Slashdot Mirror


Juniper's Backdoor Password Disclosed, Likely Added In Late 2013 (rapid7.com)

itwbennett writes: In a blog post on Rapid7's community portal Sunday, HD Moore posted some notes on the Juniper ScreenOS incident, notably that his team discovered the backdoor password that enables the Telnet and SSH bypass. Quoting: "Although most folks are more familiar with x86 than ARM, the ARM binaries are significantly easier to compare due to minimal changes in the compiler output. ... Once the binary is loaded, it helps to identify and tag common functions. Searching for the text "strcmp" finds a static string that is referenced in the sub_ED7D94 function. Looking at the strings output, we can see some interesting string references, including auth_admin_ssh_special and auth_admin_internal. ... The argument to the strcmp call is <<< %s(un='%s') = %u, which is the backdoor password, and was presumably chosen so that it would be mistaken for one of the many other debug format strings in the code. This password allows an attacker to bypass authentication through SSH and Telnet, as long as they know a valid username. If you want to test this issue by hand, telnet or ssh to a Netscreen device, specify a valid username, and the backdoor password. If the device is vulnerable, you should receive an interactive shell with the highest privileges."

107 comments

  1. Serves anyone right that uses Juniper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Really should be using Cisco gear anyway.

    1. Re:Serves anyone right that uses Juniper by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be modded "Funny" or at least "Redundant"?

    2. Re:Serves anyone right that uses Juniper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fundundant

    3. Re:Serves anyone right that uses Juniper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cisco's the shit man. We manage like 1000 Cisco devices across the world and they're rock solid and with the tools they and some third parties provide we can manage and secure the shit out of them. Last year's SSH bug was patched *that day.* with no interruptions to anyone. Also, Cisco TAC is awesome. They know what they're doing. On the flip side, we have some Juniper out there. At our primary DC the carrier had some major problems with Juniper causing an outage, L3 in Chicago has had some major incidents them twice taking out their connections to other providers at their meetme. Also, at least in the Midwest, you can't even find anyone to support Juniper. I have nothing against them, but don't knock Cisco. There are good reasons why they're more expensive and it isn't that bullshit "I don't need a Cadillac" answer. It's, their gear works well if you know wtf you're doing. We've had four devices fail in 7 years. Two had a dead port or two (both were PoE). The other two were environmental (one was a soda was spilled on an AP). GTFO haters. Haters gonna hate.

    4. Re:Serves anyone right that uses Juniper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Whoosh.

      He didn't knock on Cisco's stability. Cisco is known to have backdoors and cooperate with NSA.
      They probably work great but if you are worried about the government snooping then you should probably pick something else.

  2. At least they noticed something by gweihir · · Score: 0

    I expect similar things are present in a lot of other security products, just that there they are still undiscovered. Criticizing Juniper for this is entirely the wrong reaction.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:At least they noticed something by cdrnet · · Score: 2

      I don't see many people criticizing Juniper. Most seem to make fun of the US government and its three-letter agencies working against each other.

    2. Re:At least they noticed something by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      I expect similar things are present in a lot of other security products, just that there they are still undiscovered. Criticizing Juniper for this is entirely the wrong reaction.

      Hell yeah! Poor Juniper now has to enable another backdoor.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:At least they noticed something by Teckla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I expect similar things are present in a lot of other security products, just that there they are still undiscovered. Criticizing Juniper for this is entirely the wrong reaction.

      I don't understand your logic at all here. It's like saying, "Lots of people murder other people. Criticizing one murderer is entirely the wrong reaction."

      You can -- and should -- criticize the murderer and look to solve the greater problem at the same time.

    4. Re:At least they noticed something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You can -- and should -- criticize the murderer and look to solve the greater problem at the same time.

      Those two often operate at cross purposes when the problem is systemic. The impetus will be to simply "blame junpier". If the problem is systemic as the OP suggests, then you haven't really solved anything have you? Human nature is to want to try to address the problem as quickly as possible. If you just say it was Junipers fault and use Cisco products, you'll just repeat the same thing over and over again. To solve systemic problems you need to look at the whole system, not just put the blame on one or a few "bad actors".

      This was either an intentional insertion (likely from someone colluding with the NSA), or a debug statement that inadvertently got in. You can't really tell which. But does it really matter? One solution is simply do code review. Then at least you'd need multiple people colluding as NSA moles to get an exploit in like this.

