Older blog entries for mjg59 (starting at number 466)

Announcing the Shim review process

Shim has been hugely successful, to the point of being used by the majority of significant Linux distributions and many other third party products (even, apparently, Solaris). The aim was to ensure that it would remain possible to install free operating systems on UEFI Secure Boot platforms while still allowing machine owners to replace their bootloaders and kernels, and it's achieved this goal.

However, a legitimate criticism has been that there's very little transparency in Microsoft's signing process. Some people have waited for significant periods of time before being receiving a response. A large part of this is simply that demand has been greater than expected, and Microsoft aren't in the best position to review code that they didn't write in the first place.

To that end, we're adopting a new model. A mailing list has been created at shim-review@lists.freedesktop.org, and members of this list will review submissions and provide a recommendation to Microsoft on whether these should be signed or not. The current set of expectations around binaries to be signed documented here and the current process here - it is expected that this will evolve slightly as we get used to the process, and we'll provide a more formal set of documentation once things have settled down.

This is a new initiative and one that will probably take a little while to get working smoothly, but we hope it'll make it much easier to get signed releases of Shim out without compromising security in the process.

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2017-03-21 20:29:30 from Matthew Garrett

Buying a Utah teapot

The Utah teapot was one of the early 3D reference objects. It's canonically a Melitta but hasn't been part of their range in a long time, so I'd been watching Ebay in the hope of one turning up. Until last week, when I discovered that a company called Friesland had apparently bought a chunk of Melitta's range some years ago and sell the original teapot[1]. I've just ordered one, and am utterly unreasonably excited about this.

[1] They have them in 0.35, 0.85 and 1.4 litre sizes. I believe (based on the measurements here) that the 1.4 litre one matches the Utah teapot.

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2017-03-20 20:45:42 from Matthew Garrett

The Internet of Microphones

So the CIA has tools to snoop on you via your TV and your Echo is testifying in a murder case and yet people are still buying connected devices with microphones in and why are they doing that the world is on fire surely this is terrible?

You're right that the world is terrible, but this isn't really a contributing factor to it. There's a few reasons why. The first is that there's really not any indication that the CIA and MI5 ever turned this into an actual deployable exploit. The development reports[1] describe a project that still didn't know what would happen to their exploit over firmware updates and a "fake off" mode that left a lit LED which wouldn't be there if the TV were actually off, so there's a potential for failed updates and people noticing that there's something wrong. It's certainly possible that development continued and it was turned into a polished and usable exploit, but it really just comes across as a bunch of nerds wanting to show off a neat demo.

But let's say it did get to the stage of being deployable - there's still not a great deal to worry about. No remote infection mechanism is described, so they'd need to do it locally. If someone is in a position to reflash your TV without you noticing, they're also in a position to, uh, just leave an internet connected microphone of their own. So how would they infect you remotely? TVs don't actually consume a huge amount of untrusted content from arbitrary sources[2], so that's much harder than it sounds and probably not worth it because:

YOU ARE CARRYING AN INTERNET CONNECTED MICROPHONE THAT CONSUMES VAST QUANTITIES OF UNTRUSTED CONTENT FROM ARBITRARY SOURCES

Seriously your phone is like eleven billion times easier to infect than your TV is and you carry it everywhere. If the CIA want to spy on you, they'll do it via your phone. If you're paranoid enough to take the battery out of your phone before certain conversations, don't have those conversations in front of a TV with a microphone in it. But, uh, it's actually worse than that.

These days audio hardware usually consists of a very generic codec containing a bunch of digital→analogue converters, some analogue→digital converters and a bunch of io pins that can basically be wired up in arbitrary ways. Hardcoding the roles of these pins makes board layout more annoying and some people want more inputs than outputs and some people vice versa, so it's not uncommon for it to be possible to reconfigure an input as an output or vice versa. From software.

Anyone who's ever plugged a microphone into a speaker jack probably knows where I'm going with this. An attacker can "turn off" your TV, reconfigure the internal speaker output as an input and listen to you on your "microphoneless" TV. Have a nice day, and stop telling people that putting glue in their laptop microphone is any use unless you're telling them to disconnect the internal speakers as well.

