SuperFish is not the only one!

Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by Emre TINAZTEPE, Feb 22, 2015.

  1. Emre TINAZTEPE

    Emre TINAZTEPE Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2014
    Posts:
    84
    Hello Everyone,

    After inspecting the SSL hijacking attempts collected by Zemana IntelliGuard we have come across the list companies who is installing a Root CA on user's PCs with the same private key thus making their users vulnerable to MitM attacks.

    http://cdn9.zemana.com/tmp/RootCAList1.htm

    RootCAList1.png
     
  2. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,723
    Location:
    localhost
    Ooops... several security companies in there ... :confused:
     
  3. Azure Phoenix

    Azure Phoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2014
    Posts:
    357
    Has anyone reported that issue to those companies?
     
  4. gerardwil

    gerardwil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Posts:
    4,748
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Tested and so far no Fish en Komodia here.

    2015-02-22 23_44_51-Superfish CA + Komodia vulnerability test.jpg
     
  5. ghodgson

    ghodgson Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Posts:
    784
    Location:
    UK
    That is a very interesting list, with some (oh dear) very well known companies.
     
  6. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,010
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Can you give some more info? What is the reason they do this, and can't these companies be trusted anymore?
     
  7. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Any way to separate potentially malicious usages with legitimate features?
     
  8. Yuki2718

    Yuki2718 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Posts:
    1,257
    The reason is to see and/or modify SSL/TLS traffic, and that will be likely to e.g. scan SSL traffic for malware/exploit (some AV), inject ads (Superfish), monitor/modify contents as you like (Fiddler, Proxomitron), monitor and control internet by users (common in corporation), etc.
    Trust or not is what YOU have to decide. I dislike all those MITM attempts unless I myself did, and I know when it comes to crypt even well-known security vendor don't follow best practice. So crypt is good indicator to see how a company is serious about security. Bitdefender's MITM proxy used (and may still use) terrible encryption. Kaspersky have/had long been used Heartbleed vulnerable component in their Android app long after HB was published (this is why I quit to use their app). NVT-ERP uses broken MD5 for file identification as well as path. All these are terrible.
    I think you misunderstand. It's not much about malicious or legitimate, it's more about vunlerability. Superfish happened to use it for adware purpose, but this matter go much further than that. They could be much better while still being adware and still do MITM if they used individually different keys, used latest crypt module rather than dated nss3.dll, strictly verified certificates, and asked user if he want to do MITM (IMO, the problem is most people won't understand). These things are what you have to check if you still want to use products with MITM, regardless of if the vendor is reputable or not.

    IMO, any products shouldn't use MITM unless they explains it and its user can understand. IOW, only programs for advanced user should use MITM, other software shouldn't. Leaving those decission for common PC user is irresponsible.

    If you care about security, check all certificates on all your system (OS'root CA and each SSL facing program's if the program have its own cert store like Firefox and plesto Opera) at least once, prefarably more. Also always manually check SSL certificate when you connect to sensitive site. If you followed this, you couldn't be vulnerable by this messing. Also it's worthwhile learning about crypt which is very fundamental in internet security. Not all crypt-related attack require malware (some MITM, Heartbleed, etc.), so if you only care about malware, you can't be fully protected.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2015
  9. Yuki2718

    Yuki2718 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Posts:
    1,257
    This is not an "issue". It must be intended design.
     
  10. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,709
    That's quite a list. I don't think intercepting HTTPS traffic using a self-signed root certificate with the same private key is a good idea.
    That just makes it easier for possible attackers to spoof any HTTPS website, if they are able to extract and crack the password somewhat like the one
    described here: http://blog.erratasec.com/2015/02/extracting-superfish-certificate.html
     
  11. Moose World

    Moose World Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Posts:
    446
    Location:
    U.S. Citizen
    Agree completely!

    Moose's World
    Make it a great day!
     
  12. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,010
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Thanks for the interesting feedback.
     
  13. XIII

    XIII Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Posts:
    451
  14. geekatlarge

    geekatlarge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Posts:
    66
    Location:
    Searching for $Windows.~BT folders
    Exactly this.

    Thank you Emre for the list and thank you Yuki for the excellent explanation of the problem.
     
  15. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    Why is an old Symantec CA in there?!?!? Looks like it is linked to SEP (Symantec Endpoint Protection).. Very alarming to have that in a corporate product, maybe it's old?

    Also note Utiltool/Sophos/Spyware Terminator and Lavasoft all using Superfish. I wonder what the Lavasoft fans will say about that here?
     
  16. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,721
    Location:
    Texas
  17. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    It's funny how this is getting so much publicity, and companies are grandstanding over it. All of the malware, transparent proxy nonsense we see everyday, and this one is picked out. Largely because it impacted one of the largest PC makers in the world I guess. With all of the issues around privacy/security, companies should realize they can't hide this stuff for long anymore.

