id and they are in a public database. GHOST is CVE-2015-0235 (the scheme will soon change because four digits aren't enough for all the vulnerabilities we find every year). I got my first CVEs assigned in 2007, so I have some experiences with the CVE system and they are rather mixed. Sometimes I briefly mention rather minor issues in a mailing list thread and a CVE gets assigned right away. Sometimes I explicitly ask for CVE assignments and never get an answer.

I would like to see that we just assign CVEs for everything that even remotely looks like a security vulnerability. However right now I think the process is to unreliable to deliver that. There are other public vulnerability databases like OSVDB, I have limited experience with them, so I can't judge if they'd be better suited. Unfortunately sometimes people hesitate to request CVE ids because others abuse the CVE system to count assigned CVEs and use this as a metric how secure a product is. Such bad statistics are outright dangerous, because it gives people an incentive to downplay vulnerabilities or withhold information about them.

This post was partly inspired by some discussions on oss-security

tl;dr A very short key exchange crashes Chromium/Chrome. Other browsers accept parameters for a Diffie Hellman key exchange that are completely nonsense. In combination with recently found TLS problems this could be a security risk.

People who tried to access the webpage https://demo.cmrg.net/ recently with a current version of the Chrome browser or its free pendant Chromium have experienced that it causes a crash in the Browser. On Tuesday this was noted on the oss-security mailing list. The news spread quickly and gave this test page some attention. But the page was originally not set up to crash browsers. According to a thread on LWN.net it was set up in November 2013 to test extremely short parameters for a key exchange with Diffie Hellman. Diffie Hellman can be used in the TLS protocol to establish a connection with perfect forward secrecy.

For a key exchange with Diffie Hellman a server needs two parameters, those are transmitted to the client on a connection attempt: A large prime and a so-called generator. The size of the prime defines the security of the algorithm. Usually, primes with 1024 bit are used today, although this is not very secure. Mostly the Apache web server is responsible for this, because before the very latest version 2.4.7 it was not able to use longer primes for key exchanges.

The test page mentioned above tries a connection with 16 bit - extremely short - and it seems it has caught a serious bug in chromium. We had a look how other browsers handle short or nonsense key exchange parameters.

Mozilla Firefox rejects connections with very short primes like 256 bit or shorter, but connections with 512 and 768 bit were possible. This is completely insecure today. When the Chromium crash is prevented with a patch that is available it has the same behavior. Both browsers use the NSS library that blocks connections with very short primes.

The test with the Internet Explorer was a bit difficult because usually the Microsoft browser doesn't support Diffie Hellman key exchanges. It is only possible if the server certificate uses a DSA key with a length of 1024 bit. DSA keys for TLS connections are extremely rare, most certificate authorities only support RSA keys and certificates with 1024 bit usually aren't issued at all today. But we found that CAcert, a free certificate authority that is not included in mainstream browsers, still allows DSA certificates with 1024 bit. The Internet Explorer allowed only connections with primes of 512 bit or larger. Interestingly, Microsoft's browser also rejects connections with 2048 and 4096 bit. So it seems Microsoft doesn't accept too much security. But in practice this is mostly irrelevant, with common RSA certificates the Internet Explorer only allows key exchange with elliptic curves.

Opera is stricter than other browsers with short primes. Connections below 1024 bit produce a warning and the user is asked if he really wants to connect. Other browsers should probably also reject such short primes. There are no legitimate reasons for a key exchange with less than 1024 bit.

The behavior of Safari on MacOS and Konqueror on Linux was interesting. Both browsers accepted almost any kind of nonsense parameters. Very short primes like 17 were accepted. Even with 15 as a "prime" a connection was possible.

No browser checks if the transmitted prime is really a prime. A test connection with 1024 bit which used a prime parameter that was non-prime was possible with all browsers. The reason is probably that testing a prime is not trivial. To test large primes the Miller-Rabin test is used. It doesn't provide a strict mathematical proof for primality, only a very high probability, but in practice this is good enough. A Miller-Rabin test with 1024 bit is very fast, but with 4096 bit it can take seconds on slow CPUs. For a HTTPS connection an often unacceptable delay.

At first it seems that it is irrelevant if browsers accept insecure parameters for a key exchange. Usually this does not happen. The only way this could happen is a malicious server, but that would mean that the server itself is not trustworthy. The transmitted data is not secure anyway in this case because the server could send it to third parties completely unencrypted.

But in connection with client certificates insecure parameters can be a problem. Some days ago a research team found some possibilities for attacks against the TLS protocol. In these attacks a malicious server could pretend to another server that it has the certificate of a user connecting to the malicious server. The authors of this so-called Triple Handshake attack mention one variant that uses insecure Diffie Hellman parameters. Client certificates are rarely used, so in most scenarios this does not matter. The authors suggest that TLS could use standardized parameters for a Diffie Hellman key exchange. Then a server could check quickly if the parameters are known - and would be sure that they are real primes. Future research may show if insecure parameters matter in other scenarios.

The crash problems in Chromium show that in the past software wasn't very well tested with nonsense parameters in cryptographic protocols. Similar tests for other protocols could reveal further problems.

The mentioned tests for browsers are available at the URL https://dh.tlsfun.de/.

This text is mostly a translation of a German article I wrote for the online magazine Golem.de.