If you're in a situation where you have to worry about an intelligence agency monitoring you, your TV is the least of your concerns - any device with speakers is just as bad. So what about Alexa? The summary here is, again, it's probably easier and more practical to just break your phone - it's probably near you whenever you're using an Echo anyway, and they also get to record you the rest of the time. The Echo platform is very restricted in terms of where it gets data[3], so it'd be incredibly hard to compromise without Amazon's cooperation. Amazon's not going to give their cooperation unless someone turns up with a warrant, and then we're back to you already being screwed enough that you should have got rid of all your electronics way earlier in this process. There are reasons to be worried about always listening devices, but intelligence agencies monitoring you shouldn't generally be one of them.

tl;dr: The CIA probably isn't listening to you through your TV, and if they are then you're almost certainly going to have a bad time anyway.

[1] Which I have obviously not read
[2] I look forward to the first person demonstrating code execution through malformed MPEG over terrestrial broadcast TV
[3] You'd need a vulnerability in its compressed audio codecs, and you'd need to convince the target to install a skill that played content from your servers

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2017-03-08 01:30:19 from Matthew Garrett

The Fantasyland Code of Professionalism is an abuser's fantasy

The Fantasyland Institute of Learning is the organisation behind Lambdaconf, a functional programming conference perhaps best known for standing behind a racist they had invited as a speaker. The fallout of that has resulted in them trying to band together events in order to reduce disruption caused by sponsors or speakers declining to be associated with conferences that think inviting racists is more important than the comfort of non-racists, which is weird in all sorts of ways but not what I'm talking about here because they've also written a "Code of Professionalism" which is like a Code of Conduct except it protects abusers rather than minorities and no really it is genuinely as bad as it sounds.

The first thing you need to know is that the document uses its own jargon. Important here are the concepts of active and inactive participation - active participation is anything that you do within the community covered by a specific instance of the Code, inactive participation is anything that happens anywhere ever (ie, active participation is a subset of inactive participation). The restrictions based around active participation are broadly those that you'd expect in a very weak code of conduct - it's basically "Don't be mean", but with some quirks. The most significant is that there's a "Don't moralise" provision, which as written means saying "I think people who support slavery are bad" in a community setting is a violation of the code, but the description of discrimination means saying "I volunteer to mentor anybody from a minority background" could also result in any community member not from a minority background complaining that you've discriminated against them. It's just not very good.

Inactive participation is where things go badly wrong. If you engage in community or professional sabotage, or if you shame a member based on their behaviour inside the community, that's a violation. Community sabotage isn't defined and so basically allows a community to throw out whoever they want to. Professional sabotage means doing anything that can hurt a member's professional career. Shaming is saying anything negative about a member to a non-member if that information was obtained from within the community.

So, what does that mean? Here are some things that you are forbidden from doing:

  • If a member says something racist at a conference, you are not permitted to tell anyone who is not a community member that this happened (shaming)
  • If a member tries to assault you, you are not allowed to tell the police (shaming)
  • If a member gives a horribly racist speech at another conference, you are not allowed to suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to speak at your event (professional sabotage)
  • If a member of your community reports a violation and no action is taken, you are not allowed to warn other people outside the community that this is considered acceptable behaviour (community sabotage)

Now, clearly, some of these are unintentional - I don't think the authors of this policy would want to defend the idea that you can't report something to the police, and I'm sure they'd be willing to modify the document to permit this. But it's indicative of the mindset behind it. This policy has been written to protect people who are accused of doing something bad, not to protect people who have something bad done to them.

There are other examples of this. For instance, violations are not publicised unless the verdict is that they deserve banishment. If a member harasses another member but is merely given a warning, the victim is still not permitted to tell anyone else that this happened. The perpetrator is then free to repeat their behaviour in other communities, and the victim has to choose between either staying silent or warning them and risk being banished from the community for shaming.

If you're an abuser then this is perfect. You're in a position where your victims have to choose between their career (which will be harmed if they're unable to function in the community) and preventing the same thing from happening to others. Many will choose the former, which gives you far more freedom to continue abusing others. Which means that communities adopting the Fantasyland code will be more attractive to abusers, and become disproportionately populated by them.

