Live data from Hacker News

Browser Vulnerability to Superfish: A Fact-Finding Trip to Best Buy [pdf]

bug1134506.bugzilla.mozilla.org

21–30 of 188 posts

Re: Browser Vulnerability to Superfish: A Fact-Finding Trip to Best Buy [pdf]

#21
I went to Best Buy as well today and picked up a laptop to look into this further. The Superfish software is not properly passing the validation state of the public cert when it connects to a website like Bank of America as an example. There's no need to export their private and use it in a MitM transparent proxy. The software is simply not triggering appropriate warnings when provided an obviously fake certificate that has been generated in a way to bypass browser warnings. It's also not properly validating revoked certs. Both of these situations are very bad. Allowing any self-signed cert would lead me to believe that this could have easily been exploited in the wild without prior knowledge of this vulnerability.

I'm not going to provide a how-to guide on how to exploit users here. I have notified both Superfish and Lenovo of this issue and here's an example of the improper status pass through based on doing something that might be quite obvious to some:

This is what the browser should do when it encounters a self-signed cert delivered by an SSL/TLS MitM solution:

http://defaultstore.com/six.png

However, it's not doing this for this self-signed public cert:

http://defaultstore.com/four.png

Note both certs show "verify_fail." at the beginning and those who know how browser cryptography works will understand what has gone wrong with their implementation.

Re: Browser Vulnerability to Superfish: A Fact-Finding Trip to Best Buy [pdf]

#22
post #17

I find it a bit weird that it can MITM https://www.google.com/ on Chrome. I thought Chrome did CA-pinning for Google-domains.

Chrome does do pinning, but ignores pins when the cert parent is a privately installed cert (because this is a "feature" used by many enterprises). """ Chrome does not perform pin validation when the certificate chain chains up to a private trust anchor. A key result of this policy is that private trust anchors can be used to proxy (or MITM) connections, even to pinned sites. 'Data loss prevention' appliances, firewa…

And the rationale:

"We deem this acceptable because the proxy or MITM can only be effective if the client machine has already been configured to trust the proxy’s issuing certificate"

I think that's fair, or at least it has traditionally been a fair assumption for most users.

The issue here is that your hardware vendor has compromised your machine, so that is no longer a fair assumption.

Re: Browser Vulnerability to Superfish: A Fact-Finding Trip to Best Buy [pdf]

#23
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it triggers the logic that allows (supposedly) user-added certs to override those pins? (Google was pressured into adding such logic by corporate users, whose IT departments want to -- supposedly openly -- MITM employees' connections.) Edit: I think that's the case. AGL's original announcement of pinning said: "There are a number of cases where HTTPS connections are intercepted by using local, ephemeral certifi…

Ah, That explains it. Thanks! And to semenko too.

It points to an interesting problem that, while browser vendors officially think that users ought to be notified when someone is using an intercepting proxy -- that it shouldn't be invisible to them -- when users aren't installing their own OS or configuring their own browser, it could be completely invisible in practice.

So the IT department-installed or OEM-installed cert is treated as "user-installed" by the pinning logic, and the user never actually gets warned.

Re: Browser Vulnerability to Superfish: A Fact-Finding Trip to Best Buy [pdf]

#24
post #5
post #2

Bullet point 4 is what I'd been wondering about: • The Superfish proxy accepts its own certificate, so now that the private key has been leaked, an attacker can mimic an arbitrary site in Chrome and IE I thought there might be a chance that despite all the other idiocy here, they might have refused external certificates from their own CA, mitigating the risks somewhat. But no suck luck for Lenovo customers!

That would have been comical, considering uninstalling doesn't remove the root cert, so a user would have been more secure with superfish installed than uninstalled.

Nope. Look at my reply to the parent. The Superfish solution is not properly passing the validation state of the public cert provided by the cert to the browser. As a result its fairly trivial to MitM HTTPS without need of the private when the Superfish software is installed. To be clear, it is absolutely worse to have Superfish installed than to have it removed.

Re: Browser Vulnerability to Superfish: A Fact-Finding Trip to Best Buy [pdf]

#25

I went to Best Buy as well today and picked up a laptop to look into this further. The Superfish software is not properly passing the validation state of the public cert when it connects to a website like Bank of America as an example. There's no need to export their private and use it in a MitM transparent proxy. The software is simply not triggering appropriate warnings when provided an obviously fake certificate t…

Does anyone have a security contact at Superfish? It looks like they don't have a security@ mailbox:

"DB3FFO11OLC004.mail.protection.outlook.com rejected your message to the following email addresses:

security@superfish.com Something went wrong and your message couldn't be delivered. This could be a temporary issue. Try resending the message in a few minutes. If that doesn't work, forward this message to your email admin."

Re: Browser Vulnerability to Superfish: A Fact-Finding Trip to Best Buy [pdf]

#26

I went to Best Buy as well today and picked up a laptop to look into this further. The Superfish software is not properly passing the validation state of the public cert when it connects to a website like Bank of America as an example. There's no need to export their private and use it in a MitM transparent proxy. The software is simply not triggering appropriate warnings when provided an obviously fake certificate t…

[deleted]

Re: Browser Vulnerability to Superfish: A Fact-Finding Trip to Best Buy [pdf]

#27
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Superfish proxy accepts any certificate. If you're being MITMed (before Superfish MITMs you), Superfish will help them by replacing their certificate with Superfish's.

I don't believe that's true, but if so – for example if it replaces self-signed certs, or certs from any untrusted CA, with its own (force-trusted) cert – then that would be worthy of another scary explicit bullet point. (It might just accept all CAs locally-configured, and it's accepting its own because they didn't special-case a rejection.)

It's TRUE, confirmed, and replicated by others. See my other post to this parent. And you are correct, this is worthy of another scary explicit bullet point!

Re: Browser Vulnerability to Superfish: A Fact-Finding Trip to Best Buy [pdf]

#28

I originally discovered this issue a month ago when debugging my friend's Lenovo laptop. Neither chrome nor IE can render battle.net correctly because the HTML injection is not properly escaped. Since the problem persists after a fresh recovery, I guess it's from some pre-installed software. I almost reported it to FBI.

Shouldn't Lenovo be guilty of hacking and illegal wiretaps?

Re: Browser Vulnerability to Superfish: A Fact-Finding Trip to Best Buy [pdf]

#29
post #17

I find it a bit weird that it can MITM https://www.google.com/ on Chrome. I thought Chrome did CA-pinning for Google-domains.

Chrome does do pinning, but ignores pins when the cert parent is a privately installed cert (because this is a "feature" used by many enterprises). """ Chrome does not perform pin validation when the certificate chain chains up to a private trust anchor. A key result of this policy is that private trust anchors can be used to proxy (or MITM) connections, even to pinned sites. 'Data loss prevention' appliances, firewa…

TIL Google is ok if you get backdoored by your boss.

Re: Browser Vulnerability to Superfish: A Fact-Finding Trip to Best Buy [pdf]

#30
post #17

I find it a bit weird that it can MITM https://www.google.com/ on Chrome. I thought Chrome did CA-pinning for Google-domains.

Chrome does do pinning, but ignores pins when the cert parent is a privately installed cert (because this is a "feature" used by many enterprises). """ Chrome does not perform pin validation when the certificate chain chains up to a private trust anchor. A key result of this policy is that private trust anchors can be used to proxy (or MITM) connections, even to pinned sites. 'Data loss prevention' appliances, firewa…

Because that's not exploitable or anything.
Post reply on HN