Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Duplicate SSH Keys Put Tens of Thousands of Home Routers At Risk

Posted by timothy on from the vewy-vewy-quiet dept.

alphadogg (971356) writes A setup mistake has apparently left hundreds of thousands of home routers running the SSH (Secure Shell) remote access tool with identical private and public keys. John Matherly, founder of a specialized search engine company whose technology is used for querying Internet-connected devices, found more than 250,000 devices that appear to be deployed by Telefónica de España sharing the same public SSH key. A different search found another 150,000 devices, mostly in China and Taiwan, that have the same problem. Matherly said in a phone interview on Wednesday it is possible the manufacturers copied the same operating system image to all of the routers.

18 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. No surprise... by jasno · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most embedded guys are batting out of their league and don't have a clue when it comes to security... and I say that as an embedded guy who often has to do exactly that to get the product out.

    Most embedded development I've done is far from 'software engineering' - it's whack and hack until the tests pass(often because you loosened the testing requirements).

    --

    http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    1. Re:No surprise... by sinij · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Government already demands product certification (e.g. FIPS), it is time corporate and individual consumers started doing the same. We expect our power supplies to not electrocute us, there is a certification program to ensure that is the case, why is when it comes to data security we are so lax?

    2. Re:No surprise... by internerdj · · Score: 3, Informative

      My first job was a contract to a network equipment manufacture. I spent most of my time in their hardware division. At least for that particular company, hiring was based entirely about making hardware. Lots of electrical engineers, a few structural guys to do placement, software engineers were only for the network management division. A lot of the guys who were tasked with writing the embedded stuff were out of their league to write code period, but project management was so physical engineering heavy that they didn't understand what was going wrong. So yeah, I've seen the same thing.

    3. Re:No surprise... by brunes69 · · Score: 2

      FIPS is a joke and doesn't really do much of anything to ensure real security. Its just a compliance checkbox. An appliance running a piece of software can be 100% insecure from the ground up and be FIPS certified quite easily.

    4. Re:No surprise... by sinij · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FIPS is not a joke - it ensures that that your cryptographic algorithms are implemented correctly and meet the standard. So you don't generate matching private/public keys or all 0 keys and other preventable but non-obvious to people outside of crypto mistakes. FIPS does not guarantee that you use these algorithms intelligently, there are other certifications that do that.

    5. Re:No surprise... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      On the same note, Most CS guys could not survive 10 minutes in an embedded systems world. And it's not because those of us in Embedded systems don't have the skills, it's because the Idiots in upper management wont let us have the resources to do it right. If I can give you 900% more security by raising the cost of the box by $0.10 each then you freaking do it, not the "it will probably go unnoticed, so it's not that important" crap I hear.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:No surprise... by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      Yes please, require 10 certifications until you can connect a router to the internet. Best is the build is signed, and the user's access to the system is restricted, otherwise they can install malware because of infected computers. Of course every single of those 10 certifications needs money, but everybody can pay 1.000.000$ for releasing a build, so thats no problem. With government certifications, it would be ensured that insecure and uncertified router firmwares like dd-wrt are forbidden, which is good for users because of security and companies because then they can deliver an even better experience to their customers.

    7. Re:No surprise... by brunes69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is a total joke.

      FIPS 140-2 ensures your algorithm is part of a standard set - big deal. It does no investigation at all as to how you use that algorithm or why you use it. If you are using AES with a FIPS-certified library, you get the checkbox. Nevermind the fact that the private key you are using is sitting in plain text on the disk.

      Its the same as all federal standards - FedRAMP, FIPS, FISMA, ISO 27K. They all do *SOME* things, but none of these standards, or any intersection of them, actually do anything with regards to real secure engineering. Note, I am not even sure it would be close to practical to do this. I am just raising awareness that saying that an application is "FIPS certified" is next to useless.

      Source: I have dealt with getting applications certified in all of these umbrellas, and more. It is an extremely time consuming and expensive process for all involved to get certified - but in the end does very little in terms of real application security. But it sure makes the auditors a lot of money!

    8. Re:No surprise... by sinij · · Score: 2

      First, there is no such thing as perfectly secure information system. The best we could do is mitigate identified risks. The best any standard could do is specify how to mitigate specific risks.

      In case of NIST CAVP (part of FIPS testing most people are familiar with), the risk they are mitigating is that cryptographic algorithm you are using is flawed in some way. This certification program is hugely successful, there are robust standards and specs, and hardly anyone these days end up with bad algorithms because free certified reference implementations and free testing vectors were made available.

      Second, different aspects of FIPS program focus on different risks. For example, at higher certification levels (e.g. CMVP FIPS 140-2 Level 3 or 4) the program provides very robust and comprehensive assurance that both algorithm and methods of use of these algorithms within cryptographic module is secure. I am too lazy to dig through the specs, but I am positive that at level 3 it explicitly examines key storage. The flaw with FIPS is actually opposite of what you state - the level of scrutiny ramps up so rapidly that it is impossible to satisfy it only with a software implementation at above level 2. As a result, overwhelming majority of certifications are against lowest tiers that are limited in scope.

      Now, people look at CAVP certification (algorithm testing for software product) and make ignorant statement that the ENTIRE FIPS PROGRAM is ineffective. Even when it is very evident that it accomplishes exactly what it promised to do. To leave you with an example - PCI (payment transactions) requirements cap at FIPS 140-2 level 3. This is stuff that touches MONEY! FIPS 140-2 level 4 is spook-level robust, they even have a requirement to trip zeroization if you attempt to freeze or x-ray the chip.