    5. Re:At least they noticed something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An argument could be made that lots of people criticize single murders, while they don't criticize war. Apparently, your analogy actually does not show an extreme case where the faulty logic would be universally understood. This logic, which you don't understand at all, apparently does get applied to killing people.

    6. Re:At least they noticed something by gweihir · · Score: 1

      What you are doing is criticizing the action of the murderer to turn himself in, not the murder. Looks kind of different, doesn't it?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:At least they noticed something by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And to all the nay-sayers: Cisco has just decided that now they need to audit their code after all as well. So tell me again how Juniper did badly here after they had a suspicion?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  3. Version control? by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They must be using some sort of version control, right? So it should be trivial to find out who inserted the code and find out what exactly is going on (and prosecute those responsible). I mean, they'd like to "clear their name", wouldn't they?

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "inserting" it means injecting binary code in the compiled executable, version control on the source file can't help. Verifiable build could help, but wouldn't help "blaming" much.

    2. Re:Version control? by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 2

      i expect the answer will be something like 'David' where David will have no recollection of inserting anything like that.

      on a related note, is there a version control system that requires/allows users to cryptographically sign their commits? (i've only ever used svn and git)

    3. Re:Version control? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      Not necessarily anything conclusive. Commercial software providers can be somewhat hidebound about version control systems.

      I wouldn't be surprised if they were using CVS, and if multiple people didn't have access to the repository storage. In which case it's pretty trivial to insert the code in a way where it's impossible to tell the origin.

      Git with signed commits would be resistant to hiding the identity of the commit author, but a lot of corporations are paranoid about using it because of a perceived lack of control over it because the repository isn't on a single centrally controlled computer. (Which is silly, because anyone with read-access to the repository can siphon all the history off and copy it elsewhere anyway).

    4. Re:Version control? by xaxa · · Score: 4, Informative

      https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2...

      Sign Git commits with GPG.

      It's not enforced, so you'd need a commit hook or whatever to check commits are signed.

    5. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it should be trivial to find out whose credentials were used to insert the code and find out what exactly is going on (and prosecute those responsible).

      FTFY

    6. Re:Version control? by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes but you have to consider the sophistication here. This was code designed to appear to be a debug statement. It might not be the very most cleverly obfuscated code in history but it was done by someone with a lot of knowledge about internal style and practices, and software development skills in general. Its like state sponsored as well. So we have at least the potential for a fairly advanced threat actor here.

      I would say its highly unusual a skilled pentester doing an internal test does not enjoy at least some success. Even if they don't end up pwning all the key systems etc, they will as rule at least be able to get on some developers or administrators boxes. Somebody always slips up up somewhere. Assuming this person was willing to be patient and wait weeks or months and was on the inside, maybe a plant who got hired on, they could eventually compromise some developers box and get hold of their creds, signing keys, or whatever was needed to do a source commit. So attribution might be easy but correct attribution might be a hard problem. Just because someone clicks 'blame' and Bob Smith shows up, does not mean Bob had much to do with it other than he clicked the wrong link sometime, used a backdoored tool, etc..

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > prosecute those responsible

      The employee who inserted such code probably wasn't as stupid as forego some archived and well-hidden proof that shows he was compelled to do so by NSA / GCHQ / Unit8200 / FSB/etc.

      Honestly, if your kid woke up to find a severed my little pony head in her blooded bed and your grandparents' remains got robbed from the grave, would you say no to whatever polite three-lettered request? The various secret agencies are now so immoral that even Nietzche would be proud of them for raising above any alleged laws and restraints of human nature, thus achieving total freedom of action where the notion of good and bad is replaced by efficiency and cunning.

    8. Re:Version control? by Teckla · · Score: 2

      They must be using some sort of version control, right? So it should be trivial to find out who inserted the code and find out what exactly is going on (and prosecute those responsible). I mean, they'd like to "clear their name", wouldn't they?

      Where I work, our source code repository has logins but no passwords (unless you set one, and most developers don't, for whatever reason). My old boss used to check in things under my name.

      After I set a password, he used to throw code "over the fence" and have me check it in verbatim.

      Having your name/login on checked in code is not a terribly reliable way to identify the guilty party.

      (btw, I'm not saying my old boss ever did anything nefarious -- I'm quite sure he didn't -- I'm just demonstrating that your approach is not terribly reliable.)

    9. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sign Git commits with GPG.

      Fine. So rather than having no recollection of his unsigned commit, David will have no recollection of his signed commit.

      What has this accomplished?

    10. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like very bad practice. What industry is this in?

