Slashdot Mirror


Debian Bug Leaves Private SSL/SSH Keys Guessable

SecurityBob writes "Debian package maintainers tend to very often modify the source code of the package they are maintaining so that it better fits into the distribution itself. However, most of the time, their changes are not sent back to upstream for validation, which might cause some tension between upstream developers and Debian packagers. Today, a critical security advisory has been released: a Debian packager modified the source code of OpenSSL back in 2006 so as to remove the seeding of OpenSSL random number generator, which in turns makes cryptographic key material generated on a Debian system guessable. The solution? Upgrade OpenSSL and re-generate all your SSH and SSL keys. This problem not only affects Debian, but also all its derivatives, such as Ubuntu." Reader RichiH also points to Debian's announcement and Ubuntu's announcement.

9 of 670 comments (clear)

  1. stupid stupid stupid by spikedvodka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who did this? You don't remove the seeding... stupid

    did I mention stupid?

    this is how some of the old video games were "broken" despite using "random" numbers, the seed was always the same... leading to the same sequence of events

    --
    I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
    1. Re:stupid stupid stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lesson#1: It's best to not change code you do not understand without getting it reviewed by people who (are supposed to) understand the code.

      Lesson#2: If you write code that deliberately does weird things like wanting to read unitialised memory, PUT A COMMENT so that people other than you have a fighting chance with your code.

  2. Re:It will be fixed by gQuigs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This problem isn't something you can just update your system to fix. This means the basis for all remote authentication on your Debian/Ubuntu machines is compromised until you go and fix it manually.

  3. OSS, only as good as the last developer? by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First off I'm a big OSS supporter, yada, yada

    But the point here is that the freedom that OSS gives you does require you to trust the whole distribution chain. In this case there was an added muppet who did something they shouldn't have thus rendering everything downstream insecure. OSS is great but it required great developers, given that it has take well over a year to get the advisory out it shows that the many eyes piece didn't work here, mainly because the eyes were looking at the original source not the botched packaging job.

    The "easy to use" Linux box in the house uses Ubuntu and has this issue and like many people I didn't even think to check that the OpenSSL wasn't the REAL OpenSSL it was OpenSSL with muppet extensions. Maybe there needs to be some form of extension that warns that a package has been modified from its original source code and that the modification was done by "K. Frog" so you can determine whether to trust that package or look back to the source.

    Or some sort of voting system on contributors (how very Web 2.0) so you can see how the people who touched your package were rated with the biggest weighting being given to the last person through the code (hand edited by Linus = 5 stars, hand edited by James Gosling = 5 stars, hand edited by the bloke who wrote clippy = 2 stars, hand edited by a bloke who removed a seed generator = 0 stars).

    Having the code is great, but this makes me want to know much more about who last edited that code.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  4. Re:It will be fixed by rhavenn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure the problem will be fixed if the developers acknowledge that the problem exists. Not a big worry. No, but it shouldn't have been changed in the first place. Debian needs to stick their ego up their ass sometimes and just let the people who wrote the software do the coding vs. sticking their own code in in places they don't fully understand. This and their attitude of licensing and not reporting changes back upstream is a stupidly annoying habit.

    note: When I have to run Linux instead of a BSD it's Debian and/or Kubuntu all the way since the benefits outweigh the negatives, but it's still an annoying habit of theirs.
  5. Re:You stupid god damned open sourcers by clang_jangle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Windows here I come. At least someone would be accountable for shit work like this.


    Yeah, like all those times when MS cut checks for all their customers whose computers were compromised! Oh, wait...
    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  6. Re:Of course... by Oxy+the+moron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quit being a cry baby and run 'apt-get upgrade' already. It would have taken you less time than to come in here complain.

    ... and regenerate all the keys, yes? It isn't quite as simple as you suggest...

    "All OpenSSH and X.509 keys generated on such systems must be considered untrustworthy, regardless of the system on which they are used, even after the update has been applied."

    --

    Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.

  7. Re:It will be fixed by 2short · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Basic cryptographic services have been compromised for a year and your analysis is to assume on faith that it's open source so it will be fixed, so no problem?

    If someone stole your crypto keys and has had them for a year...

    How thoroughly might they have compromised your system by now?
    How many passwords might they have stolen that you use on other systems?
    What else might they have done that will give them access in the future even after you fix this?

    Just regenerate your keys and no problem? The problem that guessable keys are generated will undoubtably be fixed asap, if not already. The problem that this has been the case for the last year will not be, and is a big worry.

  8. Re:To non-IT people by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is on the SSH server side. If you are a casual desktop user, you don't have to do anything. Yes, a good observation for IM/Email/Youtube/Facebook crowd... but how many others ssh into their home machine? I'd wager the ability to ssh into a home box is one of the better perks to running linux@home.