If you thought that FREAK SSL/TLS security hole was only in programs using Apple’s SSL (old OpenSSL) – you’re wrong, and vulnerable. MS’s Secure Channel (SChannel) stack has it too. Great.
FREAK allows mitm (man-in-the-middle) attacks thanks to mistakes made decades ago. “As new technologies emerge, and cryptography hardens, many simply add on new solutions without removing out-dated and vulnerable technologies. This effectively undermines the security model you are trying to build.”, said As Andrew Avanessian, Avecto's EVP of consultancy and technology services.
We’re also days away from a patch, so there’s a good “How To” here: http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-protect-yourself-against-freak/
Who’s Vulnerable:
the following SSL/TLS client libraries, are vulnerable. OpenSSL (CVE-2015-0204): versions before 1.0.1k. BoringSSL: versions before Nov 10, 2014. LibReSSL: versions before 2.1.2. SecureTransport: is vulnerable. A fix is being tested. SChannel: is vulnerable. A fix is being tested. Web browsers that use these TLS libraries are open to attack. These include: Chrome versions before 41 on various platforms are vulnerable. Internet Explorer. Wait for a patch, switch to Firefox or Chrome 41, or disable RSA key exchange as detailed below using the Group Policy Object Editor Safari is vulnerable. Wait for a patch, switch to Firefox or Chrome 41. Android Browser is vulnerable. Switch to Chrome 41. Blackberry Browser is vulnerable. Wait for a patch. Opera on Mac and Android is vulnerable. Update to Opera 28 (when stable), switch to Chrome 41.
the following SSL/TLS client libraries, are vulnerable.
Web browsers that use these TLS libraries are open to attack. These include:
Your browser might even be safe, but:
“Chrome for Windows and all versions of Firefox are known to be safe. However, even if your browser is safe, certain third-party software, including some anti-virus products and adware programs, can expose you to the attack by intercepting TLS connections from the browser. If you are using a safe browser but our client test says you’re vulnerable, this is a likely cause.”
To see if your specific client system is vulnerable, run the FREAK Attack Client Check
Apple and Google will be releasing fixes this coming week.
So…if you want to blame someone for this vulnerability, blame the NSA. Yup:
“It seemed like such a good idea in the early 90s. Secure-Socket Layer (SSL) encryption was brand new and the National Security Agency (NSA) wanted to make sure that they could read "secured" web traffic by foreign nationals. So, the NSA got Netscape to agree to deploy 40-bit cryptography in its International Edition while saving the more secure 128-bit version for the US version. By 2000, the rules changed and any browser could use higher security SSL. But that old insecure code was still being used and, fifteen years later, it's come back to bite us.” – ZDNet
You see, the NSA made sure that the early SSL protocol itself was made to be broken.
So…all this reminds me of Mad Magazine’s Spy vs. Spy: Setting out to screw the enemy, you end up screwing yourself because if there’s one thing you can count on it’s if things can go wrong, they will and one other thing: People are lazy, and fix things in the laziest way possible.
Sources:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-protect-yourself-against-freak/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/freak-another-day-another-serious-ssl-security-hole/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-reveals-windows-vulnerable-to-freak-ssl-flaw/
http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2015/03/attack-of-week-freak-or-factoring-nsa.html
<--- just so you know I read it...not that that is important...sometimes I think the only people who know about this stuff are about a fraction of 1 percent. The rest of the average pc users around the world know nothing and go on like normal. Oh well...thanks for the news, Doc!
Ditto
Chrome 41.0.2272.76 m fails the test here. Palemoon passes.
I looked at modifying the Group Policy as described in the ZDNet article. He provides a list of outdated vulnerable ciphers that he says should be added to the SSL Cipher Suite Order list and further says that adding them will prevent these ciphers from being used.
As it happens, my SSL Cipher Suite Order is currently Not Configured, which from the description in the Group Policy Editor means the OS default list is being used, which presumably is the problem. The instructions for modifying the list (which the ZDNet article says to follow) suggest that adding a list means that user-provided (added) list will be used instead of the default list and that you should not include ciphers you don't want to use. This seems to be the opposite of what the ZDNet author says would be the case - he's advising adding the outdated ciphers to this list.
Is this just a case of typical Microsoft doublespeak where "to be used" means "not to be used" or did the author get it wrong? Is the SSL Cipher Suite Order list supposed to be a Black List as the author's instructions would imply or a White List as the GP editor instructions would imply?
Mine as well.
http://www.ghacks.net/2015/03/06/check-if-windows-is-affected-by-the-freak-attack-vulnerability/?_m=3n.0038.1540.hj0ao01hy5.1lgf
Thanks for the additional link, Doc.
It is a white list so a shame the ZDNet author muddied the water.
I followed the instructions from ghacks (& MS's security bulletin, using the cipher list there) and rebooted.
Interestingly, Chrome 41 is still vulnerable after applying the policy according to the freak check tool. Hopefully, the OS cipher list filter protects it.
I got to the gHacks article only after the email arrived from Germany (lol).
When I saw your question and the contents I added it hoping it would make things clearer, Daiwa. I have switched to Pale Moon x 64 as a result of this craziness.
Can't expect you to vet everything, Doc.
Well... we could. But that wouldn't be fair. The disclaimer you always provide should always be heeded.
fwiw current version of Whitehat Aviator (a Chrome derivative) passes the test. I'll let you guys figure that one out, I've no idea why it would pass while Chrome fails.
Dave, it must have to do with how the SSL is configured...
^ ^
Then I'll have to say "Good job Whitehat" - I certainly haven't fiddled with it
Yeah, Aviator 37 passes here, too, despite Chrome 41 failing. Weirdness.
Changed to Palemoon and found a great browser I hadn't tried before...and passed
Thx Doc.
You're all very welcome. A pleasure.
Well, well. The fix MS recommends breaks Windows Update. One of the comments in the ghacks article mentioned it and sure enough, it's broken on my rigs - when I check for updates I get an unknown error.
It is MS, after all.
EDIT: Reset to Not Configured, rebooted & Windows Update is working again. What a cluster.
EDIT2: Turns out the reason Chrome didn't initially pass was BitDefender on one machine and Avast on another, both of which scan SSL by default. Disabled SSL scanning in the AV's config and Chrome 41 now passes on both rigs. Did I mention cluster?
What can I tell you, Daiwa? All this crap due to the NSA pushing 40 bit encryption (LONG since higher) on Netscape...and no one ever going back and fixing it.
Their antenna should tell you everything.
^^
ROFL... Oh!, never mind the floor.. just laughing.
How does aviator (white hat) rank re security?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARXqNc5DGXU
Finally, I found the group I belong to.
Aviator passes the Freak Check here on Win7 64bit, FWIW. And it claims to be more secure in general than Chrome (on which it is based).
lmao, voo.
Extremely secure, Elana.
Tomorrow's headline:
"NSA Thwarted By Giant Piece of Latex!"
wasn't that exposed when their source code was released?
Aviator in a nutshell is an outdated (by at least two major versions) Chrome with changed default settings + Disconnect + branding + very little poorly coded own stuff.
here's what Justin Schuh from Google Security has to say:
https://plus.google.com/+JustinSchuh/posts/69qw9wZVH8z
there sure are some benefits using something like Aviator for people that are not capable to change settings and to install extensions, but i really wouldn't call an outdated browser extremely secure.
recommended links from Justin Schuh's post:
https://noncombatant.org/2014/03/11/privacy-and-security-settings-in-chrome/
https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/whitepaper.html
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account