      In any case, we are talking about a manufacturer of "secure" network devices here.

    11. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did it get signed with his key if he didn't do it?
      Unless he just leaves his keys lying about like an idiot.

    12. Re:Version control? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      LOL at what industry is this.

      EVERY ONE THAT WRITES SOFTWARE.

      Yes, it's a bad, but very common, practice.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monotone / MTN. (And the I2P project appears to trust it enough to use it.)

    14. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What country do you work in where this is common practise? I work in the "good 'ol South' where we're supposed to be backwards hillbillies, and I've never seen something like that in a production environment. Who doesn't have at worst a local password policy, if not an integrated one for their network applications?

      Companies like this make the security practices of Juniper look top-notch!

    15. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How did it get signed with his key if he didn't do it?

      Stuxnet military worm modules were digitally signed with two keys (phyiscally) stolen from taiwanese hardware makers. A flat burglary should be simple compared to such an intercontinental endeavour.

    16. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Git with signed commits would be resistant to hiding the identity of the commit author, but a lot of corporations are paranoid about using it because of a perceived lack of control over it because the repository isn't on a single centrally controlled computer. (Which is silly, because anyone with read-access to the repository can siphon all the history off and copy it elsewhere anyway).

      Sounds like an argument for using an SCM with access controls, then. Make it harder for the bad guy to exfiltrate code, hand it off to another team for analysis, then get handed back his orders to insert an obfuscated (in the sense that a string that looks like a formatting string is likely to be glazed over during casual code review) backdoor in some security-critical area.

      Although even an SCM with proper access controls won't help if the developer's workstation itself was compromised.

    17. Re:Version control? by arth1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How did it get signed with his key if he didn't do it?

      His system is compromised with a dozen backdoors, and CIA / Shin Bet signed it with his key?

    18. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://youtu.be/4D7cPH7DHgA?t=3m8s

      David: "You can't scare me with this gestapo crap. I want to cryptographically sign my commits".
      Agent X: "Tell me Mr. David: "What good is a signed commit... if the production-build compiler has been compromised?""

    19. Re:Version control? by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What has this accomplished?

      It will make it easier for us to fire David, have him arrested, and call the problem fixed? ;)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    20. Re:Version control? by DanJ_UK · · Score: 1

      SHA-1?

      lol

      --
      - Dan
    21. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "production environment"

      How amusing. A "production" environment in a software shop?

    22. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EVERY ONE THAT WRITES SOFTWARE.

      Yeah, no. I have never once checked in someone else's code under my name. I commit my work to my branch. When it's been reviewed, my boss merges it into the development mainline. At some point, his boss forks the dev line into a new release branch. This is all logged and auditable, and we're just a private company doing nothing that's regulated.

      If I sent my boss some code and asked him to check it in for me, he'd call me a lazy fucker and tell me to do it myself. If he tossed me some code "over the fence" and told me to check it in, I'd respond the same way and ask him (at least jokingly) what kind of garbage he was trying to pin on me. People making commits using other peoples' logins might be normal where you work but it's definitely not standard practice.

      I have a buddy doing work on avionics systems and the horror stories I've heard from him make their SCM/CVS sound like the stuff of legend. 6 different people have to sign off on every line of code, one line at a time. I'm glad I don't live in that particular hell but I'd jump ship in a hurry if I found myself at a shop where everyone shares their credentials.

    23. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will no doubt find it was the same rouge engineers who put the emission dodging code in for VW, get rid of these guys and the problems of the world will be over.

    24. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those red engineers must be awfully embarrassed. (Just 'cause spell check doesn't flag it does not mean it's the right word.)

    25. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh. I haven't encountered it in (even very small) serious companies. I would not accept employment at a place like that.

    26. Re:Version control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has this accomplished?

      It will make it easier for us to fire David, have him arrested, and call the problem fixed? ;)

      Wait? Fire David? What the hell did I do?

  4. Shows how stupid "backdoors" are . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . because there are enough people out there who consider disassembly "easy enough to do for fun (or profit)".

  5. Any clues as to how it got in the code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This interesting part will be the detective story for how it got into the code base.

    That story may have similar versions for other equipment.

    1. Re: Any clues as to how it got in the code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The register had article saying the devteam is in China.

    2. Re: Any clues as to how it got in the code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."
      -Vladimir Lenin

      There are no words...

