Slashdot Mirror


Blackberry 10 Sends Full Email Account Credentials To RIM

vikingpower writes "How a phone manufacturer making a somewhat successful come-back can shoot itself in the foot: Marc "van Hauser" Heuse, who works for German technology magazine Heise, has discovered that immediately after setting up an email account on Blackberry 10 OS, full credentials for that account are sent to Research In Motion, the Canadian Blackberry manufacturer. Shortly after performing the set-up, the first successful connections from a server located within the RIM domain appear in the mail server's logs. (Most of the story in English, some comments in German.) At least according to German law, this is completely illegal, as the phone's user does not get a single indication or notice of what is being done." (Here's Heise's article, in German.)

137 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. What person thinks this is OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is an engineer, somewhere within this organization, that thinks this is a good idea. I, the important person (due to my stack of dollar bills), will never purchase such a device.

    1. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rule of thumb for corporation ethics: If you have to ask the legal department if something is OK then it is still unethical and consumer unfriendly.

      Or the catchier version: If you can't tell if something is legal without asking a lawyer then your customers can't do it either.

    2. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by pla · · Score: 5, Informative

      What person thinks this is OK?

      Every single non-technical person in the company, who have no clue whatsoever about the implications of this, don't care about all your "paranoid theories", and "just want the damned thing to work!"

      The same people who give their email address to every popup ad that asks for it and then bitch to IT about all the spam they get. And then bitch about all the still-spam-but-of-interest-to-them they stop getting when you turn up the filters on their account. And then bitch about having to remember yet another password when you give them access to manage their own spam filter settings and can't you just be a dear and go in every morning and manually delete the spam they don't want but let the spam they do want through?

    3. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Informative

      Protip: This is the way BIS has always worked. A post explaining this from four years ago... Heise is way behind the times if they've only just now discovered that this is how BlackBerry email works.

    4. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      and if you have to ask the legal department it's probably illegal in principle anyways... and you know it and are asking for CYA.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      And it was not much better then.

      The first time I saw that I knew I was not getting a blackberry. That was/is a security nightmare.

      At least with IMAP over SSL I can be reasonably sure not too many folks are reading my email.

    6. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      As it turns out, RIM provides a proxy service for email. That's what they do, and everyone has access to this kind of information as BB doesn't hide it but actually advertises it. It may be a bad idea, but it is most certainly not deception. /story.

    7. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      At least with IMAP over SSL I can be reasonably sure not too many folks are reading my email.

      Still depends on how RIM's infrastructure is set up, whether they actually validate the certificates of the mail servers they connect to.

      If not, the passwords are still within the NSA's reach.

      Theoretically, anybody with a blackberry should be able to test this by setting up a mail server with a deliberately bad certificate: if Blackberry can still log in, it means that it doesn't check the certificate!

    8. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...the passwords are still within the NSA's reach.

      Can you name anything that isn't?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The first time I saw that I knew I was not getting a blackberry. That was/is a security nightmare.

      That's why RIM offers BlackBerry Enterprise Server. If you don't want RIM tunneling your email, you host your own tunnels. BlackBerry has always worked this way.
      Did you really think that all of the companies that use BlackBerry send their email through RIM's servers?

    10. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by jkflying · · Score: 1

      That doesn't say anything, if the NSA was doing MITM they'd probably bounce the bad cert to make it look like everything was fine.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    11. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1, Informative

      Next news on slashdot:

      Shocking! Researcher discovers hitting submit on the login page of Gmail actually TRANFERS ALL YOUR CREDENTIALS to Google.

      Hey asshole, pay attention. The issue here isn't that a first or second party is getting the password, it's that the third party is...the third party doesn't need it at all. Let me spell it out for you: This would be similar to Mozilla, Microsoft, or Apple transmitting your password to themselves just because you are using their browser.

      Indeed, this is how it has always worked on BlackBerry devices, so I'm not quite sure why this is news. Anyone who didn't already understand this simply doesn't have any technical imagination.

    12. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      The story is dumb fuck stupid, no need to be a fanboi to point it out.

    13. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      The point is that RIM saving the email credentials is how they've always done it. Yes, BB10 does not have BIS but still does the email push the same way they did for BIS. The statement still stands that Heise is years behind the times if they only now just discovered this is how RIM does email push.

    14. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      Maybe you should unplug your ethernet cable until you feel less obnoxious.

    15. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by peppepz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's the only way you can implement push email notifications, which once used to be something of Blackberry that people liked. Every other provider of such a service works in the same way.

    16. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first time I saw that I knew I was not getting a blackberry.

      Then you didnt do your research very well, because BIS is the ghetto "i cant afford a BES" experience. A proper BES is magnitudes more secure than anything SSL has to offer.

    17. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If they think that is ok for their down market product their up market one likely sucks as well.

      I want to see a citation for that last comment. My understanding is BES is totally closed and still sends data via their servers which the outages proved. This means we have no way of knowing how secure it is.

      We all use SSL to do our banking, so clearly it is pretty well tested.

    18. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by Iniamyen · · Score: 1

      Rule of thumb for corporation ethics: If you have to ask the legal department if something is OK then it is still unethical and consumer unfriendly.

      Or the catchier version: If you can't tell if something is legal without asking a lawyer then your customers can't do it either.

      Corollary: If you don't think you have to consult the legal department, it's A-OK!

    19. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      likely

      Translation: I know nothing about how BES works, but I wont let my ignorance prevent me from criticizing it.

      For the record, anyone who has administered a BES knows that its a far better experience than anything ActiveSync has ever had, and magnitudes more secure. ActiveSync bases its entire security on a single server certificate, and having your cert chain vetted, and assuming that your trusted CA doesnt get compromised, and your ciphers arent subject to the BEAST attack. BES has per-device keys, and until AES gets cracked, BES wont be cracked.

    20. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

      It's not the only way. It's the only "dumb" way, but if Apple, Google and RIM said to the leading mail daemon developers "give your users a way to create a token they can pass on to us to query for new mail notifications", then it could be achieved securely.

    21. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Doesn't BB10 use ActiveSync?

      Why, yes. Yes it does.

      http://bizblog.blackberry.com/2012/08/rim-activesync-security/

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    22. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by sangreal66 · · Score: 1

      In this case, the email provider is the 3rd party, not blackberry, so it is analogous. You go to the blackberry system via their website or OS and you give them (blackberry) all your email username, passwords and servers so they can go and get your email from a 3rd party. It works the same way that mint.com collects account information from 3rd party sites, for example. You get the email from BIS directly, which in turn gets it from a 3rd party using the account info you provided.

    23. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You must not understand how email works, son... You're just protecting the very last connection with imap ssl; all the other servers (and administrators) that touch that email can read it.

