<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>CIPP Guide &#187; Martin Albrecht</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cippguide.org/tag/martin-albrecht/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cippguide.org</link>
	<description>Your Guide to the CIPP</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:00:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Popular encryption software flaw details published</title>
		<link>http://www.cippguide.org/2009/05/29/popular-encryption-software-flaw-details-published/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cippguide.org/2009/05/29/popular-encryption-software-flaw-details-published/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 11:00:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jbrook</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CIPP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hacking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Information Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cipher-block chaining]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNPI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cryptography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CTR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Encryption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gaven Watson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IEEE Symposium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kenny Paterson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[man-in-the-middle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Martin Albrecht]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OpenSSH]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Royal Holloway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secure shell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SSH]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[University of London]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cippguide.org/?p=661</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The recently unveiled flaw in SSH reiterates the idea that, no matter how good the technology, it will eventually fail from a whole host of threats.  In this case, the implementation flaw occurred in a software product that had been previously "proven secure".  Real world implementations are more complex than security models, and other mitigations must be in place when a design does finally [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As we mentioned in a recent <a title="Even with the best security products and ideas in place, plan for a problem that will inevitably arrise" href="http://www.cippguide.org/2009/05/19/hey-stupid-dont-just-throw-that-out-corporate-disposal-policies-keep-your-organization-out-of-the-headlines/" target="_blank">post on disposal policies</a>, someone, somewhere will eventually notice a problem in even the best security software.  As was the case with Secure Shell (SSH).  SSH is an encryption tool and was originally used as a secure alternative to remote command prompt software like rlogin or telnet.  Since it&#8217;s initial inception, additional features have been added that allow SSH to operate as a Swiss Army Knife for encryption.  As 80% of the total SSH deployments are actually OpenSSH, we will use the two interchangeably.  </p>
<p>Several years ago, using software engineering methods, University of California San Diego researchers demonstrated <a title="Breaking and provably repairing the SSH authenticated encryption scheme: A case study of the Encode-then-Encrypt-and-MAC paradigm " href="http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/yoshi/papers/SSH/" target="_blank">SSH is provably secure</a>.  And SSH has shown itself to be nearly as good as claimed, posting only 31 bugs since 1998, most of which were minor.  Until now&#8230;  Three researchers from the Royal Holloway Information Security Group (ISG) at the University of London, Martin Albrecht, Kenny Paterson and Gaven Watson, <a title="University of London Researchers publish Plaintext Recovery Attacks Against SSH" href="http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/~kp/SandPfinal.pdf" target="_blank">found flaws in the proof</a>.  They&#8217;ve shown that SSH is vulnerable to a <a title="Wikipedia: Man-in-the-middle attack circumvents security" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_in_the_middle_attack" target="_blank">&#8220;Man-in-the-middle&#8221; attack</a>, where someone inserts themselves between a sender and receiver, grabs information, changes it and sends it along.</p>
<h3>The Problem</h3>
<p>There are actually three problems that account for the ISG discovered flaw:</p>
<ol>
<li>The first lies in the manner the original security models used for the proof were constructed. The original proof pre-supposes garbled information may simply be reset as a failure and will not impact the security of the encryption used to protect the data.  The model never distinguished between the various kinds of failure, but the failure information turns out to be accessible to an adversary.  </li>
<li>The second is an implementation decision made by the original software developers for SSH.  The developers had two choices: send how big the transmitted information is (packet length field) unencrypted, which gives a small amount of information that tells an attacker how much data they had to crack, or encrypt hacker detectable information in the packet length field, possibly creating a <a title="Wikipedia: Known Plaintext Attack" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Known-plaintext_attack" target="_blank">&#8220;known plaintext&#8221; attack</a> and thereby decreasing the <a title="Key space referrs to the total number of keys available.  Think of it as a big key ring, and in order to open the door, you must try every key on the ring.  Wikipedia's definition is here" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyspace" target="_blank">keyspace</a>.  SSH&#8217;s developers chose the unknown.  </li>
<li>The last problem has to deal with encryption modes and feedback loops.  In order to efficiently create and keep an encrypted tunnel between two computers hard to break, information from the current set of mathematical operations is used to incrementally change the next set, preventing various <a title="SANS reading room: explanation of various types of cryptographic attacks" href="http://www.giac.org/resources/whitepaper/cryptography/57.php" target="_blank">encryption attacks</a>.  What data are taken from the current packet and fed into the next depend on the &#8220;<a title="Wikipedia: block cipher modes of operation" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_modes_of_operation" target="_blank">cryptographic mode</a>&#8221; chosen.  By default, SSH uses cipher-block chaining (CBC) mode instead of counter (CTR) mode.<span id="more-661"></span></li>
</ol>
<h3>Exploiting the ssh flaws</h3>
<p>The ISG researchers took the error information reported that the proof never accounted for, and the design decision made by SSH developers, and began tinkering.  They eventually found a method of reducing the security in the default settings of SSH.  They reduced the overall security by creating a guessing game where an attacker has a one in 262,144 chance of success versus a brute force attempt at 1 in 4.2 billion  (2^18 vs 2^32).  You&#8217;ll only recover a very small amount of information using this method (14 or 32 bits), but it is enough to be useful.  The researchers&#8217; vulnerability was first announced in November 2008, when the UK Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CNPI) simply could not ignore the problem and, working with the ISG, issued a <a title="CPNI Vulnerability Advisory SSH" href="http://www.cpni.gov.uk/docs/vulnerability_advisory_ssh.txt" target="_blank">CPNI advisory</a>.  Full details of the flaw were not announced until this month, when the researchers presented at an IEEE Symposium in California.</p>
<h3>Vulnerability mitigation strategies</h3>
<p>Even though the attack will work &#8220;with probability 1&#8243; in some circumstances, it&#8217;s somewhat difficult to pull-off in general, and is about as stealthy as a freight train.  OpenSSH v 5.2 and above should not be susceptible to this particular exploit.  According to the CPNI advisory, the SSH flaw may be mitigated in current SSH versions by using CTR mode instead of the default CBC mode.  </p>
<h3>Takeaway</h3>
<p>This same technology reliance problem shows up repeatedly.  Use new equipment and products to increase efficiency, but do not over-rely on automation and technology.  Someone somewhere will notice of something unexpected, even with proven secure products.  Audit system results and write policies to take into account that the technology eventually will fail, not just from hackers or even questionable coding decisions &#8211; hurricanes, fires and employee clumsiness can all accomplish the same thing.  If your systems fail, any private information exposed will cost money &#8211; in breach notifications, time resetting the systems and general reputation.   The ISG researchers summed up the situation succintly in their paper: </p>
<blockquote><p>Unfortunately, it seems that <strong>real world</strong> cryptographic <strong>implementations</strong> <strong>are more complex </strong><strong>than the</strong> current <strong>security models</strong> for SSH handle.</p></blockquote>
<p> </p>
<h3>CIPP Candidate Preparation</h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">In preparation for the Certified Information Privacy Professional exam, a privacy professional should be comfortable with topics related to this post including:</p>
<ul>
<li>Managing Risk and compliance (Foundations:I.G.b) including: Privacy Policy Development, Risk Management, Compliance</li>
<li>Information Security (Foundations: II.C) including: Encryption (data-in-motion) and Threats &amp; Vulnerabilities</li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cippguide.org/2009/05/29/popular-encryption-software-flaw-details-published/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