  6. And folks were concerned about Hauwei by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe there are reasons to still have concerns about them but this goes beyond just concerns. How did this get into Juniper's code baseline? Is there a mole, working inside the company or did their servers get hacked. Why would their code servers be accessible from outside the company in any case? More importantly, how does this get fixed? Has Jupiter sent out patches yet or done a complete review of their code to verify that there aren't other security holes? Can this backdoor be disabled without patching? IT groups in a lot of companies must be having the cold sweats about now.

    1. Re:And folks were concerned about Hauwei by mstefanro · · Score: 2

      Their code servers don't have to be accessible from the outside. Juniper has many employees, and hacking a single one of them is probably sufficient to sneak in a backdoor.

    2. Re:And folks were concerned about Hauwei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am, because Huawei actually stole Cisco code and even hardware designs in a breach in the 90s for the 7200 series. They should not be allowed to sell products in the western world. Chinese will cheat their way to the top.

    3. Re:And folks were concerned about Hauwei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cisco outsourced critical products and work to China. Its not like people *don't* know what is going on there. I best Cisco still outsources to China.

      They deserve what they get.

  7. sun su by iCEBaLM · · Score: 2

    Whoever put it in was an Art of War fan....

    1. Re:sun su by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since he was obviously making a joke, does that make you an ass or an azz?

    2. Re:sun su by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither, since he wasn't making a joke. And if it was a joke........it was dry enough to require some sort of joke tags.

    3. Re:sun su by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or
      translate_id (un='username') = number
      which, as TFA notes, looks unsuspicious and can be mistaken for some verbose debugging string.

    4. Re:sun su by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      ...if it was chinese speaker using latin chacters but not knowing the western spelling they would spell it 'sun zu' or something, since the second word starts with a zzz sounds...

      Actually, he would probably write it as "Sunzi", and the initial consonant of the second syllable is pronounced "dz".

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  8. Community Defense by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Assuming Juniper has secure code audit logs and can personally identify the person who checked this in ("find the spook" if you will), will his identity be swept under the rug for some BS "privacy concerns" or will the Internet security community learn his identity so that he may be properly ostracized and precluded from any such future work?

    Juniper has the money to settle any threats of lawsuits arising from such disclosure - doing the right thing here is probably the only way people will ever trust Juniper again - it may even be a 'cost of sales'.

    If Juniper can't positively ID the perp then nobody can trust them going forward, so let's hope they can and do.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Community Defense by xaxa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whoever put it there may well have hacked a developer's computer, whether they were working at Juniper or not.

    2. Re:Community Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The last time we investigated this they had used the key of the director of development.....and the pc was 'leaking and receiving' data so 'who checked it in' doesn't tell you much.

    3. Re:Community Defense by Seranfall · · Score: 2

      I would very much hope that Juniper act publicly in this matter. Companies who are truly not in the feds pockets need to stand up for themselves. It's insane that it is even remotely legal for government agencies to do some of the things that are going on. However, you can bet if the person who did this did so because a government agency instructed him to do so that this will get covered up. When you have companies like Cisco altering shipping practices in the hopes of not having their gear intercepted and altered and Juniper will hard coded back doors how can you trust these companies products? These companies are their reputations brutalized and they can't do much about it because the main perpetrators are agencies like the NSA. I'd love to start seeing these companies sue the government for lost sales due to lost of trust in the security of their products.

    4. Re:Community Defense by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      And if Juniper was paid by the gov't to do exactly this, then what?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:Community Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I'm not saying this is the end of Juniper if they don't, but I know I wouldn't be wiling to pay the extra associated costs they charge compared to some other lesser known vendors. Pretty much the same way they became big as a Cisco alternative. To not fix this publicly would mean a 50%+ reduction in product costs for me to consider purchasing them again in the future. Good thing not too many shops are Juniper ONLY, so they will have an easier time migration away from the product line. Not sure what to do with nearly $1 mil of existing equipment in production throughout my various client's though. "Sorry you were completely exposed despite spending obscene amounts of money on equipment for us to secure your networks. Don't worry, we have it patched now though." And just think of the pointless, wasted manhours/energy/electricity wasted doing things like FW security audits and device credential audits, and non-default account audits, etc. I probably could have afforded Cisco devices with the savings...or twice the hardware from other vendors.

      catchpa: adviser (fitting)

    6. Re:Community Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Juniper can't positively ID the perp then nobody can trust them going forward

      Problem is, what can be done about it at this point in time?
      How many manufacturers for gear like Junipers are there around? Huawei? Um, no thanks. It will be just the same with them, just other puppet masters.
      Cisco? Afaik they don't quite make stuff on the same level, but if US agencies have backdoored Juniper, it will be the same for Cisco.