    24. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You must not understand that often emails do not cross servers outside my companies control.

      Lots of internal communication is email.

    25. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by SirDrinksAlot · · Score: 1

      Which with BES 10 can use the BES Infrastructure with DEVICE SPECIFIC KEYS as an alternative to a VPN. Which BlackBerry's can also use [a VPN] with the BES as a second optional transport in-case the BES goes down. On top of both of these transports the device will function directly over Corporate WiFi cutting out the BES all together when you're on the local network.

      So Activesync with it's SSL over SRP, so thats TWO layers of encryption being used. ActiveSync's SSL and the BlackBerry transport as a secure tunnel into your network.

    26. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Anything they don't know exists.
      Anything that has never been digital.

    27. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      I dont actually administer BES any more. I have moved on from my prior job where I was a general-purpose consultant who dealt with ~ 60 clients as their sole IT person. I never made money off of BES, and RIM rarely made money off of me as I tended to recommend BES Express (since 90% of SMBs have no need for the paid BES).

      Towards the end I stopped recommending BES because the security was way overkill, the SMBs had 0 need for that kind of management, and everyone wanted an Android; Im not the kind of admin who tells users to go screw themselves when they say "we hate blackberries". Nevertheless I (and a hard core of Blackberry hold-out customers) recognized that ActiveSync was a horrible replacement for BES, and management certainly was never as good as it was on the BES. Years of having to import trusted certs onto iPhones, Palm Pres, WinMobile6, etc only to have to do it again a year later left a sour taste in my mouth.

      I also have no time for someone who pops out the "shill" accusation simply because Im relying on facts rather than FUD. BIS sucks, everyone knows this, BES is the most secure option, and everyone who has a clue knows this too.

    28. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      And its been this way since dirt.

      There are other mail systems that do this as well, such as setting up your Gmail account to pop your mail off of other servers. Of course you have to tell them the login and password. But it is a discrete step in the case of Gmail and you are warned about exactly what is going on.

      With BBM, its unclear, glossed over, or mentioned in one of those click-through pages that nobody reads, or perhaps not mentioned at all. That might have been ok in the days when RIM was holding out against government spying, but those days are long gone.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    29. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I don't have time for someone who has no real experience with the product, and believes whatever the vendor tells him. No a couple accounts on BES express is not the same.

      BES might be secure, no one knows save for those BES has shown the secret sauce too.

    30. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by Frontier+Owner · · Score: 1
      Tell us how you really feel...

      I don't agree with BB, until recently it was the corporate smart phone, until they realized they could save $100/phone/month by using anything EXCEPT BB.

    31. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by cinky · · Score: 1

      They probably have reach to the US CAs so they can probably coerce them into giving them the certificates

      cinky puts on his tinfoil hat

    32. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      A networkless computer?
      Ultra-delicate files can be handled on offline computers, and moved around in physical devices, and encrypted.

    33. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mod my post down, I see more than one idiot on slashdot today. What the parent said is absolutely true, who modded it Funny.

      And for those uninformed, BES is yet to be cracked, all those stories you hear of BB helping governments is for non-BES customers.

    34. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by hobarrera · · Score: 2

      The first time I saw that I knew I was not getting a blackberry.

      Then you didnt do your research very well, because BIS is the ghetto "i cant afford a BES" experience. A proper BES is magnitudes more secure than anything SSL has to offer.

      [citation needed]

      Seriously.
      There's absolutely no evidence to back this up. With SSL and my own server, I'm sure nobody's listening to my connection. The same can't be said for BES, because, seriously, we don't know!

       

    35. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by cinky · · Score: 1

      what other comments?

    36. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Unless it's in a one foot thick lead Faraday cage, the computer is not 'networkless'. The machine puts out lots of RF just waiting to be tapped.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    37. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      This is why CAs are a bad idea and we should have been using fingerprints for verifying certs.

    38. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Maybe the reason is that RIM is in a suicidal rampage, or have been infiltrated like Nokia.

    39. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by nazsco · · Score: 1

      You may have already purchased such device if you have an Android.

      Wifi passwords are sent to Google by default, on every device, email passwords sent to Motorola (owned by Google) on all Motorola devices (except for gmail... Guess they optimized since they already have those)

      On ios, who knows? It's closed and phone home all the time.

    40. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      Rule of thumb for corporation ethics: If you have to ask the legal department if something is OK then it is still unethical and consumer unfriendly.

      Or the catchier version: If you can't tell if something is legal without asking a lawyer then your customers can't do it either.

      Corollary: If you don't think you have to consult the legal department, it's A-OK!

      The FBI and the NSA have been working on just that principle!

    41. Re:What person thinks this is OK? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Corollary doesn't mean what you think it does.

      The Corollary would be: If it's A-OK, you won't think you have to consult the legal department.

      This is a very different statement than the one you came up with. Go back to high school Geometry.

  2. Re:I thought it was designed that way. by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    Yeah, which is why I always laugh whenever anyone says they are secure devices.

    If they can rationalize this behavior only FSM know what else they are doing.

  3. Re:lol what by dave024 · · Score: 1

    Yea that's what I thought. I never thought it was a great idea, but it's not really anything new.

  4. To: NSA and other spooks by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Memo: Go get it yourself. Gentlemen, We're tired of having to carry this data mining workload on our networks and servers. Here's the list of user names and passwords that we collected for you. Knock yourself out. Regards, RIM

  5. Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So either RIM feels they should have this, or they're really stupid.

    There is no reason to send your email credentials to RIM ... the local device needs it, but I can't think of a single defensible reason to send your credentials to their servers.

    Why do companies feel they're entitled to this kind of information? Pretty much everyone who owns a BlackBerry should be asking if they can really trust the device.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Wow ... by lachlan76 · · Score: 2

      It's so that they can push to the device from servers that don't support that functionality. This is how my previous (Nokia E71) phone did push email, for instance. But in that case you provided your login details through their website and then connected the phone to your Nokia Mail account, so it was clear what was going on.

    2. Re:Wow ... by Yetihehe · · Score: 2

      There is no reason to send your email credentials to RIM

      Push notifications about new email?

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    3. Re:Wow ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullshit.
      IMAP even supports push via IMAP IDLE. There is no good reason for that in this day and age. This is just Blackberry again being behind the times and out of date.

    4. Re:Wow ... by stewsters · · Score: 1

      Google does it with wifi passwords. I assume they do it with other credentials too.
      http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/07/does-nsa-know-your-wifi-password-android-backups-may-give-it-to-them/

    5. Re:Wow ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      For what POP3?
      IMAP idle is widely supported in 2013.

    6. Re:Wow ... by ZiakII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So either RIM feels they should have this, or they're really stupid.