    9. Re:No surprise... by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      FIPS may not be a joke, but most government networks are, especially, but not limited to, those outside of the DOD and IC. They are (in large part), administered by people who follow proscribed procedures, not people who understand what they're doing or why. While some "rogue" administrators will implement best practices beyond those they're required to do, they are the exception, not the rule -- especially admins who actually understand what they're doing rather than overestimating their own competence, which is its own problem. One need only look at the recent public government network compromises to see the consequences of these security procedures, and then apply the iceberg principle -- for every compromise that's seen, there are almost certainly many more that go unseen.

      And of course, all the best technical precautions in the world can't protect you from social engineering, insider threats, and/or 0-day exploits. If we've learned nothing else in the past year or two, it's that the deck is stacked very highly in favor of attackers, especially targeted attacks by determined state actors.

      Given the above, and the high-profile targets that government networks represent, I would be surprised if most, if not all of them, have been compromised. We like to make a lot of noise about China attacking us, but we almost never mention the country known for the "best" malicious software, which is Russia. Google "Turla," or "Uroboros," for example, and they're hardly mentioned in popular media, let alone in official statements. I suspect that the Russians are either as good as us at avoiding detection, that we just don't want to rattle any sabres by mentioning them publicly, or a little of both.

      I think Kaspersky was spot on when he said: "this war can't be won; it only has perpetrators and victims. Out there, all we can do is prevent everything from spinning out of control. Only two things could solve this [permanently], and both of them are undesirable: to ban computers -- or people."

      http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  2. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't TFS supposed to explain what it's talking about?
    1. Why does a router have public-facing SSH? The reason to use SSH on your router is to configure it, over a wired connection from your PC, innit?
    2. Why does a router come with SSH keys already installed? Don't you generate your own SSH keys?

  3. FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    John Matherly, founder of a specialized search engine company whose technology is used for querying Internet-connected devices

    Translation -

    John Matherly, founder of a company who randomly portscanned over 350,000 internet-connected devices whithout their user's consect, for the sole purpose of enriching his company's bottom line.

    1. Re:FTFY by sinij · · Score: 2

      Yes, clearly what John Matherly did was by far more harmful than idiotic design decisions that resulted in such unforgivable "barn doors open" security holes. Because if he didn't disclose this vulnerability, nobody else would have found it and everyone would still be perfectly safe.

      /sarcasm

  4. Be A Good Geek by Guy+From+V · · Score: 2

    Every geek should be a good netNeighbor or netRelative and suggest or guide anyone we care about or don't wish to be fucked over by .gov/corporations/prick wardriving kids and suggest something along the lines of DD WRT or TomatoUSB on their routers that may be ripe targets...maybe even offer to help them secure them, I'm getting pissed at all this crap that is going to get all of them and us reamed. I also like the idea of sticking it to all the evil and/or stupid bastards that let this stuff happen. I let an elderly neighbor of mine know a few months ago by naming my SSID something that might alert their kids or whomever is their "IT expert" (who happened to her daughter) to email a disposable account I set up so I could explain what was up and I spent 20 minutes getting it going for them. I told her to let me know if it needed any fixing with another one-time email anytime remotely. But really, Toastman's TomatoUSB is very stable and needs hardly any tweaking or fixing...probably less than stock firmware. Especially for the crappy Cisco FW that was on it - disaster waiting to happen. They are even on 5ghz N band now, the only other one than me (I'm on both 2.4 & 5). PS InSSIDer is a great wireless app.

  5. Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the meantime, I can't even get my Canon wi-fi printer to connect to my router, but some script kiddy can see all my porn.

    What the hell is wrong with software these days?

  6. UL (Underwriters) is a private, for-profit company by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most electrical equipment mass-marketed in the US is tested by UL (Underwriters Laboratories). Many consumers and most large purchasers recognize the UL mark as indicating a degree of safety. Contracts can specify that products an components meet various UL standards. That's why your router's power suppy wall-wart probably has the UL mark, and doesn't generally catch fire.

    The "Gubmint" doesn't force UL certification or listing, purchasers choose UL listed products. There's no "billions of lobbying dollars", in fact companies PAY to have their products tested, because if they are recognized by UL they don't sell nearly as well. Not only do individual consumers recognize the UL logo, but purchasing agents for Walmart and Target know they'd rather buy and sell UL tested products, so if you want Walmart to order 500,000 fire safes from you, you better have UL test it.

    So no, it doesn't have anything to do with "gubmint" or "lobbying" - UL or another organization could check the firmware in the router just like they already check the power supply circuit.

  7. Re:Not the same as root user keys by F.Ultra · · Score: 2

    No they cannot, they can pretend to be the device to some user though without ssh complaining that the key is wrong. If they use the same ip and if they somehow can get between the user and his router.

  8. Sounds good, but shelves full of UL say otherwise by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > Back then you could justify the increased costs associated with getting the UL stamp of approval as a benefit to the consumer's safety.
    > Today, if you tried this, you'd get absolutely buried.

    That "sounds good", especially if it plays well with your personal political feelings. However, go pick ten random electrical products at your local big box store. Notice that at least nine, if not all ten, do in fact have the UL mark. The actual fact is that today almost all manufacturers do indeed "justify the increased costs associated with getting the UL stamp of approval". You can be surprised that they do, but you can see with your own eyes that they do. If that doesn't fit your current ideas, your ideas must be mistaken.