Tag Archives: cryptography

Boxcryptor, a great tool to secure your cloud storage solution.

I made my feelings very clear about the use of Dropbox in the enterprise, through a previous post. I still believe Dropbox and similar other cloud sotrage solutions such as Google drive or Sky Drive are a timebomb waiting to happen for many companies who are busy securing their infrastructure but forget to look at the data leaving their premises through the back door. Or just not appreciating how tablets and smartphones are driving their users’ behaviours and requirements.

There will be a lot of red faces if/when Dropbox and Co announce they have been hacked.

However, I have recently come accross a great tool that can help reducing the impact of such a bad scenario. It is called Boxcryptor.

Boxcryptor creates an encrypted folder under your Cloud Storage directory (i.e.: Dropbox) and allows for files to be encrypted on the fly thus making it much faster and transparent than the solution I described before with Truecrypt. The encryption keys are stored locally and only known to you. Their client runs on many different platforms, Mac, PC, iOS, Android.

Boxcryptor works very well but it is important to note a difference in software behaviour between a MAC and a PC.

On a MAC, if you install boxcryptor it will create an encrypted folder in your Cloud Storage directory.
It will also create a new “disk” which gives you direct access to that encrypted folder.

You then have a choice, you can either drop files to this “disk” or to that encrypted folder in your cloud storage directory. Those 2 actions are the sames and the files will be encrypted in both cases.

On a PC, if you install Boxcryptor it will create a folder in your Cloud Storage directory. Note that I did not say encrypted folder. It will also create a new “disk”.
The difference between the PC and MAC implementation of Boxcryptor is that, on a PC, files are only encrypted if you drop them into your Boxcryptor disk. They will not be encrypted if you drop them in your cloud storage boxcryptor folder directly. That folder and the boxcryptor disk are not the same. Those 2 actions are therefore not the same.
This could be confusing, and a user may forget about that difference and copy sensitive files directly onto his cloud storage boxcryptor folder, thinking those files are going to be encrypted when they are not.
To be fair, there is a readme file in the Boxcryptor “encrypted” folder. But the chances are nobody will read it and more importantly, could forget about it.

My recommendation is to get used to copy files to the boxcryptor disk only. That way, you are always sure they get encrypted (and that the software is running in the background!).

I have contacted the authors and they are aware of this behaviour difference. Although they did not commit on any release dates, they are apparently working on it.

Distributed Credential Protection

RSA recently announced their Distributed Credential Protection (DCP) technology which should help address the impact of passwords leakage/theft when the system where they are stored gets compromised. They accomplish that by splitting up stored credentials across different systems.

In its current implementation it uses 2 servers. 1 server (BLUE) stores the password XOR to a random number and another server  (RED) stores that random number.
When a user wants to authenticate it uses his password to XOR it with his own Random number. It then sends the transformed password to the BLUE server and the new random number to the RED server.
The BLUE and RED servers then compare the stored password with the one the user just provided. At this stage, I guess it must communicate to the RED server to get the corresponding random numbers.

This process is given an overview THERE

I think it is a great idea, and it leverage what is called Threshold Cryptography, which is “the art of chopping a secret into little bits”. A few things come to mind though:

– Why only using 2 servers, this could be expanded to use multiple servers. Each with different security settings/OS thus making it harder to compromise

– Why only applying this to passwords, what about documents/files?

– To verify the password is correct, the servers must be communicating at some point to get the XOR password and the Random number used. If that’s the case, then if the BLUE server gets compromised what stops the attacker to miss-use the communication/protocol and leverage the compromised BLUE server to gain information from the RED server, thus removing the need to compromise that server too? I could not get enough information at this time on how RSA verifies the passwords are valid, so I would hope they have thought about that in their design.

– Again, this will not stop the number one issue with password. Human weakness. (post-it, simple passwords, eavesdrop, man in the middle/coffee shop, etc)

It is definitely an interesting technology, which I hope to learn more about soon!