I don't believe this is the intent, but it's an inevitable consequence of the priorities inherent in this code. No matter how many corner cases are cleaned up, if a code prevents you from saying bad things about people or communities it prevents people from being able to make informed choices about whether that community and its members are people they wish to associate with. When there are greater consequences to saying someone's racist than them being racist, you're fucking up badly.

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2017-02-27 01:40:11 from Matthew Garrett

Android permissions and hypocrisy

I wrote a piece a few days ago about how the Meitu app asked for a bunch of permissions in ways that might concern people, but which were not actually any worse than many other apps. The fact that Android makes it so easy for apps to obtain data that's personally identifiable is of concern, but in the absence of another stable device identifier this is the sort of thing that capitalism is inherently going to end up making use of. Fundamentally, this is Google's problem to fix.

Around the same time, Kaspersky, the Russian anti-virus company, wrote a blog post that warned people about this specific app. It was framed somewhat misleadingly - "reading, deleting and modifying the data in your phone's memory" would probably be interpreted by most people as something other than "the ability to modify data on your phone's external storage", although it ends with some reasonable advice that users should ask why an app requires some permissions.

So, to that end, here are the permissions that Kaspersky request on Android:

  • android.permission.READ_CONTACTS
  • android.permission.WRITE_CONTACTS
  • android.permission.READ_SMS
  • android.permission.WRITE_SMS
  • android.permission.READ_PHONE_STATE
  • android.permission.CALL_PHONE
  • android.permission.SEND_SMS
  • android.permission.RECEIVE_SMS
  • android.permission.RECEIVE_BOOT_COMPLETED
  • android.permission.WAKE_LOCK
  • android.permission.WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE
  • android.permission.SUBSCRIBED_FEEDS_READ
  • android.permission.READ_SYNC_SETTINGS
  • android.permission.WRITE_SYNC_SETTINGS
  • android.permission.WRITE_SETTINGS
  • android.permission.INTERNET
  • android.permission.ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION
  • android.permission.ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION
  • android.permission.READ_CALL_LOG
  • android.permission.WRITE_CALL_LOG
  • android.permission.RECORD_AUDIO
  • android.permission.SET_PREFERRED_APPLICATIONS
  • android.permission.WRITE_APN_SETTINGS
  • android.permission.READ_CALENDAR
  • android.permission.WRITE_CALENDAR
  • android.permission.KILL_BACKGROUND_PROCESSES
  • android.permission.RESTART_PACKAGES
  • android.permission.MANAGE_ACCOUNTS
  • android.permission.GET_ACCOUNTS
  • android.permission.MODIFY_PHONE_STATE
  • android.permission.CHANGE_NETWORK_STATE
  • android.permission.ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE
  • android.permission.ACCESS_LOCATION_EXTRA_COMMANDS
  • android.permission.ACCESS_WIFI_STATE
  • android.permission.CHANGE_WIFI_STATE
  • android.permission.VIBRATE
  • android.permission.READ_LOGS
  • android.permission.GET_TASKS
  • android.permission.EXPAND_STATUS_BAR
  • com.android.browser.permission.READ_HISTORY_BOOKMARKS
  • com.android.browser.permission.WRITE_HISTORY_BOOKMARKS
  • android.permission.CAMERA
  • com.android.vending.BILLING
  • android.permission.SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW
  • android.permission.BATTERY_STATS
  • android.permission.MODIFY_AUDIO_SETTINGS
  • com.kms.free.permission.C2D_MESSAGE
  • com.google.android.c2dm.permission.RECEIVE

Every single permission that Kaspersky mention Meitu having? They require it as well. And a lot more. Why does Kaspersky want the ability to record audio? Why does it want to be able to send SMSes? Why does it want to read my contacts? Why does it need my fine-grained location? Why is it able to modify my settings?

There's no reason to assume that they're being malicious here. The reasons that these permissions exist at all is that there are legitimate reasons to use them, and Kaspersky may well have good reason to request them. But they don't explain that, and they do literally everything that their blog post criticises (including explicitly requesting the phone's IMEI). Why should we trust a Russian company more than a Chinese one?

The moral here isn't that Kaspersky are evil or that Meitu are virtuous. It's that talking about application permissions is difficult and we don't have the language to explain to users what our apps are doing and why they're doing it, and Google are still falling far short of where they should be in terms of making this transparent to users. But the other moral is that you shouldn't complain about the permissions an app requires when you're asking for even more of them because it just makes you look stupid and bad at your job.