      So we are basically out of options. And businesses need that gear from someone. Worst case scenario from Junipers perspective sales might suck for a quarter, maybe two, then people's need for the gear outweighs their mistrust of Juniper. Unless you want to be adamant about not trusting any manufacturer anymore, and subsequently go out of business, they basically have us by the balls.

      One of the worst aspects of concentration of business: there are very few failure points left for shit like this. You only need to strongarm or infiltrate a small number of corps to make surveillance unavoidable.

    7. Re:Community Defense by arth1 · · Score: 1

      And if Juniper was paid by the gov't to do exactly this, then what?

      Paid? Forced is more likely.

      The secret courts working for your dollar!

    8. Re:Community Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cisco hardware is compromised by the NSA. It works a bit different, in this case the NSA divers shipment of Cisco routers to their own factory to reflash the hardware with their own image, then send them on again, and yes this has been going on wholesale.

      Cisco is now trying to detect this by shipping them to, hopefully, unknown locations, checking the equipment and then resending them to the actual company. Yip a company like Cisco is now doing cloak and dagger games to ship machines to other companies so that those machines won't get compromised by the NSA.

    9. Re:Community Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The perp will be identified as "Marcus Winthrop", he was hired shortly before the code was added but was killed shortly after in a tragic car accident.

      The odd thing is that while a police report and death certificate are easy to obtain no one seems to be able to find a birth certificate (even though he was a natural born USA citizen according to his resume). or any other record relating to him from before he was hired. Even the schools he went to and the former employers listed on his resume can not find anyone who remembers actually meeting him before he started at Juniper.

    10. Re:Community Defense by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Did the world community of experts find much per Snowden "live" on the internet? Huge amounts of data split domestically and internationally without comment, question or any understanding flowed into a few nations security services without much wider public understanding. 24/7 collect it all was just never noticed ...
      Lots of years old traces, code samples, some splitter locations for collect it all...
      If any top regional security experts get too near that nations security services take over.
      Recall Operation Socialist and later "military intelligence" helping. (2014/12/13/)
      https://theintercept.com/2014/...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. Right - Uh-huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, anyone else besides me verify it? I did on two firewalls. I cry bullshit !!! Does not work.

  10. Good thing people stopped using ScreenOS before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Good thing people stopped using ScreenOS before 2013. Seriously they've been migrating people onto the vastly superior SRX/JunOS platform for over a decade. ScreenOS is purely legacy garbage at this point. Only resistance I've seen to people leaving ScreenOS is having to learn a new CLI, aka IT lifers who hate learning.

  11. Juniper were listed in Snowden docs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bullshit, Juniper were notified by Snowden leaks their firewalls were under NSA attack:
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/catalog-reveals-nsa-has-back-doors-for-numerous-devices-a-940994.html

    So I expect them to watch their backs, and keep tight control of their software. 2 years to spot a backdoor? Even when you know you're under attack from a group that previously back-doored your products?

    > "In the case of Juniper, the name of this particular digital lock pick is "FEEDTROUGH." This malware burrows into Juniper firewalls and makes it possible to smuggle other NSA programs into mainframe computers. Thanks to FEEDTROUGH, these implants can, by design, even survive "across reboots and software upgrades." In this way, US government spies can secure themselves a permanent presence in computer networks. The catalog states that FEEDTROUGH "has been deployed on many target platforms."

    The suspicion is that they get paid. UK has just revealed its been spying on everyone for 15+ years using Telecoms act section 94, against non Telecoms companies, like hardware suppliers, database owners etc. Juniper could have been told to backdoor their hardware under Article 94.

    Companies don't challenge it, because Article 7:
    > "(7)There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants under this section."

    So the suspicion is that Juniper got paid to backdoor their kit, and now that all these revelations are coming out, (about how Parliaments have been deceived, how Ministers lied, Parallel Construction lies to Judiciary etc.) That Juniper is suddenly finding the backdoor and fixing it as if it just appeared.

    Either they're incompetent, or they're complicity, but either way, other companies involvement in this scandal does not mitigate Junipers.

    1. Re:Juniper were listed in Snowden docs by mstefanro · · Score: 2

      > 2 years to spot a backdoor?
      I assume they have a fairly large codebase. Without the tip from Snowden, maybe they would never have discovered it at all?
      It sounds pretty weird that they've discovered two completely separate and unrelated backdoors at the same time.