MD5 Security Flaws

In case you were in any doubts about the security flaws of MD5, in recent days, 2 implementations of MD5 have been shown to have severe security issues.

1) The md5crypt password scrambler used in many Unix based distributions has been deemed as “unsafe” by its author (in fact this has been known for some time now).

2) MD5 collisions were used in the recent Flame malware to bypass Microsoft Update signature certificates.

The sole use of MD5 as a security vector must be avoided.

Satellite phones encryption attacked

About a month ago, Arts Technica ran an article about the encryption standards used by satellite phones that have been broken.

This is yet another exemple of a proprietary encryption system which appears to have been weakly designed and implemented.
Although they have only been able to break the communication from the Satellite to the phone and not the other way around, it should still be of concern for anyone using those phones to transmit sensitive information without additional security.
Even if the audio codec still needs to be reversed engineered, this should be the easy part of this attack!

Someone is likely to get a great PhD as the paper exposing this issue was co-written by such student.

John Nash on Cryptography

John Nash is a famous mathematician whose life inspired the Hollywood movie “A beautiful Mind”. However, summerizing his life through that light hearted movie would be very inadequate!

So, this genius mathematician who worked in game theory, differential geometry, and partial differential equations as well as winning a Nobel Prize in 1994 appears to also have had some great insights into modern cryptography… back in the 1950s!

As seen in this article, NSA recently released a series of documents related to letters/conversationa between the NSA and Nash in 1955, where the mathematician made an unsuccessful but noted attempt to communicate his own take on a crypto machine.

If anything, reading at the hand written letters are very inspiring, especially since he was only 27 years old.

Attack on Quantum Cryptography

There is a recent BBC article on a new attack against a key component of Quantum Cryptography: Key Transportation.

There are 3 main components to a cryptographic system:
– The strength of the algorithms used (close/open, random generator, collision, etc)
– The integrity of the system (implementation, key storage, devices security, etc)
– The transportation of keys (no full or partial interception of the keys, etc)

Quantum Cryptography has for some been seen as the future for ensuring the integrity and detection of any interception attempts during key transportation.

I am not a Quantum Physic expert, but what I understand is that key transportation is done through light, where photons of light are sent to the receiver who will inspect the states of those photons to reconstruct the key. It is similar of sending a stream of bits which make the key, apart from the fact that in Quantum Physics a photon has not just a binary state (0/1 or -/+) but multiple values at the same time.
One of the key Quantum property useful for cryptography is that once a stream of photons is inspected, it is “destroyed” or changed. Therefore if someone was trying to evesdrop the receiver would know.

As a side comment, there are a few things that still puzzle me how this can only be a good thing. What about repeaters? you would need those to exchange keys to very far distances? So even if you can guarantee the key hasn’t been intercepted you cannot apply the same “quantum” guarantees to the repeaters (ref Integrity of the System). Furthermore, this could lead to a Denial of Service attack, I don’t see how Quantum Physic Key Exchange infrastructure could be as resilient as today’s internet. You would need specific “light tunnels”, if it gets damaged or if someone tries to intercept the key exchange even in the sole goal of disrupting the exchange process, then keys cannot be exchanged and the communication cannot take place…

Anyway, I would hope they must have thought about all this and have an answer. But what a team of scientists has just done, is to prove they could intercept the key and “blind” both ends into believing the exchange had been successful.

However some scientists have replied it was just a “configuration” problem with the system implementation and that it was possible to detect that attack after all.

Nonetheless, this adds weight to those who believe Quantum Cryptography is not the Saint Graal some claim it is, and that similar implementation issues there are today in “standard” cryptography also exist in “Quantum” Cryptography.

The BBC Article (Summary)
The Norwegian University Article where the paper came from (Original Article)
The Quantum Hacking Group responsible for the discovery (More info)

Below is a great video from the Quantum Hacking Group Website explaining the attack:


YouTube Direkt

GPU Password Cracking

Brute force password cracking has been around for a while but in the last few years a new way to use your brand new graphic card has emerged which brings high performance attacks against passwords much cheaper and easier.