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2017-01-23 07:58:57 from Matthew Garrett

Android apps, IMEIs and privacy

There's been a sudden wave of people concerned about the Meitu selfie app's use of unique phone IDs. Here's what we know: the app will transmit your phone's IMEI (a unique per-phone identifier that can't be altered under normal circumstances) to servers in China. It's able to obtain this value because it asks for a permission called READ_PHONE_STATE, which (if granted) means that the app can obtain various bits of information about your phone including those unique IDs and whether you're currently on a call.

Why would anybody want these IDs? The simple answer is that app authors mostly make money by selling advertising, and advertisers like to know who's seeing their advertisements. The more app views they can tie to a single individual, the more they can track that user's response to different kinds of adverts and the more targeted (and, they hope, more profitable) the advertising towards that user. Using the same ID between multiple apps makes this easier, and so using a device-level ID rather than an app-level one is preferred. The IMEI is the most stable ID on Android devices, persisting even across factory resets.

The downside of using a device-level ID is, well, whoever has that data knows a lot about what you're running. That lets them tailor adverts to your tastes, but there are certainly circumstances where that could be embarrassing or even compromising. Using the IMEI for this is even worse, since it's also used for fundamental telephony functions - for instance, when a phone is reported stolen, its IMEI is added to a blacklist and networks will refuse to allow it to join. A sufficiently malicious person could potentially report your phone stolen and get it blocked by providing your IMEI. And phone networks are obviously able to track devices using them, so someone with enough access could figure out who you are from your app usage and then track you via your IMEI. But realistically, anyone with that level of access to the phone network could just identify you via other means. There's no reason to believe that this is part of a nefarious Chinese plot.

Is there anything you can do about this? On Android 6 and later, yes. Go to settings, hit apps, hit the gear menu in the top right, choose "App permissions" and scroll down to phone. Under there you'll see all apps that have permission to obtain this information, and you can turn them off. Doing so may cause some apps to crash or otherwise misbehave, whereas newer apps may simply ask for you to grant the permission again and refuse to do so if you don't.

Meitu isn't especially rare in this respect. Over 50% of the Android apps I have handy request your IMEI, although I haven't tracked what they all do with it. It's certainly something to be concerned about, but Meitu isn't especially rare here - there are big-name apps that do exactly the same thing. There's a legitimate question over whether Android should be making it so easy for apps to obtain this level of identifying information without more explicit informed consent from the user, but until Google do anything to make it more difficult, apps will continue making use of this information. Let's turn this into a conversation about user privacy online rather than blaming one specific example.

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2017-01-19 23:36:36 from Matthew Garrett

Ubuntu still isn't free software

Mark Shuttleworth just blogged about their stance against unofficial Ubuntu images. The assertion is that a cloud hoster is providing unofficial and modified Ubuntu images, and that these images are meaningfully different from upstream Ubuntu in terms of their functionality and security. Users are attempting to make use of these images, are finding that they don't work properly and are assuming that Ubuntu is a shoddy product. This is an entirely legitimate concern, and if Canonical are acting to reduce user confusion then they should be commended for that.

The appropriate means to handle this kind of issue is trademark law. If someone claims that something is Ubuntu when it isn't, that's probably an infringement of the trademark and it's entirely reasonable for the trademark owner to take action to protect the value associated with their trademark. But Canonical's IP policy goes much further than that - it can be interpreted as meaning[1] that you can't distribute works based on Ubuntu without paying Canonical for the privilege, even if you call it something other than Ubuntu.

This remains incompatible with the principles of free software. The freedom to take someone else's work and redistribute it is a vital part of the four freedoms. It's legitimate for Canonical to insist that you not pass it off as their work when doing so, but their IP policy continues to insist that you remove all references to Canonical's trademarks even if their use would not infringe trademark law.

If you ask a copyright holder if you can give a copy of their work to someone else (assuming it doesn't infringe trademark law), and they say no or insist you need an additional contract, it's not free software. If they insist that you recompile source code before you can give copies to someone else, it's not free software. Asking that you remove trademarks that would otherwise infringe trademark law is fine, but if you can't use their trademarks in non-infringing ways, that's still not free software.