      There is no reason to send your email credentials to RIM ... the local device needs it, but I can't think of a single defensible reason to send your credentials to their servers.

      Why do companies feel they're entitled to this kind of information? Pretty much everyone who owns a BlackBerry should be asking if they can really trust the device.


      Looks like you have no clue how RIM e-mail works on Blackberries. Just copy and pasting a quick summary on how their e-mail system works. "Unlike other PDAs, the BlackBerry device does not log into your email account for you, and check for new messages. This pull type email is best related to having a Post Office box. It requires physical action on your part to go and check your mail. You have to get up, drive in your car to the PO Box location, open it up, check for new mail, get back in your car, and drive home. All this time you are expending time and energy. What happens if you are unable to check the box due to the store/post office being closed? You have to wait until the next chance you get, and then check. As you can see this is not a very time/energy efficient way of doing things.


      On the other hand, if you had someone to bring your mail to you, a Postal worker wouldn’t that be a better alternative? All you have to do is sit at home and when the mail arrives you have it. No need to do anything, no need to go anywhere else. This is how the BlackBerry architecture works." (Example From Crackberry.com

      For a site apparently loaded with Computer professionals its astounding how many here do not know how BlackBerry e-mail works.

    7. Re:Wow ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For such a long comment it is astounding how you don't know how email works in 2013.

      What you are talking about was neat in 1995, today is redundant and a security nightmare. Today we have ActiveSync and IMAP idle. Both of these provide push email without handing your password over to RIM or putting you at risk of no email when they have one of their famous outages.

    8. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For a site apparently loaded with Computer professionals its astounding how many here do not know how BlackBerry e-mail works.

      Most of the people with actual knowledge left years ago. Most of what's left are rejects that make Digg and Reddit appear to be full of geniuses.

    9. Re:Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a little different, this sends it as soon as you set up the account apparently.

      I've set my Android devices to not use Google's cloud backup because I'm increasingly distrustful of them. That, and keeping the Google+ shit at bay.

      But in this case, it sounds like as soon as you create an account RIM has your password -- that to me is a terribly designed system.

      And RIM wants to make their messaging client available on other platforms? Suddenly it doesn't look like a trustworthy system to me.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Unlike other PDAs, the BlackBerry device does not log into your email account for you, and check for new messages.

      So let's highlight what you pasted here ... if it doesn't log into your account for you, WTF does it need the password for?

      On the other hand, if you had someone to bring your mail to you, a Postal worker wouldnâ(TM)t that be a better alternative? All you have to do is sit at home and when the mail arrives you have it

      What an incredibly stupid analogy ... it's an electronic device which can trivially pull email any time it's within range of the network ... so you can sit at home and the mail will arrive either way. It sounds like they're just trying to explain a terrible architecture.

      For a site apparently loaded with Computer professionals its astounding how many here do not know how BlackBerry e-mail works.

      I'm sorry, but if they need to store my username and password, they're either incompetent, or there is no real integration point and they've just hacked something onto it.

      If everyone in the world has been using BlackBerries thinking them secure, but some three-letter-agency could go to them and demand your passwords then the entire architecture and platform is crap.

      I wouldn't trust them at all, and I believe a lot of people should reconsider how much trust they assign to them.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:Wow ... by alen · · Score: 1

      ms exchange

    12. Re:Wow ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Which supports ActiveSync, which is push mail and device management. Use that.

      It is also support on several other mail servers, zimbra being the first one I think of.

    13. Re:Wow ... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMAP even supports push via IMAP IDLE.

      Yes, but that only works while you are connected to the server, which needs a (potentially expensive) IP connection.

      True push might "wake up" your phone with a special SMS when a mail is ready, and then the phone only needs to establish the connection when needed, rather than keeping it up permanently, potentially incurring roaming fees.

    14. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For such a long comment it is astounding how you don't know how email works in 2013.

      What you are talking about was neat in 1995, today is redundant and a security nightmare. Today we have ActiveSync and IMAP idle. Both of these provide push email without handing your password over to RIM or putting you at risk of no email when they have one of their famous outages.

      They never made any such comment about how email works in 2013. They posted how BlackBerry does it and has always done it. But that's fine. You stay up there on your high horse. I find it astounding you got mod points for such a poor comment based on bad reading comprehension.

    15. Re:Wow ... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For such a long comment it is astounding how you don't know how email works in 2013.

      I think he knows how modern e-mail works and was explaining how Blackberry works.

      What you are talking about was neat in 1995, today is redundant and a security nightmare. Today we have ActiveSync and IMAP idle. Both of these provide push email without handing your password over to RIM or putting you at risk of no email when they have one of their famous outages.

      Look, we've had IMAP IDLE since 1997, the first RIM pager was introduced in 1998 and the first Blackberry smartphone was introduced in 2000. It's never been about the available technology (I was using IMAP IDLE on my Treo 650 in 2004) but about, at the time, enforcing a business model using Blackberry Enterprise Servers. They were about $28K when the phones were about $300. They were rolling in the dough, because CxO's were demanding Blackberries as fashion accessories. The iPhone replaced it as the must-have fashion accessory. There is one great thing to say about the Blackberry - it had lots of hardware buttons to make message navigation very usable and most other smartphones missed and continue to miss this.

      But I've been advising companies who deal in secrets (R&D trade secrets mostly) to avoid Blackberry for the entire time I've been doing security consulting (since before I got a Treo) because it was never a secret how Blackberry works.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:Wow ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Why do companies feel they're entitled to this kind of information?

      Not 'entitled'. It's a safe assumption to make that it's a secret government mandate.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:Wow ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Which is why things like wait exist and very long connection lifetimes. The phone can go to sleep with that connection running. Keep alives can be a long time apart.

    18. Re:Wow ... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Informative
      If the phone brings down its IP connection while some TCP flows are still open, it might not be able to re-attach to these, as it will most probably get a different IP address once it brings up the physical connection again. Not to mention that the server would have no way of sending a packet to the mobile during this "sleeping" phase...

      If on the other hand it doesn't bring down the IP connection, it might incur roaming fees, depending on commercial offers, contractual setups etc. If user is lucky, and is charged by traffic, then there will be no problem (almost no packets exchanged during idle). If on the other hand, he is billed over time (like some Austrian and Eastern European operators do), he'd still be stuck with a hefty roaming bill...

    19. Re:Wow ... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Whats a security nightmare is SSL. Its astounding that people advocate ditching clunky blackberries running secure BES with per-device AES keys for slick ActiveSync, and then turn around and complain about security.

      Meanwhile, SSL has had its recommended cipher change how many times in the last few years? And now we're on the creaky RC4 because all other options have been exhausted?

      No, but Im sure ActiveSync is great. Hope you've vetted your trusted root chain on each of your devices, and hope you've found a suitable way of restricting what APKs can be installed on all your Androids.