    2. Re:Juniper were listed in Snowden docs by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, given TFS, I'd say they put it in so they probably knew about it from day 1.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Juniper were listed in Snowden docs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The suspicion is that they get paid."
      That'll take longer than 2 years to uncover, if ever.

  12. Re:Why do people even buy U.S hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So where do we go? Russian hardware? Chinese hardware? If you think those countries are any safer, I have a bridge in a borough of New York city that's looking for a new owner...

  13. The stupification of IT. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I blame windows for this, but mostly because im a neckbeard. This is every bit as much the IT Managers fault for investing in technology and not people. What we have in this foul year of our lord 2015 is infrastructure managed by support ticket and not seasoned admin and as an old unix hand Im frankly chuckling whenever I see revelations of backdoors. These vendors include this garbage because they understand the race to the bottom includes hiring a junior admin to handle the stack for half the cost of a greybeard. The consequence of this is paying the rest of that greybeard salary times three to Juniper, who in turn need a way to un-fsck the device once junior leaves, or completely cocks up the device.

    dont think of it as a backdoor. think of it as the technological equivalent of child safety locks or those little plastic outlet covers. The vendor doesnt trust you to handle the device on your own terms, because the majority of the vendors customers cant seem to make it much beyond the boot prompt before bricking the device. an argument could also be made that its not the fault of the admin here. Juniper took the logical, moneytrain route of locking away all their documentation to the licensed cloistered elite, so if youre out 3 admins of turnover and the support contract has been ignored for a month, that backdoor is likely getting used to bring you back into the loving embrace of the vendor.

    now for the soap box. Back in my day there were real repercussions for not knowing your kit. You couldnt just open a support ticket and wait for a fix on an HPUX handling thirty million transactions per second. You needed to have a good escalation path in your organization to make sure problems got solved quickly, and management has forgotten the value of the most expensive part of this equation, the greybeard. Maybe we never had good visibility, or our people skills were just mediocre, but i for one am ambivalent about this kind of dictatorial lording over appliance, SaS, and anything "cloud."

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:The stupification of IT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Every network appliance vendor has backdoors (mostly), for your safety :D

      Synology, is at least creative in having a daily backdoor lol

      https://wrgms.com/synologys-secret-telnet-password/

    2. Re:The stupification of IT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original gray/neckbeard built a backdoor into Unix.

      A backdoor that could have been discovered and used by anyone, once discovered.

      So i'm not sure why you are ranting about not enough neckbeards and too many junior admins being the problem . . . the ORIGINAL neckbeard backdoored the OS who's children went on to become the, arguably, most installed and successful OS on the planet.

      http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/04/15/strange-loops-dennis-ritchie-a/

      So, neckbeards . . . can't be trusted.

    3. Re:The stupification of IT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in summary, it's a feature, not a bug.

      "We know you're going to cock it up, so we need a way to save your dumb ass. Love, Juniper."

    4. Re:The stupification of IT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Network engineer here.
      If you have access to the hardware, you have access to reset it. No need for a back door for Juniper to get in. You backed up your configs right?

    5. Re:The stupification of IT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, network appliances/devices are now being sold as a SERVICE. You get cloud features and cloud support (just in case).

      Case in point: SYNOLOGY NAS backdoors , for your data protection (ironically).

    6. Re:The stupification of IT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to you "greybeard" but this backdoor and more have been going on SINCE YOU WERE IN YOUR PRIME. This has nothing to do with "juniors" because you "seniors" didn't eatch it either! "Back in your day" you were compromised and were clueless about it.

    7. Re:The stupification of IT. by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      "infrastructure managed by support ticket" I'd like to see how this works. In my experience, tech support at major vendors know very little of how their products work and won't admit when they don't have a clue on how to proceed. Once we get ahold of a manager's contact info we use it mercilessly to to get every case escalated.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  14. Mr. Potato head...Mr. Potato head !!! by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    Backdoors are not secrets! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:Mr. Potato head...Mr. Potato head !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go straight through Falken's Maze

  15. Are we sure Juniper didn't do it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Juniper is saying they were hacked and that the code was likely produced by a state-sponsored entity, but has that been confirmed? It seems to me that given the FBI's recent statements about requiring encryption backdoors in various applications and network products is perhaps a cover for those manufacturers that have already started to comply with a secret policy put forth by the FBI/NSA. This situations kinda reminds me of what happened when it was found out that telecoms were giving access to the NSA for mass communications surveillance. It that case, Congress had to pass a law giving the telecoms and the NSA backwards immunity from prosecution and civil lawsuits.