This is because the “brain” of those graphical card, The Graphical Processing Unit or GPU, is designed to handle mathematical and repetitive tasks very efficiently.

There is a very good article about this topic on the ERRATA SECURITY blog with some interesting facts:

– Although GPU are now found in most electronic devices (i.e.: phones), dedicated PC cards are obviously better

– Radeon is better than GeForce

– Although you can use more than one GPU, the benefits are not exponential and most people only need 1 or 2 GPU.

– This is because past 8 Characters, a password become near impossible to brute force. It would take too long, regardless of the number of GPU you use!

– Some people actually slow the speed of the computer memory to reduce voltage and thus heat. All that matters is the GPU!

– What you would use a GPU against:

  • Bitcoin hashes match calculation (Bitcoin is a digital currency)
  • WPA Passwords, as you cannot really use Rainbow tables, brute force can be useful! in fact this is true for any “salted’ passwords.
  • Protected documents: ZIP, Office, etc

Some of the software you need if you want to experiment yourself can be found on the Golubev website.

Update 28/06:
It looks like you can even now have external powerful GPU cards for your notebook, and it is a Radeon!
SONY EXTERNAL GPU DOCK

Hot Random Numbers!

The LavaRND project is a very interesting take on providing a cryptography strong random generator framework.

Both in terms of plans for physical devices to software library.

If only I had more time I would love to try building one of their device, nevertheless, I highly recommend this website as it is full of very interesting information related to randomness and they even have some interesting demo using their random framework. You do not require an interest in cryptography to appreciate the work done.

Next time I need a strong random generator algorithm, I will know where to look :)

http://www.lavarnd.org

A Case Study, when Standard Security Certifications are not always your friend!

When reviewing security products you often find they have some sort of Standard Security Certifications which should garantee a certain level of security.
Some certifications ensure adequate security controls are in place for audits, operational models, physical security, cryptography modules, etc.

The benefit of those certifications is that it should save you times and money to ensure some security requirements are met, they can also be used in contrat binding security controls, i.e.: you must comply with ISO XXXX.

There is however a drawback, an increasing number of vendors now hide behind those certifications and thus provide very little details about their security controls.
Likewise, many companies do not look further than a certification name on a paper to pass its security requirement reviews.

This is where the problem lies, how many Security professionals actually know what having such certifications actually means? to what part of the vendor’s product it applies to? Has the certification expired? Has it actually even been granted!?

Let’s take an example with the NIST Cryptography certification FIPS 140-2.
If a vendor claims its product to be FIPS 140-2 compliant, does that mean their cryptography implementation is secure enough?

Looking at the certification details we can quickly see there are 4 levels:
– The first level only provides a basic set of requirements at a software level.
– the Second level adds some physical security requirements
– The Third level goes further by requiring some physical detection/response controls.
– The fourth and last level looks at detecting and protecting against all possible physical threats

There was already a piece of information missing: What level was that FIPS 140-2 granted for?

Furthermore, one should check the certification was indeed granted for the product by checking on the NIST Module Validation Lists

Finally, the NIST website provides results details of all FIPS 140-2 certifications that were granted.
This is probably the most important part, because although a product may claim to be FIPS 140-2 certified only parts of its architecture may have been granted the certification.

The security implications are important. If a product uses a distributed architecture (client/server model) but the certification was granted only to the server part of its architecture, it means more investigation is required for the client part before one can label it secure enough.
Also of relevance is the version of the product for which the certification was granted, if the architecture has changed in newer versions, has it been reviewed again for FIPS 140-2 compliance?

To conclude, Standard Security Certifications are extremelly useful but they may provide a false sense of security if either the vendor choose to ommit some key details or if the security professional conducting the review does not fully understand what the standards mean.

What you see is not always what you get!