    20. Re:Wow ... by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Informative

      But I've been advising companies who deal in secrets (R&D trade secrets mostly) to avoid Blackberry for the entire time I've been doing security consulting (since before I got a Treo) because it was never a secret how Blackberry works.

      Then despite youre really good explanation it seems that YOU dont fully understand it. If you have one of those expensive BES servers, RIM never sees your credentials, your mail, or anything, and you have THE most secure mass-market mobile email system out there.

      BES supports

      • Per-device symmetric encryption (way outclasses SSL which is a security nightmare between compromised CAs, compromised ciphers, and expiring certs)
      • Enforcing memory and device encrption for years prior to anyone else attempting it, let alone getting it right
      • remote device wipe which IOS / android have only recently gotten, and which actually works
      • enforcing any and every option you might want on any or all blackberries in your organization-- want to force all browsing thru a proxy? Or to go through your corporate firewall? Not a problem.
      • Locking down the devices to prevent installation of undesired apps

      Some of these features have been picked up by other device "classes" (IOS, Android), some have been reimplemented badly (ie, device encryption, remote wipe, screen lock), but noone has gotten the comms down as secure as a proper BES.

      If you're advising people to avoid BES for SECURITY REASONS, you shouldnt be in the business of advising people. Foreign governments have famously gotten their feathers ruffled because RIM makes it clear that there is no way to snoop those connections.

    21. Re:Wow ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You use keep alives to tell the network you need to keep this IP, they are very small and very infrequent.

      When you wake to send that, and you only wake a tiny little bit you check for the new email packet.

      I guess in those backwards nations the user will just turn off all forms of push email.

    22. Re:Wow ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I can audit ssl, I cannot audit BES. No their documentation claiming they did AES right does not prove they did.

      Those are all solved problems, have fun resending servicebooks.

    23. Re:Wow ... by Wattos · · Score: 1

      You show a good example. Would you still think that this model is better if:

      1) The post man can read your mail without you noticing (e.g. the envelope is never damaged)
      2) You have to provide your postman with a key to open your locker? The key might additionally fit into your other lockers (e.g. A lot of people reuse their passwords)
      3) The postman can easily store copies of all the letters you receive without you knowing
      4) The postman travels from your local post office, to a completely different country, where the correspondence may be inspected by the other government at will without you even knowing and then gives you the letter.

      Once you consider these points, you might not like that approach unless you completely trust your postman.

    24. Re:Wow ... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      What you are talking about was neat in 1995, today is redundant and a security nightmare. Today we have ActiveSync and IMAP idle. Both of these provide push email without handing your password over to RIM or putting you at risk of no email when they have one of their famous outages.

      Except maintaining a persistent IP connection is expensive. Not expensive in the sense of money, but expensive in terms of battery life - instead of the phone being able to go into a low power idle mode ("camping") where it only pings the tower once a second semi-autonomously, it now has to maintain an IP connection and wake up far more often. It's why battery life drains so much quicker once you turn on email fetching. If you need to handoff, the modem does it automatically with just a little power drawn. But handing off the IP connection requires a bit more work as well.

      What RIM does is their servers do the polling and IP connection maintenance for you. They then use a very efficient communications mechanism (SMS) to tell your phone that new email has arrived and the phone wakes up and establishes a connection to RIM (all BB traffic is routed through RIM, including BES) and transfers the new data.

      If you're using BES, RIM proxies your connection to the BES server and the connection is encrypted from RIM (because BES and the BB made a key when the link was established).

      If you're not using BES, RIM is providing you BES-like stuff through the proxy. And yes, it also means RIM can read your email (they need to compress/transform attachments/process/etc the mail for the device - better to do it on beefy processors in a datacenter versus having to have the phone understand all the file formats). This also means attachments can stay on the server without being transferred over the data connection, or previews created, etc).

      Which architecture is better? It depends. Full autonomy makes the iOS and Android way of the phone making the data connection, at the expense of battery life.

      Flexibility and lower cost means a central server is nicer, but then it's like cloud email.

    25. Re:Wow ... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      You use keep alives to tell the network you need to keep this IP, they are very small and very infrequent.

      But are they supported universally? I don't believe so, especially given the worldwide IP address shortage...

      When you wake to send that, and you only wake a tiny little bit you check for the new email packet.

      But then, it's not really push any longer... If you only "wake" once per hour, you'd still have to wait up to an hour to get that notification. "Real" push systems (based on some out-of-band signalling) might be faster.

    26. Re:Wow ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      IPv6 should solve that.

      My mail to my house is push, the fact that I am not there to read it does not change that. Even out of band will have to be received by something to wake the rest of the device. So that something must be ready to get this message.

    27. Re:Wow ... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      That's nice marketing material, but if Blackberry is logging into systems with disparate hashing or encrypting schemes, they are handling the cleartext of the comms at some point, and that's where the taps are. There's mathematically no other way to do it.

      When Blackberries were used in the London bombings, they went to the Blackberry server and got the comms. India was in the news last year because they got one installed there for the same reason. It would be shocking if the NSA wasn't getting a feed out of Canada as well based on NATO cooperation agreements.

      We know from the Stratfor hack that intelligence information is shared with cooperative industrial partners, and that includes investment banks that underwrite competitors to the people whose secrets need protection. When a new biotech drug has an addressable market of $4B annually, how much do you think it will take in bribes to get that information shared?

      Note also that you make the assumption that because I recommend against Blackberry that I've always recommended a competitor. That's not necessarily a valid assumption. Not trusting a particular third party does not mean automatically trusting other third parties. That said, today there do exist open source solutions for mobile computing that provide the necessary level of security.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    28. Re:Wow ... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      This seems to me like an optimization for a problem that no longer exists. Is email popular in places where data plans are expensive? My understanding was that texting was far more popular in developing economies, and email polling couldn't account for more than a pittance of my 4GB monthly allowance. So who actually wants this functionality these days?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    29. Re:Wow ... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      This pull type email is best related to having a Post Office box. It requires physical action on your part to go and check your mail. You have to get up, drive in your car to the PO Box location, open it up, check for new mail, get back in your car, and drive home.

      Meanwhile, back in reality, that "hugely inefficient" polling works like:

      Phone: Hi, mailserver.
      Mail: Hi, phone.
      Phone: I'm Joe. Here's proof.
      Mail: Hi Joe.
      Phone: Do I have any new mail?
      Mail: Nope.
      Phone: KTHXBYE
      Mail: Whatevs.

      ...all at the speed of light and consuming microwatts if scheduled correctly. Decades-old tech like IMAP IDLE makes that even more trivial. No, I'm just not seeing the compelling need for this beyond "that's the way we've always done it and it's magical!".