    1. Re:Are we sure Juniper didn't do it? by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      A good argument. that will probably get modded up. For the sake of argument, I shall propose an alternate. If Juniper as a company overall did not know this was happening, it still looks like an inside job. Perhaps this is the true cost of handing out H1B Visa's left and right. If that is the case, that individual or those individuals are long since back in their country.

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    2. Re:Are we sure Juniper didn't do it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It that case, Congress had to pass a law giving the telecoms and the NSA backwards immunity from prosecution and civil lawsuits.

      Which in and of itself should have been against the law, as the Constitution expressly forbids ex post facto laws at the federal and state levels in very clear and understandable language. But of course over time the courts have twisted that to effectively mean nothing, beginning 9 years after the Constitution was ratified.

  16. Seems irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Given reduced manpower and increased difficulty in obtaining change approvals at this time of the year, doesn't it strike anyone else a bit soon to be publicly listing the exact password to use? Also they're publishing unpacked Juniper software, which may ellicit a Cease and Desist.

    Yes I get that the bad guys could do this reverse engineering as well, but the reality is that there's a limited number of attackers with the engineering knowledge to proceed, compared to the much larger number of scipt kiddies that were just spoon fed another attack to run over the Christmas period.

    I work in the industry, and while there's not one major issue I can fault them on, it just feels wrong. Perhaps they need to consider that responsible disclosure doesn't just mean waiting until the vendor has released a fix, but to allow a reasonable time for users to be notified and organise installation of the patch. Perhaps they've lost touch with would a reasonable period of time to patch is. A security researcher may think, patch immediately, but in an organisation with a large deployment it's not as simple as this. I'd love to patch our devices as soon as the vendor patch is available, but with inperfect vendor updates, particularly with this vendor, an update is just as likely to break things as fix them, so testing has to be carried out first.

    1. Re:Seems irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in the industry, and while there's not one major issue I can fault them on, it just feels wrong. Perhaps they need to consider that responsible disclosure doesn't just mean waiting until the vendor has released a fix, but to allow a reasonable time for users to be notified and organise installation of the patch. Perhaps they've lost touch with would a reasonable period of time to patch is. A security researcher may think, patch immediately, but in an organisation with a large deployment it's not as simple as this. I'd love to patch our devices as soon as the vendor patch is available, but with inperfect vendor updates, particularly with this vendor, an update is just as likely to break things as fix them, so testing has to be carried out first.

      So you want security through obscurity because your monolithic entity moves at a glacial pace?

    2. Re:Seems irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he/she probably just wants (as do I) more responsible disclosure that takes into account, you know, the real fricking world, that goes beyond your own basement or a small startup. There are folks that will be working right through Christmas to try to fix this crap on countless devices and that's still not soon enough when the exact compromise method is widely published to every script kiddie and wannabe on the planet. While targeted attacks by more organized black hats would occur either way, they are a couple orders of magnitude less frequent than getting hit by everyone and their dog.
      Then after the holidays there's more countless hours of analysis and research to find and resole any fallout (either from the patch sucking and breaking other stuff, or from potential compromises that may have occurred before the fix), then more damage control for that crap... did it disclose any personal info of one's customers, or employees, or HIPAA protected medical information, or banking info, specific trade secrets or IP, etc. Figure out who is likely to sue and try to prepare of that, etc. You can take your "glacier" and shove it.

    3. Re:Seems irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So you want security through obscurity because your monolithic entity moves at a glacial pace?"

      To illustrate the problem. Juniper just pulled the ScreenOS 6.3.0r20 update that users were recommended to upgrade to. SSH or MSRPC traffic could cause the device to core dump. They've pulled the update and replaced it with R21.

      This is par for the course from Juniper, is there any surprise that software updates are treated with caution and require local testing before pushing to production.

  17. SYNOLOGY NAS's also have backdoors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://wrgms.com/synologys-secret-telnet-password/

    Remember the time they had bitcoin miners running on them :) lol

  18. Re:Why do people even buy U.S hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No thanks, that bridge is American hardware.

