Slashdot Mirror


Computer Science Professor Mocks The NSA's Buggy Code (softpedia.com)

After performing hours of analysis, a computer science professor says he's "not impressed" by the quality of the recently-leaked code that's supposedly from an NSA hacking tool. An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: The professor, who teaches Software Vulnerability Analysis and Advanced Computer Security at the University of Illinois, Chicago, gripes about the cryptography operations employed in the code of an exploit called BANANAGLEE, used against Fortinet firewalls. Some of his criticism include the words "ridiculous", "very bad", "crazy" and "boring memory leaks".

"I would expect relatively bug-free code. And I would expect minimal cryptographic competence. None of those were true of the code I examined which was quite surprising," the professor told Softpedia in an email.

If these were cyberweapons, "I'm pretty underwhelmed by their quality," professor Checkoway writes on his blog, adding that he found "sloppy and buggy code," no authentication of the encrypted communication channel, 128-bit keys generated using 64 bits of entropy, and cypher initialization vectors that leaked bits of the hash of the plain text...

6 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. It is a tool to hack, you idiot by hsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real issue is what was exploited that one should be concerned about the quality of the code. "Oh man your shell scripts suck!"

    1. Re:It is a tool to hack, you idiot by saps1e · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. Considering this in the context of "cyberweapon", many weapons have been poorly designed and/or rushed into service, so this may be par for the course. I haven't looked at the code myself, but I would imagine that having a small footprint, both in terms of size and resources, is key to running undetected. Cutting corners, minimal encryption... those could be considered advantages here.

  2. Front Door Access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Remember, these are the people who want "Front Door" access to your computer. Without a warrant, without oversight.

    You can trust them, they are the most skilled cyber-warriors on the planet!

    Give them the keys to your front door, both physical and virtual! They are super competent and trustworthy.

  3. Re:NSA is part of "big government" after all by Archtech · · Score: 5, Funny

    We should privatize our security, and make the NSA as well as the military a publicly traded corporation.

    I know! Let's outsource it all to Microsoft!!

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  4. Re: In other news by Type44Q · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or the exact opposite: they send him a fat check, as per their agreement (the NSA funtions more effectively when it's being underestimated).

  5. Meh by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've yet to see a computer science professor with particularly excellent code, either. I run across assignments and example code from courses on a regular basis that fall into the "Never, ever do that" category of programming. Case in point, a relative of mine recently had some questions about a CS programming assignment. Part of the assignment description talked about design patterns and predictably went straight for the Singleton as an example. I'm pretty sure that's the only pattern that about 90% of programmers ever actually learn when reading about design patterns and it's so abused in the industry right now that you can basically never get one past a design review board.

    Anywhoo, back in the '90's I worked for a company that was getting a B2 Certification for its operating system. My job basically consisted of reading the entire AT&T C standard library code, finding potential security flaws, writing tests for those flaws and then writing a report with the tests which would be delivered to the NSA. I found the remote buffer overflow in the AT&T telnet daemon a couple years before the same overflow was discovered in the Linux telnet daemon. So the NSA basically outsourced the hard work of finding all those exploits to the companies that were trying to get security certifications. It took three or four guys just a few months to go through all the stuff we had to look at. I'm sure we missed a bit, but I was much more confident in the security of their OS at the end of all that. Too bad they eventually went out of business, were acquired by IBM and their products were killed. You know, progress!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?