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    30. Re:Wow ... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Foreign governments have famously gotten their feathers ruffled because RIM makes it clear that there is no way to snoop those connections.

      Until RIM lets them.

      How is that secure then?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    31. Re:Wow ... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      That's nice and all, but what does BES do with the credentials? Does it always connect to the Gmail account you think it is, then downloading your mail, not uploading your credentials to nsa_drop_box@gmail.com's Notes folder? I keep hearing blah blah blah security! blah, but I don't see any particular reason to trust one corporation with all my personal credentials over another corporation.

      PS: The "locking down the devices to prevent installation of undesired apps" certainly seems like it'd be appealing, but in practice that's a big part of the reason why no one actually wanted to carry a Blackberry boat anchor alongside the iPhone or Droid they were actually using.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    32. Re:Wow ... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      +1 for honesty.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    33. Re:Wow ... by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 2

      email polling couldn't account for more than a pittance of my 4GB monthly allowance

      Generally push email is used to save on battery consumption not data transfer. And battery life is still a big sticking point even on modern smart phones.

      --
      I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
    34. Re:Wow ... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      That's nice marketing material, but if Blackberry is logging into systems with disparate hashing or encrypting schemes, they are handling the cleartext of the comms at some point, and that's where the taps are.

      Again you dont understand. If you are using BES, it is hooking into a corporate email system-- Exchange or whatever IBM's thing is called (Lotus?). This is a core requirement-- you CANNOT (or could not, as of BES 5) install BES without those. BES also did NOT support logging into third-party mail servers-- its one and only task was to sync corporate email with your blackberry. And it did so by maintaining a secure connection to your local exchange server with an administrative exchange account, and connecting to each blackberry with a device-specific key. The user's credentials were NEVER transmitted (as the login was performed by the BES admin account, stored on the BES), nor was there any kind of key exchange (the symmetric keys were set-up on device activation).

      BIS / this is for blackberry users who dont want to use their blackberries -- which are specifically built for corporate email -- as personal email devices. In order to provide the same level of BES experience (push / low battery usage), RIM essentially proxies as a BES server and handles that POP / IMAP / ActiveSync connection on their end, and then does a push to your blackberry. Obviously for this to work you are handing them your credentials, and as with any such proxy system that could be a security problem. Everyone has known this for YEARS.

    35. Re:Wow ... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      It is technically impossible to snoop on BES traffic even if you have full access to every cell tower and RIM datacenter, unless you either get the per-device AES key, or you crack AES.

      When I say "there is no way" im not talking about "they have a policy", im talking about "it uses a known secure implementation of symmetric key encryption".

    36. Re:Wow ... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      BES does not and cannot connect to gmail. It would be great if people who didnt understand BES didnt criticize it for things that arent relevant.

      RIM also never gets ANY credentials when you use a BES. See my explanation here:
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3989165&cid=44319733

    37. Re:Wow ... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is stuff everybody knows. BES is for Exchange, which runs on Windows, which is insecure (better now, but was simply horrible when BES was first popular), plus NSA has an encryption key for signed stuff, or you can use RIM's proxies which opens your otherwise secure (IMAPS/SMTP+TLS) e-mail up to snooping at the Blackberry servers.

      But, yeah, I agree, everybody has known this for years, which is what my first comment here said. TFA is surprised by this.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    38. Re:Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Foreign governments have famously gotten their feathers ruffled because RIM makes it clear that there is no way to snoop those connections.

      And then they caved in and allowed it to happen.

      There is a way, and they've started doing it ... so, what were you saying about how super awesome the security is again and how impossible it is to snoop on?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    39. Re:Wow ... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      You actually believe that, don't you?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    40. Re:Wow ... by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Oh, because it's too hard to implement a 1997 protocol? (IMAP IDLE)

    41. Re:Wow ... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      If youre implying that there is a crack for AES, its irrelevant; we're all screwed anyways.

      If youre implying that its difficult to verify whether a particular packet is AES encrypted given a particular key, its not.

    42. Re:Wow ... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      And yet governments are all ok once Blackberry shows them how they snoop.

      Perhaps you don't know everything about how Blackberry works.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    43. Re:Wow ... by handleym99 · · Score: 1

      Oh for crying out loud! This is why the rest of the world has no patience with Blackberry (and, for that matter MS) anymore. Claiming some obsolete way of doing things is an advantage just because it happened to be a good idea fifteen years ago is the sign of a company that is headed for death, not a sign of competence. Persistent connectivity via TCP over the cell network is taken for granted these days. If you want to optimize your system around the technology of the past rather than the future, don't be surprised when the world views you as part of the past.

    44. Re:Wow ... by Lucky_Norseman · · Score: 1

      They then use a very efficient communications mechanism (SMS) to tell your phone that new email has arrived and the phone wakes up and establishes a connection to RIM (all BB traffic is routed through RIM, including BES) and transfers the new data.

      What you are describing is called poke-and-grab. BB Push is even more efficient.
      The message is sent directly to the device without any preceding SMS to wake up. The message itself is the wake-up.

    45. Re:Wow ... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      My mail to my house is push, the fact that I am not there to read it does not change that.

      But your mailbox is still there, and most importantly for this discussion: the road that leads to your house is there as well.

      Even out of band will have to be received by something to wake the rest of the device.

      But push allows the system to be only woken up when there is indeed mail. Think of it like the postman sounding his bugle to signal the people inside the castle that he is there, and they can lower the draw bridge to let him in. The alternative would be for them to set their alarm clock to each full hour, and go check to see whether he was there... Guess which is the most efficient one?

  6. Re:lol what by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

    "blackberry has always worked like this."

    No, it hasn't. In the past the BES server has credentials for a *single* privileged account that interacts with the mail server. The newest version uses ActiveSync rather than MAPI for that interaction, and it connects with credentials for each individual account. Those credentials are those the article is talking about, and unlike the single BES account, they can be used to access user accounts/data/info anywhere on the network a user can.

  7. Does anyone care? by dgr73 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was in a conference once where all the big players in the security field were sitting and saying "no way we'll build backdoors into our systems, the best guarantee against that is the fact that if it's found out, we'll be killed in the market, nobody will buy from us". But considering how most companies hit by the NSA scandal are still doing brist business, I don't think RIM has anything to fear from anyone except a handful of Slashdotters, who use other types of phones anyway.

    1. Re:Does anyone care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nobody cares. I work IT for a government agency, and our IT department decided (directly against my opinion) that it's basically not worth the effort to hide our data from the US government. Nothing's changed since the NSA scandal confirmed our worst strong suspicions and safe assumptions. Part of it comes from a defeatist view that they can break into anything they want to. I contend that they are _not_ magic and we _can_ keep them out. In some of our dealings it would be disadvantageous for the US government to see our hand.