  19. Don't people strip symbols any more? by JimMcc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One thing that surprised me is that symbols were still in the executable. I'll admit that I'm kind of long in the tooth and have been out of the industry for 15 years now. It used to be that a standard practice was that the final compile had the symbols stripped out. It was done for space consideration mostly, which probably isn't a concern anymore, but also for security. Is it now standard practice to leave symbols in shipped code? If so, why? Yes it is somewhat of a security by obscurity, but leaving symbols in is like leaving the combination to your lock taped to the back of it, or at least a note as to where you've hidden the combination.

    1. Re:Don't people strip symbols any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same question here.

      And to security by obscurity: Never to be depended on a sole defense, but it is not without merit as part of a layered defense! I think many "truists" out there forget that ALL "secure solutions" will be vulnerable one to day brute force or zero day attacks. So limiting the exposure during this vulnerability can be the difference between being breached or not.

    2. Re:Don't people strip symbols any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > One thing that surprised me is that symbols were still in the executable.

      Arguments to functions will always remain as they are required for that function to work. You are confused with debug symbols which are something entirely different and are meant to describe to a debugger which instructions reference a particular piece of source code or argument.

      Using the utility strings on any binary will reveal tons of function arguments and often also debug strings because it allows the developer to make more sense of the stack trace when the program they created goes belly up. Not many developers nowadays bother to strip debug symbols...

    3. Re:Don't people strip symbols any more? by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is no actual security gain from stripping symbols. If the logic of the code allows for something to be performed which shouldn't be, then stripping symbols changes nothing at all.

      The most stripped symbols would do, is slow down a person reverse engineering the code, once done they still get their access and can reuse their knowledge, and even that assumes they don't have direct access to the source code...clearly a bad assumption here.

      Its similar to the old "no compilers in production". It doesn't actually protect you from anything but the most unsophisticated attackers. Which, admittedly, is a form of protection, but only from opportunists who don't care that much.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:Don't people strip symbols any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to ship code with symbols in them, now I don't because the my ide changed the default option and I need to change it back.
      Anyway I do this so that when a crash happens in the field the crash report makes a lot more sense.

      Last time I had a crash report I spend several hours to figure out on what line of code the application crashed.

  20. Re:Why do people even buy U.S hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chain the routers from multiple untrusted nations, their unlikely to share their back doors so getting through all the devices would be considerably harder.

  21. Re:Why do people even buy U.S hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So where do we go? Russian hardware? Chinese hardware? If you think those countries are any safer, I have a bridge in a borough of New York city that's looking for a new owner...

    Assuming all of them being compromised I would go with Russian or Chinese yes. Neither of them trade information with my government so my personal data won't be used against me when it's with them.
    For business hardware I would go with locally developed any time of the day. Your own government typically won't sell out its own companies.

  22. Trust us, we're the government. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like the Clipper chip, this is why backdoors are a bad idea. Yet the government wants such backdoors to otherwise secure systems. This will allow snooping by any malicious technically minded party.

  23. Who!? by spongman · · Score: 1

    It should be trivial for the FBI to discover who did this and why. Unless, of course, the NSA doesn't want them to...

  24. Re:Why do people even buy U.S hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, if I buy hardware from China, it maybe has a Chinese backdoor.

    If I buy hardware from the USA, it maybe has an USA backdoor and a Chinese backdoor.

    So I buy hardware from China, thank you very much.

  25. Re:Why do people even buy U.S hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sealand has no documented history of doing any such thing.

  26. In a way chinese hardware might be more secure by aepervius · · Score: 2

    People including NSA with a reason to find something and an axe to grind will have a look at chinese hardware for backdoor. The contrary is true too, for US hardware, but you will hardly hear any reporting from chinese news media about it.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  27. Re:Why do people even buy U.S hardware? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Trade deals. The US sets up free trade deals or bilateral treaty that open entire nations to US goods and services. Very few nations can then say no due to their own security needs or national interest.
    The other method is huge amounts of contacts between US gov/mil staff and then the US corporations follow in with US products and services.
    Like buys like when a nations top political leaders mil and generals want what they saw in the USA. Standardization, friendships, generations of shared bases.
    The products then ship with trap doors, backdoors so the US gov always has access to its 'friends' globally.
    The only option is to fab as a nation and then deal with the power costs, heat, cooling, design and software to escape trap doors, backdoors as imported every generation.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  28. Re: Good thing people stopped using ScreenOS befor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that JunOS being an unstable mess, that until very recently, was missing basic firewall functionality like logging the direction of a TCP RST, had nothing to do with the resistance.

  29. Re:Why do people even buy U.S hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sealand also has no documented history of actually existing as a internationally recognized nation-state.