Canonical's IP policy continues to impose restrictions on all of these things, and therefore Ubuntu is not free software.

[1] And by "interpreted as meaning" I mean that's what it says and Canonical refuse to say otherwise

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2016-12-02 09:37:41 from Matthew Garrett

Tor, TPMs and service integrity attestation

One of the most powerful (and most scary) features of TPM-based measured boot is the ability for remote systems to request that clients attest to their boot state, allowing the remote system to determine whether the client has booted in the correct state. This involves each component in the boot process writing a hash of the next component into the TPM and logging it. When attestation is requested, the remote site gives the client a nonce and asks for an attestation, the client OS passes the nonce to the TPM and asks it to provide a signed copy of the hashes and the nonce and sends them (and the log) to the remote site. The remoteW site then replays the log to ensure it matches the signed hash values, and can examine the log to determine whether the system is trustworthy (whatever trustworthy means in this context).

When this was first proposed people were (justifiably!) scared that remote services would start refusing to work for users who weren't running (for instance) an approved version of Windows with a verifiable DRM stack. Various practical matters made this impossible. The first was that, until fairly recently, there was no way to demonstrate that the key used to sign the hashes actually came from a TPM[1], so anyone could simply generate a set of valid hashes, sign them with a random key and provide that. The second is that even if you have a signature from a TPM, you have no way of proving that it's from the TPM that the client booted with (you can MITM the request and either pass it to a client that did boot the appropriate OS or to an external TPM that you've plugged into your system after boot and then programmed appropriately). The third is that, well, systems and configurations vary so much that outside very controlled circumstances it's impossible to know what a "legitimate" set of hashes even is.

As a result, so far remote attestation has tended to be restricted to internal deployments. Some enterprises use it as part of their VPN login process, and we've been working on it at CoreOS to enable Kubernetes clusters to verify that workers are in a trustworthy state before running jobs on them. While useful, this isn't terribly exciting for most people. Can we do better?

Remote attestation has generally been thought of in terms of remote systems requiring that clients attest. But there's nothing that requires things to be done in that direction. There's nothing stopping clients from being able to request that a server attest to its state, allowing clients to make informed decisions about whether they should provide confidential data. But the problems that apply to clients apply equally well to servers. Let's work through them in reverse order.

We have no idea what expected "good" values are

Yes, and this is a problem. CoreOS ships with an expected set of good values, and we had general agreement at the Linux Plumbers Conference that other distributions would start looking at what it would take to do the same. But how do we know that those values are themselves trustworthy? In an ideal world this would involve reproducible builds, allowing anybody to grab the source code for the OS, build it locally and verify that they have the same hashes.

Ok. So we're able to verify that the booted OS was good. But how about the services? The rkt container runtime supports measuring each container into the TPM, which means we can verify which container images were started. If container images are also built in such a way that they're reproducible, users can grab the source code, rebuild the container locally and again verify that it has the same hashes. Users can then be sure that the remote site is running the code they're looking at.

Or can they? Not really - a general purpose OS has all kinds of ways to inject code into containers, so an admin could simply replace the binaries inside the container after it's been measured, or ptrace() the server, or modify rkt so it generates correct measurements regardless of the image or, well, there's lots they could do. So a general purpose OS is probably a bad idea here. Instead, let's imagine an immutable OS that does nothing other than bring up networking and then reads a config file that tells it which container images to download and run. This reduces the amount of code that needs to support reproducible builds, making it easier for a client to verify that the source corresponds to the code the remote system is actually running.

Is this sufficient? Eh sadly no. Even if we know the valid values for the entire OS and every container, we don't know the legitimate values for the system firmware. Any modified firmware could tamper with the rest of the trust chain, making it possible for you to get valid OS values even if the OS has been subverted. This isn't a solved problem yet, and really requires hardware vendor support. Let's handwave this for now, or assert that we'll have some sidechannel for distributing valid firmware values.

Avoiding TPM MITMing

This one's more interesting. If I ask the server to attest to its state, it can simply pass that through to a TPM running on another system that's running a trusted stack and happily serve me content from a compromised stack. Suboptimal. We need some way to tie the TPM identity and the service identity to each other.