    2. Re:Does anyone care? by jovius · · Score: 1

      General public may not care, but the market becomes domestic pretty quick, and the devices are then reverse engineered, copied and released in the foreign markets without the backdoors, because there's demand anyway.

  8. Re:lol what by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually is has, if you don't have a BES.

    If you needed to login to a server that did not have a BES you were forced to hand over your credentials to blackberry since the devices themselves did not talk any other protocols.

    They called this service BIS.

  9. Re:I thought it was designed that way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't that how the BB works if you don't have your own BES?

    With the older blackberries without a Blackberry Enterprise Server, yes.

    For the new blackberry 10 models without a Blackberry Enterprise Server, the phone makes the email connection directly with no intermediary, so this password leakage should not occur.

    I'm going to have to test this to confirm. If true, quite a big fuckup.

  10. Standard Procedure? by nate_in_ME · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I haven't done all my reading on the new BB10 setup, but I know previous devices not only used RIM's servers to fetch email before passing it on to the device, but actually tunneled all internet traffic through their system. Now, from the article (or at least Google's translation of it), it sounds like BB10 says that setup is no longer used for the push email. However, are they still tunneling through RIM? The article also seems to make a jump in assuming that RIM is storing this data (who else may be listening in along the way is another discussion entirely). The only reference that I saw in the article was to the connection occurring immediately after setting up the account. This could just as easily point to a "test, then throw away" procedure as part of e-mail setup on BB10. Unless there is additional information showing a series of connections over a period of time after setting up the account, there doesn't appear to be any indication that RIM is actually keeping this data.

    1. Re:Standard Procedure? by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      BB10 devices use ActiveSync to do mail pushes. Now it just goes over the standard 4g/3g networks like iPhones/Androids do. The only connection that I've seen be required to RIM servers is if you use their BES10 software and that's just for policies and suchlike.

    2. Re:Standard Procedure? by Lucky_Norseman · · Score: 1

      BB10 devices use ActiveSync to do mail pushes. Now it just goes over the standard 4g/3g networks like iPhones/Androids do. The only connection that I've seen be required to RIM servers is if you use their BES10 software and that's just for policies and suchlike.

      OR if you connect to a POP3 email server. ActiveSync can do mail push by itself, POP3 cannot. If you have av device that gets push email from a POP3 server, some proxy will have had to have logged in for you,checked your email and then pushed it. No matter if you are using Android, iPhone or BlackBerry.

      POP3 cannot push email.

  11. Does he have a BES? by neurovish · · Score: 1

    Didn't read the article of course, but does this guy have a BES server? I thought this was always how BlackBerries worked. If you weren't running BES, then RIM essentially took over that function. Granted, I haven't touched a BlackBerry in like 6 years, so maybe I am only remembering the good times at this point.

    1. Re:Does he have a BES? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Which does not change the fact that with ActiveSync and IMAP idle widely available there is no need for RIM to do this. You already have push Mail and some amount of device management.

      This is likely just some internal RIM folks trying to keep their department funded.

  12. Summary in English by schneidafunk · · Score: 4, Informative

    "When you enter your POP / IMAP e-mail credentials into a Blackberry 10 phone they will be sent to Blackberry without your consent or knowledge. A server with the IP 68.171.232.33 which is in the Research In Motion (RIM) netblock in Canada will instantly connect to your mailserver and log in with your credentials. If you do not have forced SSL/TLS configured on your mail server, your credentials will be sent in the clear by Blackberrys server for the connection. Blackberry thus has not only your e-mail credentials stored in its database, it makes them available to anyone sniffing inbetween – namely the NSA and GCHQ as documented by the recent Edward Snowden leaks. Canada is a member of the “Five Eyes”, the tigh-knitted cooperation between the interception agencies of USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, so you need to assume that they have access to RIMs databases. You should delete your e-mail accounts from any Blackberry 10 device immediately, change the e-mail password and resort to use an alternative mail program like K9Mail.

    Clarification: this issue is not about PIN-messaging, BBM, push-messaging or any other Blackberry service where you expect that your credentials are sent to RIM. This happens if you only enter your own private IMAP / POP credentials into the standard Blackberry 10 email client without having any kind BER, special configuration or any explicit service relationship or contract with Blackberry. The client should only connect directly to your mail server and nowhere else. A phone hardware vendor has no right to for whatever reason harvest account credentials back to his server without explicit user consent and then on top of that connect back to the mail server with them."

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Summary in English by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      A phone hardware vendor has no right to for whatever reason harvest account credentials back to his server without explicit user consent and then on top of that connect back to the mail server with them.

      You forget that the government is telling them they must. But don't say anything. It's a secret.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Summary in English by PPH · · Score: 1

      You forget that the government is telling them they must.

      This may be so in Canada or the USA. But the author of the article is in Germany. This, according to German law, is verboten.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Summary in English by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Since when does 'law' mean anything to a government, aside from a blunt instrument to subdue the masses?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Summary in English by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      When you enter your POP / IMAP e-mail credentials into a Blackberry 10 phone they will be sent to Blackberry without your consent or knowledge.

      Your consent is that this has always been managed through a browser and youre providing your credentials to a website (BIS). It has worked this way for the 8 years that I've been in the field unless you use your own BES and do an enterprise activation.

      If you do not have forced SSL/TLS configured on your mail server, your credentials will be sent in the clear

      Holy tautology, batman!

      Blackberry thus has not only your e-mail credentials stored in its database, it makes them available to anyone sniffing inbetween – namely the NSA and GCHQ as documented by the recent Edward Snowden leaks

      Well gee, maybe you shouldnt uncheck the "SSL/TLS" box then. Thats sort of why its there.

    5. Re:Summary in English by SuseLover · · Score: 1

      "When you enter your POP / IMAP e-mail credentials into a Blackberry 10 phone they will be sent to Blackberry without your consent or knowledge. A server with the IP 68.171.232.33 which is in the Research In Motion (RIM) netblock in Canada will instantly connect to your mailserver and log in with your credentials. If you do not have forced SSL/TLS configured on your mail server, your credentials will be sent in the clear by Blackberrys server for the connection. Blackberry thus has not only your e-mail credentials stored in its database, it makes them available to anyone sniffing inbetween – namely the NSA and GCHQ as documented by the recent Edward Snowden leaks. Canada is a member of the “Five Eyes”, the tigh-knitted cooperation between the interception agencies of USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, so you need to assume that they have access to RIMs databases. You should delete your e-mail accounts from any Blackberry 10 device immediately, change the e-mail password and resort to use an alternative mail program like K9Mail.

