Slashdot Mirror
Flaw Made Public In OpenSSH Encryption
alimo20 writes "Researchers at the Royal Holloway, University of London have discovered a flaw in Version 4.7 of OpenSSH on Debian/GNU Linux. According to ISG lead professor Kenny Patterson, an attacker has a 2^{-18} (that is, one in 262,144) chance of success. Patterson tells that this is more significant than past discoveries because 'This is a design flaw in OpenSSH. The other vulnerabilities have been more about coding errors.' The vulnerability is possible by a man-in-the-middle intercepting blocks of encrypted material as it passes. The attacker then re-transmits the data back to the server and counts the number of bytes before the server to throws error messages and disconnects the attacker. Using this information, the attacker can work backwards to figure out the first 4 bytes of data before encryption. 'The attack relies on flaws in the RFC (Request for Comments) internet standards that define SSH, said Patterson. ... Patterson said that he did not believe this flaw had been exploited in the wild, and that to deduce a message of appreciable length could take days.'"
OpenSSH 5.2 was released in February already which has builtin countermeasures against this form of "attack." Next.
Whew. Glad I use Telnet.
MABASPLOOM!
From the article it seems that it is more of a design flaw of SSH and not specifically OpenSSH
And in other news it also appears that the word "chink" is banned in the comments section.
Did you read the article?
It indicates that it effects SSH in general, not only one particular implementation.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
If the flaw is in the design of SSH, wouldn't all OS's be effected? Why does this only effect Debian?
". . .discovered a flaw in Version 4.7 of OpenSSH on Debian/GNU Linux."
"The attack relies on flaws in the RFC (Request for Comments) internet standards that define SSH"
So which is it, is it an implementation specific bug, which is specific to OpenSSH on Linux specifically, OpenSSH on all O/Ses, or is it a flaw in the RFC, which should make it exploitable on *all* implementations of SSH, shouldn't it? How can a flaw in the standard only be exploitable in one version of one implementation of the standard on one specific target OS?
http://www.cpni.gov.uk/Docs/Vulnerability_Advisory_SSH.txt
FTA, this vulnerability is addressed in newer versions of OpenSSH, not by fixing the specification, but by employing some kind of workaround to make it impractical. I didn't know that from the summary, since I don't really keep current on where OpenSSH is with their releases.
It seems like this attack has an awfully small chance of success. I am wondering if there is that small chance of success to decode a message after many days, or if because of the small chance of success, it would take multiple days before you had anything.
If this is really something that has almost no chance of working at all--period, I'm not too worried. If it is something that makes the encryption breakable in a few days, that's a pretty big deal and am surprised that it didn't get outed sooner as a flaw.
Can/should the RFC be revised to close this hole? Are there other (perhaps more obvious) examples of weakness in the RFC that have implementation-specific fixes applied?
This flaw was published in Nov 2008 with simple configuration fix, and OpenSSH released a default fixed version in March 2009.
Also, this attack gives only 4 bytes of unencrypted output after crashing your session many thousands of times, which is sure to be noticed. If you were repeating the exact same network traffic in millions of SSH sessions, an attacker might get something interesting after weeks of crashing your sessions. It's just one of the lamest exploits I've seen, worth mitigating eventually, but not worth all the press it's getting, especially 6 months after release...
The fix is simple, just use CTR mode encryption instead of CBC, or upgrade to OpenSSH 5.2 or later.
For more details go to the OpenSSH security page.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
It is because that happened to be the system that they found the vulnerability on.
Nothing more than that, really.
Yes. That's why we now have replaced telnet/rsh/rcp and authenticated FTP with ssh and scp, NIS with LDAP+Kerberos, /etc/shadow, authentication in NFS, support for other filesystems like CIFS, etc.
Microsoft, for their part, haven't changed all that much.
My blog
That's the wrong way to check it.
Debian and Ubuntu are not going to upgrade to 5.2. They will take the security fix, backport it to 4.7, and release that as an update. If you check the version you'll get 4.7, even with the fix applied.
> Patterson said that he did not believe this flaw > had been exploited in the wild, and that to > deduce a message of appreciable length could take > days.
Is my social security number a "message of appreciable length?"
Probably not on its own. Full packed it would take 33 bits, 11 bytes (88 bits, though if the attacker knew for sure that an SSN was being sent in those bytes the search space would not significantly greater than the 33 bits) if represented in pure ASCII text with separators.
As each attempt to read each 32 bits has a 11/2^18 chance of success, and assuming failure of one attempt does no extra clue as to which other patterns to try next, each 4 byte block is going to take on average 131,072 connections to infer from the server response so for the 11 byte ASCII string that is an average attack length of 393,216 connections.
While that isn't going to take long (at 4.5 connections per second you are looking at a day), any message being sent containing your SSN is going to be significatly longer than the SSN on its own so I wouldn't worry just yet.
We are still in "it would be a lot easier for the attacker to raid your bins, burgle your house, or steal records from your bank" territory here. Though there is the chance that someone improve the attack (or already has) so be vigilant and apply updated SSH packages as soon as practical once your distribution offers them.
The 2^-18 is _really_scary_
The 'first 4 bytes', not so much.
So, meh. Of course true hardcore cryptanalysts are sure to be already ditching OpenSSH or maybe piping it through GPG first.
Fuck gubfr onfgneqf, ebg13 vf tbbq rabhtu sbe nalbar.
Allow me to translate:
$ echo "Fuck gubfr onfgneqf, ebg13 vf tbbq rabhtu sbe nalbar." | caesar
Shpx those bastards, rot13 is good enough for anyone.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Good lord, I'm actually canceling about 10 mod points to post this... "ssh -V" will give you the version of your CLIENT, not the server.
This was never a real threat, just another piece of Academic FUD. To be vulnerable as an interactive ssh user you would have to ignore 100,000 aborted sessions to expose 14 bits of plaintext, I think I would notice, and block the attacker.
There are a whole suite of cyphers, including AES aka Rijhndael are configurable, have you done yours?, and not vulnerable.
Finally the protocol is trivially fixed.
Now I for one, whilst I have the highest respect for the work done by people like Ross Anderson and Schnieer am fed up to the back teeth with alarmism from governments, NGOs and academics -- all of which add up to give us more money.
If you dont know these researchers were working for the UK equivalent of Homeland Security and failed to inform SSH of the details of the attack, doubtless quoting National Security.
These people who parade nonsense should be tarred an feathered and sent on the next rail.
If your security scanner reports a vulnerability based on banners instead of testing the real flaw, they are flawed.
Such security scanners feed the myth that changing/removing banners magically makes your network secure.
{{.sig}}