Thankfully, we have one. Tor supports running services in the .onion TLD. The key used to identify the service to the Tor network is also used to create the "hostname" of the system. I wrote a pretty hacky implementation that generates that key on the TPM, tying the service identity to the TPM. You can ask the TPM to prove that it generated a key, and that allows you to tie both the key used to run the Tor service and the key used to sign the attestation hashes to the same TPM. You now know that the attestation values came from the same system that's running the service, and that means you know the TPM hasn't been MITMed.

How do you know it's a TPM at all?

This is much easier. See [1].



There's still various problems around this, including the fact that we don't have this immutable minimal container OS, that we don't have the infrastructure to ensure that container builds are reproducible, that we don't have any known good firmware values and that we don't have a mechanism for allowing a user to perform any of this validation. But these are all solvable, and it seems like an interesting project.

"Interesting" isn't necessarily the right metric, though. "Useful" is. And I think this is very useful. If I'm about to upload documents to a SecureDrop instance, it seems pretty important that I be able to verify that it is a SecureDrop instance rather than something pretending to be one. This gives us a mechanism.

The next few years seem likely to raise interest in ensuring that people have secure mechanisms to communicate. I'm not emotionally invested in this one, but if people have better ideas about how to solve this problem then this seems like a good time to talk about them.

[1] More modern TPMs have a certificate that chains from the TPM's root key back to the TPM manufacturer, so as long as you trust the TPM manufacturer to have kept control of that you can prove that the signature came from a real TPM

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2016-11-10 20:48:30 from Matthew Garrett

Of course smart homes are targets for hackers

The Wirecutter, an in-depth comparative review site for various electrical and electronic devices, just published an opinion piece on whether users should be worried about security issues in IoT devices. The summary: avoid devices that don't require passwords (or don't force you to change a default and devices that want you to disable security, follow general network security best practices but otherwise don't worry - criminals aren't likely to target you.

This is terrible, irresponsible advice. It's true that most users aren't likely to be individually targeted by random criminals, but that's a poor threat model. As I've mentioned before, you need to worry about people with an interest in you. Making purchasing decisions based on the assumption that you'll never end up dating someone with enough knowledge to compromise a cheap IoT device (or even meeting an especially creepy one in a bar) is not safe, and giving advice that doesn't take that into account is a huge disservice to many potentially vulnerable users.

Of course, there's also the larger question raised by the last week's problems. Insecure IoT devices still pose a threat to the wider internet, even if the owner's data isn't at risk. I may not be optimistic about the ease of fixing this problem, but that doesn't mean we should just give up. It is important that we improve the security of devices, and many vendors are just bad at that.

So, here's a few things that should be a minimum when considering an IoT device:
  • Does the vendor publish a security contact? (If not, they don't care about security)
  • Does the vendor provide frequent software updates, even for devices that are several years old? (If not, they don't care about security)
  • Has the vendor ever denied a security issue that turned out to be real? (If so, they care more about PR than security)
  • Is the vendor able to provide the source code to any open source components they use? (If not, they don't know which software is in their own product and so don't care about security, and also they're probably infringing my copyright)
  • Do they mark updates as fixing security bugs? (If not, they care more about hiding security issues than fixing them)
  • Has the vendor ever threatened to prosecute a security researcher? (If so, again, they care more about PR than security)
  • Does the vendor provide a public minimum support period for the device? (If not, they don't care about security or their users)

    I've worked with big name vendors who did a brilliant job here. I've also worked with big name vendors who responded with hostility when I pointed out that they were selling a device with arbitrary remote code execution. Going with brand names is probably a good proxy for many of these requirements, but it's insufficient.

    So here's my recommendations to The Wirecutter - talk to a wide range of security experts about the issues that users should be concerned about, and figure out how to test these things yourself. Don't just ask vendors whether they care about security, ask them what their processes and procedures look like. Look at their history. And don't assume that just because nobody's interested in you, everybody else's level of risk is equal.


  • comment count unavailable comments

    Syndicated 2016-10-28 17:23:34 from Matthew Garrett

    Fixing the IoT isn't going to be easy

    A large part of the internet became inaccessible today after a botnet made up of IP cameras and digital video recorders was used to DoS a major DNS provider. This highlighted a bunch of things including how maybe having all your DNS handled by a single provider is not the best of plans, but in the long run there's no real amount of diversification that can fix this - malicious actors have control of a sufficiently large number of hosts that they could easily take out multiple providers simultaneously.