      Clarification: this issue is not about PIN-messaging, BBM, push-messaging or any other Blackberry service where you expect that your credentials are sent to RIM. This happens if you only enter your own private IMAP / POP credentials into the standard Blackberry 10 email client without having any kind BER, special configuration or any explicit service relationship or contract with Blackberry. The client should only connect directly to your mail server and nowhere else. A phone hardware vendor has no right to for whatever reason harvest account credentials back to his server without explicit user consent and then on top of that connect back to the mail server with them."

      Isn't having RIM's system login to your account a TOS violation by RIM or the same as hacking an email account? RIM should be sued for illegally accessing computer data without consent.

  13. are you sure it is entitlement? by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    Why do companies feel they're entitled to this kind of information?

    I'll play the devil's advocate here and suggest that RIM might not have done this out of a sense of entitlement, but rather out of a sense of laziness or generally poor programming. This information is not necessarily all that valuable to them anyways.

    Pretty much everyone who owns a BlackBerry should be asking if they can really trust the device.

    The device just came our, and this applies only to the two newest blackberries. The bigger question is how long will it take them to correct this. They have a choice here; they can either say "oops, we didn't mean to do that" and patch it so that this information isn't passed on in the future, or they can try to come up with some obfuscated excuse why this data being passed on doesn't hurt the user. If they do the former, then it can be attributed to human error. If they do the latter then they might wan to consider closing their doors for good.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  14. Re:How is this news? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    The license fees are not the problem, the problem is the product sucks. About two years ago we announced the end of our BES, as phones were replaced anyone getting a blackberry product would simply not be added to the BES and be forced to live with BIS. Activesync supporting devices would get all the nice calendar and contact features. It took about 6 months to get rid of the last couple stragglers. Turning off that server saved more money in overtime than it did in license fees.

  15. Re:I thought it was designed that way. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2

    I don't know what you guys are talking about. If the Blackberry is good enough for your President, it should be good enough for you.

    But I guess thanks to that nice Mr Snowden, he doesn't have as much to hide any more.

  16. It's stealing, basically by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    I hope stuff like this, along with the Snowden Files, proceed to destroy the 'Cloud' paradigm. It was a diseased model to begin with and is proving to be nothing more than a Tap for domestic and international spying.

    People deserve privacy, especially in email, and stealing their account credentials ought to be basis enough for a Watergate style investigation. You know full well if some 17 year old did this exact same thing to some politician or movie star, his ass would be roadkill in the court system inside a month. The double standard legal system in some places is just freaking wrong.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  17. Re:WTF? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Thank you for confirming that :-)

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  18. BlackBerry mail is very poor by timftbf · · Score: 2

    If it's anything like the previous-generation BlackBerries, it's shockingly bad. We bought one for my wife on the strength of it having a physical keyboard, and waded through all the hand-over-your-password BIS nonsense. And, well... I guess it *might* work if you never ever want to look at your mail from anything other than your BB. Once the BB has decided what *its* view of your mailboxes is, good luck in having anything else you do via all your other (IMAP, webmail, whatever) clients have any relationship whatsoever to what you see or do on the BB.

    Hello RIM? That's the *whole* *fucking* *point* of IMAP - the mail stays on the server, and I can get the same view of it from anywhere, not go through all the hoops we used to have to jump through to fake synchronisation on POP3 clients.

    I've since disabled (or deconfigured, or otherwise turned off) the whole BB mail piece, and installed LogicMail, which I heartily recommend. It's a regular IMAP client, it makes IP connections to the mail server, and it all works Just Fine. If she leaves it running, it gets new mail notifications via IDLE. If she closes it, she doesn't get notifications, but it doesn't suck juice or network usage IDLEing. Her choice.

  19. Re:How is this news? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    We were hands off when it broke. Then had to be rebooted for messages to return to one user, causing an outage for the others. Or repushing service books for no good reason, on and on.

    The product sucks. There is nothing to really admin anyway. Everything is click the shiny button and pray it works this time. Typical crap windows software.

  20. Re:lol what by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

    I was wrong; the retained password behavior applies to POP/IMAP accounts, not ActiveSync. Sorry.

  21. Re: I thought it was designed that way. by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    Maybe the firmware of your device, mine is not running an official one.

    If you have to let them store your password it is insecure. It is that simple. A good secure proxy system would be handed a token that identifies them as a user of your account but not you. So that one could actually audit usage and the like. BIS does not do this because it is less of integration and more of a MITM attack.

  22. Re:I thought it was designed that way. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Yeah, which is why I always laugh whenever anyone says they are secure devices.

    What part of "Dont have a BES" didnt you understand?

    Theyre secure devices when you purchase and run the server thats designed to manage them. Otherwise, yes, youre having RIM host the BES service ("BIS"), and you're giving them your credentials. Thats irrelevant to 99% of IT departments though, since noone of any significant size bases their mobile infrastructure on BIS.

    BES Express went free several years ago and is way more secure than SSL, even if people criticizing blackberries choose to remain ignorant of how BES works.

  23. It's your own fault for using closed protocols by guruevi · · Score: 1

    Who is to say that Exchange 201x won't do the same thing or doesn't already? Or any number of proprietary systems? You don't know because you can't see what's really happening with closed protocols, software and devices.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  24. Re:I thought it was designed that way. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    No part of it. The fact that it is needed furthers my argument, thanks.

    Everyone save a few that work at RIM are ignorant of how BES works, they won't show us. Sure they say nice words, but there is no way to know if any of it is true.

  25. Re:I thought it was designed that way. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    You could, you know, do some research. How BES works is pretty well documented. You can monitor the connections to know its true.

    If you want to spread FUD (which seems to be your intention) I guess I cant stop you, though, so carry on.

  26. What about web sites? by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Linked-In for example, has my email address and sends me email. However, the website sometimes tries to get me to enter my email password to "verify" my account. Just send an email with a clicky to verify, you don't need to log in. I suspect a large number of web sites that require an email address actually try to log in using the password given for the web site. Facebook asks you to give this information, Linked in asks for it under false pretenses, and others.... Can someone please do more testing along these lines?

  27. Re:I thought it was designed that way. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Documentation claims the PS3 is unhackable. We all know how that went.

    Not FUD, just simple facts. Things you cannot audit are not something anyone should really call secure. I have done plenty of research after I found out how terribly BES worked as a product and how poorly it communicated to administrators.

    Clearly you have some vested interest in the product, so nothing will convince you.

  28. From: NSA by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    Sir:

    We *had* been wondering why during every unannounced visit to the Blackberry/RIM department in our office, we'd catch them with some with feet up on their desks, lounging around with arms behind their heads, some paper airplanes flying around, or some paper basketball match or dart game going on. They always say some variation of '...working on it" "...I'm on it", or "We managed to produce that list you were asking about". I had always attributed it to their efficiency. Now we know. Appreciate the heads-up, thanks!

