Re: Certificate-stealing Trojan

2010-09-28 Thread Marsh Ray

On 09/27/2010 08:26 PM, Rose, Greg wrote:


On 2010 Sep 24, at 12:47 , Steven Bellovin wrote:


Per
http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Trojan-Steals-Digital-Certificates-157442.shtml
there's a new Trojan out there that looks for a steals Cert_*.p12
files -- certificates with private keys.  Since the private keys
are password-protected, it thoughtfully installs a keystroke logger
as well


Ah, the irony of a trojan stealing something that, because of lack of
PKI, is essentially useless anyway...


While I agree with the sentiment on PKI, we should accept this evidence 
for what it is:


There exists at least one malware author who, as of recently, did not 
have a trusted root CA key.


Additionally, the Stuxnet trojan is using driver-signing certs pilfered 
from the legitimate parties the old-fashioned way. This suggests that 
even professional teams with probable state backing either lack that 
card or are saving it to play in the next round.


Is it possible that the current PKI isn't always the weakest link in the 
chain? Is it too valuable of a cake to ever eat? Or does it just leave 
too many footprints behind?


- Marsh

-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to majord...@metzdowd.com


Re: Obama administration revives Draconian communications intercept plans

2010-09-28 Thread Florian Weimer
   Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that
   enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like
   BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software
   that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be
   technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The
   mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble
   encrypted messages.

Isn't this just a clarification of existing CALEA practice?

In most jurisdictions, if a communications services provider is served
an order to make available communications, it is required by law to
provide it in the clear.  Anything else doesn't make sense, does it?
Service providers generally acknowledge this (including Research In
Motion, so I don't get why they are singled out in the article).

There are indications that governments have access to Skype these
days  Here's a blog post mentioning it:

http://www.lawblog.de/index.php/archives/2010/08/17/skype-staat-hort-mit/

(Udo Vetter is sometimes a bit sensationalist, though.)  Another
indicator is that German law enforcement no longer calls for new laws
granting them access to Skype traffic.

In any case, the cleartext requirement for lawful intercept has always
been very public.  Oddly enough, it has not been perceived as some
sort of crypto regulation, although it puts some constraints on key
management. 

-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to majord...@metzdowd.com


Re: Haystack (helping dissidents?)

2010-09-28 Thread Adam Shostack
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 04:49:19PM +, M.R. wrote:
| I said (something like) this when Haystack first appeared on this
| list...
| 
| Words dissidents and oppressive regimes have no place in
| serious discussions among cryptographers. Once we start assigning
| ethical categorizations to those that protect and those that attack
| (data files, communications channels, etc.) we are watering the
| garden in which the weeds like Haystack flourish.

Declarations about the appropriateness of the language of others have
no place in serious discussions among cryptographers.  Once we start
assigning ethical categorizations to words, we are watering the garden
in which flamewars flourish.



-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to majord...@metzdowd.com


Re: 'Padding Oracle' Crypto Attack Affects Millions of ASP.NET Apps

2010-09-28 Thread Thai Duong
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Peter Gutmann
pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote:

 Ye gods, how can you screw something that simple up that much?  They use the
 appropriate, and secure, HMAC-SHA1 and AES, but manage to apply it backwards!

I guess they just follow SSL.

BTW, they screw up more badly in other places. Download .NET
Reflector, decompile .NET source, and do a grep 'DecryptString',
you'll see at least three places where they don't even use a MAC at
all.

Thai.

-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to majord...@metzdowd.com