    To fix this properly we need to get rid of the compromised systems. The question is how. Many of these devices are sold by resellers who have no resources to handle any kind of recall. The manufacturer may not have any kind of legal presence in many of the countries where their products are sold. There's no way anybody can compel a recall, and even if they could it probably wouldn't help. If I've paid a contractor to install a security camera in my office, and if I get a notification that my camera is being used to take down Twitter, what do I do? Pay someone to come and take the camera down again, wait for a fixed one and pay to get that put up? That's probably not going to happen. As long as the device carries on working, many users are going to ignore any voluntary request.

    We're left with more aggressive remedies. If ISPs threaten to cut off customers who host compromised devices, we might get somewhere. But, inevitably, a number of small businesses and unskilled users will get cut off. Probably a large number. The economic damage is still going to be significant. And it doesn't necessarily help that much - if the US were to compel ISPs to do this, but nobody else did, public outcry would be massive, the botnet would not be much smaller and the attacks would continue. Do we start cutting off countries that fail to police their internet?

    Ok, so maybe we just chalk this one up as a loss and have everyone build out enough infrastructure that we're able to withstand attacks from this botnet and take steps to ensure that nobody is ever able to build a bigger one. To do that, we'd need to ensure that all IoT devices are secure, all the time. So, uh, how do we do that?

    These devices had trivial vulnerabilities in the form of hardcoded passwords and open telnet. It wouldn't take terribly strong skills to identify this at import time and block a shipment, so the "obvious" answer is to set up forces in customs who do a security analysis of each device. We'll ignore the fact that this would be a pretty huge set of people to keep up with the sheer quantity of crap being developed and skip straight to the explanation for why this wouldn't work.

    Yeah, sure, this vulnerability was obvious. But what about the product from a well-known vendor that included a debug app listening on a high numbered UDP port that accepted a packet of the form "BackdoorPacketCmdLine_Req" and then executed the rest of the payload as root? A portscan's not going to show that up[1]. Finding this kind of thing involves pulling the device apart, dumping the firmware and reverse engineering the binaries. It typically takes me about a day to do that. Amazon has over 30,000 listings that match "IP camera" right now, so you're going to need 99 more of me and a year just to examine the cameras. And that's assuming nobody ships any new ones.

    Even that's insufficient. Ok, with luck we've identified all the cases where the vendor has left an explicit backdoor in the code[2]. But these devices are still running software that's going to be full of bugs and which is almost certainly still vulnerable to at least half a dozen buffer overflows[3]. Who's going to audit that? All it takes is one attacker to find one flaw in one popular device line, and that's another botnet built.

    If we can't stop the vulnerabilities getting into people's homes in the first place, can we at least fix them afterwards? From an economic perspective, demanding that vendors ship security updates whenever a vulnerability is discovered no matter how old the device is is just not going to work. Many of these vendors are small enough that it'd be more cost effective for them to simply fold the company and reopen under a new name than it would be to put the engineering work into fixing a decade old codebase. And how does this actually help? So far the attackers building these networks haven't been terribly competent. The first thing a competent attacker would do would be to silently disable the firmware update mechanism.

    We can't easily fix the already broken devices, we can't easily stop more broken devices from being shipped and we can't easily guarantee that we can fix future devices that end up broken. The only solution I see working at all is to require ISPs to cut people off, and that's going to involve a great deal of pain. The harsh reality is that this is almost certainly just the tip of the iceberg, and things are going to get much worse before they get any better.

    Right. I'm off to portscan another smart socket.

    [1] UDP connection refused messages are typically ratelimited to one per second, so it'll take almost a day to do a full UDP portscan, and even then you have no idea what the service actually does.

    [2] It's worth noting that this is usually leftover test or debug code, not an overtly malicious act. Vendors should have processes in place to ensure that this isn't left in release builds, but ha well.

    [3] My vacuum cleaner crashes if I send certain malformed HTTP requests to the local API endpoint, which isn't a good sign

    comment count unavailable comments

    Syndicated 2016-10-22 05:14:28 from Matthew Garrett

    457 older entries...

    New Advogato Features

    New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

    Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

    If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!