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  29. Debunked - Did anyone actually try verifying this? by bshroyer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Karl Denninger writes up his experience in attempting to replicate the claim. Karl calls BS:

    http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?singlepost=3242634

    Don't Buy The BS Being Run on BB10 Email Security

    There's a "report" flying around alleging that BB10 phones send unencrypted email passwords to BlackBerry and additionally that BlackBerry immediately connects back to the email server and signs on (which would, of course, require that it knows the password.)

    This is easily tested and since I have a Z10 I decided to do exactly that.

    What am doing here is setting up an account called "test" on my IMAP server to receive email and then will enter the credentials into the phone.

    To make it interesting I will do it over the Cellular Connection rather than over WiFi, so that if the phone wants to do some sort of DNS lookup that my server might block (if it was using my DNS servers as it was connected via WiFi) it'll work.

    Here we go. {full documentation follows}

    --
    The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
  30. Re:Debunked - Did anyone actually try verifying th by bshroyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Karl continues:

    Let's push the button and see who talks to us.

    Jul 18 10:25:05 NewFS imapd[88446]: Login user=test host=mc35536d0.tmodns.net [208.54.85.195]

    And that's all. (That's the phone's IP address on T-Mobile, incidentally.)

    Now let's look at the SMTP server and see if there's any evidence of a connection from the 68.171 address block -- which belongs to BlackBerry, and which is alleged tries to connect back.

    [root@NewFS /var/log]# grep 68.171 spamblock
    [root@NewFS /var/log]#

    Nothing. Is the 208.54 address there?

    Jul 18 10:09:21 NewFS spamblock-sys[81673]: Starting SSL/TLS negotiation with peer [208.54.85.195]
    Jul 18 10:24:53 NewFS spamblock-sys[88447]: Starting SSL/TLS negotiation with peer [208.54.85.195]
    [root@NewFS /var/log]#

    Why yes there is, as the phone does connect to validate that the connection works (and it tells you it's doing so.) The other line, incidentally, is because there's another email account there (my real one!)

    The phone connected to the SMTP server ("spamblock-sys" is my custom spam filter, which knows how to perform SSL/TLS negotiation) and performs a STARTTLS negotiation exactly as I told it to do.

    Incidentally, it also brings up the server's certificate and asks me if it's ok too.

    But there is no connection back to either service from any other location related to this account setup. Not from BlackBerry, not from some other place, nowhere. Period.

    For those who want a bit more background on the SMTP side the code in question, particularly the SMTP code, is mine. The SMTP server in question ("Spamblock-Sys") was written from the ground up by myself. I know every single line of that code and am not relying on anyone else's word as to what is and is not logged, since I wrote it.

    The IMAP server in question is WU's with moderate modification.

    I have no idea if the guy in Germany is lying or if he is on an account provisioned for BIS (the older BlackBerry handsets) and his mobile provider is intercepting the transaction and passing it to BIS, which is doing what he's talking about.

    --
    The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
  31. Re:I thought it was designed that way. by Jaruzel · · Score: 1

    I've read all the comments on this thread (at time of posting) and this is the FIRST commenter that actually understands what the problem actually is.

    For BB10 devices:

    [BB10] <---> [Your-Exchange-Server-via-ActiveSync]

    For nonBB10 devices with BES or BIS:

    [BBxx] <---> [RIMs Email Proxies] <---> [Your Email Provider]

    So, yes, if BB10s are sending email creds to RIM, then that's huge fuckup.

    My guess is, someone forgot to comment out that lump of code when they switched to ActiveSync support.

    -Jar

    --
    Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
  32. What a load of garbage by lrombes · · Score: 1

    Karl Denninger has proven this is utterly false. http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=222846

  33. Re: All of them have done something stupid by chromeronin799 · · Score: 1

    That's why I encrypt my iPhone backup, and keep it local, not on iCloud.

  34. Re:Debunked - Did anyone actually try verifying th by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Actually, the Heise article clearly states this only happens if you do not use the "advanced" configuration option and if you use the advanced one (and select yourself what kind of connection it is), the transfer of password does _not_ happen. The also state that unfortunately, the "advanced" tag is hidden under the virtual keyboard and so easily overlooked, which is completely true. (Yes, I am a German native speaker and did read the Heise article. Nobody is lying there at all.)

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  35. Re:I thought it was designed that way. by Lucky_Norseman · · Score: 1

    I've read all the comments on this thread (at time of posting) and this is the FIRST commenter that actually understands what the problem actually is.

    For BB10 devices:

    [BB10] <---> [Your-Exchange-Server-via-ActiveSync]

    For nonBB10 devices with BES or BIS:

    [BBxx] <---> [RIMs Email Proxies] <---> [Your Email Provider]

    So, yes, if BB10s are sending email creds to RIM, then that's huge fuckup.

    My guess is, someone forgot to comment out that lump of code when they switched to ActiveSync support.

    -Jar

    BB10 supports POP3 as well as ActiveSync.
    POP3 works the same way it always have.
    For push to work with POP3 the RIM server has to log in to the POP3 server and collect the mail for you before pushing it to the device.

  36. Re:I thought it was designed that way. by Lucky_Norseman · · Score: 1

    Oh and BES email never went through RIM. It is encrypted straight from the company email server to the device.

  37. Looks like a statement has been issued by Octorian · · Score: 1

    The original article began with lots of alarmist click-bait remarks, but the actual content seems to follow this obvious explanation:

    BlackBerry Issues Updated Statement Regarding Alleged Email Credentials Harvesting

    For those of you who think it should be possible to do all this connection testing locally on-device, mobile networks and WiFi hotspots have so many real-world issues with random port blocking and filtering that there actually is value a test independent of the user's device. I don't know whether or not this is the reason they took this approach, of course, but it is worth consideration.

  38. Re:I thought it was designed that way. by Jaruzel · · Score: 1

    So the issue is with POP3, and not ActiveSync? Ahhh, that makes more sense then.

    --
    Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
  39. Re:I thought it was designed that way. by Jaruzel · · Score: 1

    Really? - Something goes on with BES and the RIM service - coz when theres a RIM outage, BES based BBs can't get mail.

    --
    Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
  40. 1 upside to this downside by __aahlyu4518 · · Score: 1

    Only very few people have this issue ;-)

  41. Re:Debunked - Did anyone actually try verifying th by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Actually, according to German law, sending the passwords to Blackberry, regardless of the reason and without a clear warning and opt-out possibility, _is_ illegal. As to the storing and sending in plain, yes, that was probably hyperbole. But the fact remains that sending them without clear customer consent and opt-out possibility is a criminal act, punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment. And, no, shrink-wrap licenses are not valid either in Germany, and the customer can only give away this protection with a written and signed statement.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.