    I found steady streams on my network going to Mixpanel, despite no known Mixpanel applications. UTM logs showed it was from my sons Android, and I narrowed down the application. I think people need to start paying attention to companies like Mixpanel that mine data from sensitive applications/devices. Untangle blocks Mixpanel at the router - by the way - under the category 'marketing'. Once these lesser known data mining firms become well recognized, and blocked, things will improve. ONLY EMSISOFT blocks Mixpanel at the desktop level right now...

    Still curious about why Symantec is using SuperFish CAo_O (it's old though)
     
  18. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    IMO, the more important issue here is whether the user is made aware of the certificate install, informed of its function, or given a choice in the matter. Yuki2718 mentioned Proxomitrons certificate. In order for Proxomitron to filter HTTPS (not enabled by default), the user has to choose to install Proxomitrons certificate and set its permissions. Unlike SuperFish and others, the process is completely transparent and under the users control.

    The term MITM has been given a very narrow definition in these discussions. It's used to describe anything between your browser and HTTPS sites that can decrypt the traffic, regardless of whether it's on your PC or between you and the site on the web. This is misleading. Who decided that only your browser can legitimately decrypt HTTPS traffic? Software other than your browser on your PC that decrypts HTTPS is a local proxy. If you choose to install it, knowing its abilities, it's not a "man in the middle". It's part of the client. If it's installed without your knowledge, then it's another matter. The real issue is who controls it and why it's there.
     
  19. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    I want to find out more about why this is happening with Symantec. Granted, it's 2005 CA, and appears linked to SEP. If I find that certificate on my machines with Norton, I am shelving Norton immediately and reverting to Trend.
     
  20. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Probably because it's a corp and probably also has Komodia installed to decrypt SSL traffic. Standard corp procedure via splash screen at boot time stating everything you do is monitored and there is no privacy guaranty?
     
  21. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    I can check when I get time. We have a good number of clients on SEP. But Norton 2015 has very similar technologies, and doesn't need SuperFish to handle SSL. So I am confused.
     
  22. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    This CERT appears no longer used with Symantec. I checked multiple Symantec systems today, it was nowhere to be found.
     
  23. marzametal

    marzametal Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Posts:
    731
    I wonder how many FF extensions are compromised as well, especially the ones that spoof user info...
     
  24. Yuki2718

    Yuki2718 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Posts:
    1,257
    Actual matter is it's hard for most people to correctly understand the risk of MITM technique even when they themselves chose it. Many of those programs, including Proxomitron, Kaspersky AV, ESET, etc. don't MITM TLS by default but don't give much info about its risk when chosen.
    I had been Proxomitron (and Privoxy too) user, but have never enabled SSL/TLS inspection and IIRC dev didn't recommend too.
    There won't be many program which is on per with browser about SSL authentication. Using different keys is just a least ground which somehow many of those MITM programs' vendor emhasize to show their program is different from Superfish. How can I tell if it do better authentication than browser and my eyes? Expiration date and revocation are checked so it's okay? Does all of them use the same cert store in OS or in browser like Firefox so that if I disabled some certs it's reflected in the MITM program? Does they use same strong encryption as browser (I know in most case the answer is no.)? I disable some cipher suites and old protocols on my browsers, is it reflected to the program? Does they disable TLS compression to prevent CRIME? How about TLS fall back? How about TLS channel ID? Forced OCSP? OCSP stapling (not much about security, but about privacy)? HSTS and HPKP (Chrome uses HKPK for some measure sites by default)? Too many things to consider.

    Call me as paranoid, but I'm not comfortable if I can't control my SSL connection and can't know who I'm connecting to. SSL is very foundation in internet security.

    As to usage of the term MITM, it should be determined if there's sth btwn end terminals, it's not necessarily is browser but anything btwn them can be called MITM, but shouldn't be based on if it is on your PC. If such def is admitted even malware can be excluded from MITM (I know difference btwn MITM & MITB, I'm strictly speaking about MITM), but remember MITM itself is not necessarily negative word (MITM attack is nagative word). If you're web developer and your site employ SSL, you may want to investigate your site by MITM. MITM are also used in many corporation as well as parental control. MITM have many legitimate use.
    The problem is, again, most people don't understand the risk and those programs fails to correctly inform them.
     
  25. Yuki2718

    Yuki2718 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Posts:
    1,257
    Norton uses plugin based approach against threat from SSL, but if you install additional parental control component IIRC it can inspect SSL by MITM (I forgot if it is only for paid version). Maybe same for corporate product line (monitoring employee)?
     
Loading...