Live data from Hacker News

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

bug1134506.bugzilla.mozilla.org

41–50 of 188 posts

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

#41

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]

#42
post #11

Shouldn't Lenovo be issuing a recall and pulling all the inventory in their distribution channel? In other words, Best Buy shouldn't be selling these things!

I believe Lenovo's official statement previously said "We have thoroughly investigated this technology and do not find any evidence to substantiate security concerns." However, it now has a link to LEN-2015-010, a high-severity security vulnerability.

http://news.lenovo.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=1929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9074676 http://support.lenovo.com/us/en/product_security/superfish

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

#43

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…

I suppose they were relying on the prepending of "verify_fail" to the hostname (with an invalid character - '_') to cause the browser to fail the certificate name check, so Superfish is doing certificate checking? Shouldn't the browser then complain with a "certificate's hostname does not match the site's" warning? ...Or am I looking at this in the wrong way?

[deleted]

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

#44

While this whole Superfish/Lenovo thing is certainly quite scary, let's not forget the very important fact that, currently, the user ultimately still has the ability to modify the software on the machines he/she owns, which includes among other things (un)installing software like Superfish, and also adding/removing trusted certificates. There will be those who advocate locking down the certificate stores and other ar…

Welcome to the War over General-Purpose Computing.

http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html

http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

The future really scares me. And yes, backlash from Superfish fiasco will probably only make things worse.

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

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose they were relying on the prepending of "verify_fail" to the hostname (with an invalid character - '_') to cause the browser to fail the certificate name check, so Superfish is doing certificate checking? Shouldn't the browser then complain with a "certificate's hostname does not match the site's" warning? ...Or am I looking at this in the wrong way?

You're close. I'm not in the business of telling people how to exploit this and am assuming those who already know were already doing it based on what would be a "best practice" (for a bad guy that is) when it comes to generating a self-signed cert.

...is it blindly copying any x509v3 attributes present on the certificate, or just the one that you seem to be carefully not mentioning? Can you email me (one is listed in my HN profile)? I just thought of a pretty horrible exploit. 2199399413f2e63e6291a3f3e60f3475518aaf88215434222c65d6bc6fe41f34

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

#46
post #12
post #4

This is a PDF attached to this issue, requesting blacklisting of the Superfish certificate: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1134506

I'm somewhat puzzled by the single certificate. Couldn't they have generated a new signing request and self-signed on each machine - at least ensuring that each customer has a unique cert for their proxy?

These guys aren't the brightest bulbs out there. You could even have it switch certificates on every reboot... or not do this in the first place. ;-)

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

#47

While this whole Superfish/Lenovo thing is certainly quite scary, let's not forget the very important fact that, currently, the user ultimately still has the ability to modify the software on the machines he/she owns, which includes among other things (un)installing software like Superfish, and also adding/removing trusted certificates. There will be those who advocate locking down the certificate stores and other ar…

You're an idiot.

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

#48
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're close. I'm not in the business of telling people how to exploit this and am assuming those who already know were already doing it based on what would be a "best practice" (for a bad guy that is) when it comes to generating a self-signed cert.

...is it blindly copying any x509v3 attributes present on the certificate, or just the one that you seem to be carefully not mentioning? Can you email me (one is listed in my HN profile)? I just thought of a pretty horrible exploit. 2199399413f2e63e6291a3f3e60f3475518aaf88215434222c65d6bc6fe41f34

After a little more thought, it seems obvious to me now what the problem is. :-)

The shocking thing is that the certificate name matching algorithm has been standardised for over 15 years and yet those who wrote the cert generation code weren't aware of how browsers implement it.

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

#50
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The company I work for has a strict policy of no direct outbound connections from the corporate network. This is to prevent (or just make harder) for compromised machines from "phoning home". This has the unfortunate side effect that all internet traffic must go through a proxy, they have to MiTM SSL traffic. I just use my smartphone's data for any personal internet browsing.

Well you don't have to MITM SSL in order to proxy it, it can be done in other ways. They probably choose to do so in order to see the details of the request.
Post reply on HN