From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 13 09:47:24 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0F7106566C for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:47:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ltning@anduin.net) Received: from mail.anduin.net (mail.anduin.net [213.225.74.249]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6988FC08 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:47:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 33.102.212.193.static.cust.telenor.com ([193.212.102.33] helo=[192.168.1.43]) by mail.anduin.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1PS4IW-0006dR-P5; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:02:21 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eirik_=D8verby?= In-Reply-To: <4D03A0D1.5070808@secnap.com> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:02:16 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4CF511C7.3050702@secnap.net> <4D03A0D1.5070808@secnap.com> To: Michael Scheidell X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, Micheas Herman Subject: Re: any interest in tripwire commercial? X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:47:24 -0000 On Dec 11, 2010, at 17:03, Michael Scheidell wrote: >> Probably. >>=20 >>> > does everyone put 32 bit compatibility libraries in their amd64 = builds? >>> > ______ >> Never, unless running cosed source software. It seems to triple your >> attack surface area. >>=20 > than the answer is "no' you would not want an i386 version since you = need to put 32bit compatibility in if this is all tripwire supports. > Sometimes, its easier to get a vendor to release compiled binaries if = you tell them you can support: > 7.1 - 8.x, i386/amd, with a single i386/32 bit binary. >=20 > to tell them the need to maintain 8 versions is harder. >=20 > doesn't really too much matter, It looks like only you and me are = interested. with that huge response, I guess its never going to happen. It really depends what the final product would cost, if it would be = supported and maintained on 64-bit 8.x, with future commitment to = support 9.x. It also depends what added value this package would had = compared to 'portmaster security/tripwire' or similar. In any case we would be interested if this would provide significant and = real (security/manageability) advantages compared to our current = "freebsd-update IDS" model (no, not only freebsd-update IDS, but some = added magic to make it a bit more resilient and reliable). PCI DSS and other security standards specifically mention tripwire so it = would make life easier if we could tick the box saying 'yes we use = tripwire'. /Eirik= From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 12:00:27 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6667A10656D9 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:00:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andy.kosela@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gw0-f49.google.com (mail-gw0-f49.google.com [74.125.83.49]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC4C8FC1E for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:00:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gwj20 with SMTP id 20so1096779gwj.36 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 04:00:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:reply-to:sender:to :subject:message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yCf2pYy0BdfNi2JrSw6cgdxtH1UrdfH0vVTqYfm7urM=; b=i97twyyAQWfDFFTaTgF6b3O6dpsiJZmlIXvOMnm7NByvuykpVUcfoU94eK/0OKLwR0 VUQI1ZZLm5QHwxG8eFMC+S7EEt9vysc3yZvdb6ZURrtKFXfVhh+Adf/IFpoVfVBX2CD0 bp7BHLowNlo/If2yTUWU8Y4saFOTo6+JqCmWE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:reply-to:sender:to:subject:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=MFW1kaEVTJQNQeTCDAjNuYPpR4yBUu53yb/iAd+Tg7Caaa1AF27h01pICO/liadtX0 eBito3561gO6dXkYO7HMSOKVMiuZdmwxr2QWiR2P3eTM48yaVht7LoGIR9qncIYvIXPl XOypT0kO+Ei0x+9d0MfxB4NnUtGf3YV84jPf0= Received: by 10.150.145.4 with SMTP id s4mr9890098ybd.10.1292413019611; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 03:36:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from l8cevm.emea.ipaper.com (stuntpilot.ipaper.com [141.129.1.98]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l4sm3905236ybj.21.2010.12.15.03.36.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 15 Dec 2010 03:36:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:36:52 +0100 From: Andy Kosela Sender: Andy Kosela To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Message-ID: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.4 7/29/08 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: akosela@andykosela.com List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:00:27 -0000 Some of you probably already read this: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129236621626462&w=2 Interesting...I wonder what is the impact of all this on FreeBSD code. We may very well suppose that any government or corporation funded code can theoretically have some kind of backdoor inside. --Andy From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 12:48:41 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9720710656C0 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:48:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1-6.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:1::12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 526C28FC0C for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:48:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:5022:4efd:b73a:4846] ([IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:5022:4efd:b73a:4846]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oBFCmcs6099114 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:48:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-ID: <4D08B92A.1060902@sentex.net> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:48:42 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: akosela@andykosela.com References: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> In-Reply-To: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:1::12 Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:48:41 -0000 On 12/15/2010 6:36 AM, Andy Kosela wrote: > > Some of you probably already read this: > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129236621626462&w=2 > > Interesting...I wonder what is the impact of all this on FreeBSD code. > We may very well suppose that any government or corporation funded code > can theoretically have some kind of backdoor inside. Seems possible. However, not very probable IMHO. As others have said, would the guy really have a 10yr NDA, afterwords which would allow him to post such details ? Seems rather silly on that alone. The further unfortunate thing about this is that any number of potential implementation bugs can now be clouded in conspiracy theory. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129237675106730&w=2 Hell, if people believe 9/11 was all staged, ipsec backdoors are a no brainer. I can see it now. The next bug that is found in the crypto system or network stack will draw a flood of discussion. "Is this the back door??" Seems to be getting industry reporting too http://napps.networkworld.com/news/2010/121510-former-contractor-says-fbi-put.html?hpg1=bn ---Mike From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 13:19:24 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC704106564A for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:19:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erik@cederstrand.dk) Received: from csmtp1.one.com (csmtp1.one.com [195.47.247.21]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524478FC15 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:19:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.0.63] (2105ds5-by.0.fullrate.dk [95.166.24.212]) by csmtp1.one.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC2B1BC04F09; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-474-578398603; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 From: Erik Cederstrand In-Reply-To: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:03:31 +0100 Message-Id: <919A1DAE-2FD1-42A1-9D11-D001A116299E@cederstrand.dk> References: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> To: akosela@andykosela.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:19:24 -0000 --Apple-Mail-474-578398603 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Den 15/12/2010 kl. 12.36 skrev Andy Kosela: > Some of you probably already read this: >=20 > http://marc.info/?l=3Dopenbsd-tech&m=3D129236621626462&w=3D2 >=20 > Interesting...I wonder what is the impact of all this on FreeBSD code. > We may very well suppose that any government or corporation funded = code > can theoretically have some kind of backdoor inside. That wouldn't be restricted to funded code. If somebody really wanted to = place backdoors in FreeBSD, posing as NSA, FBI, KGB or whatever doesn't = seem like the best option. Position a guy as a src committer instead, = pretending to work alone. I'm not saying this to point fingers or spread FUD or anything like = that, just that people should be careful reading any commits to catch = backdoors, intentional or by mistake, regardless where they come from. = Which is one thing I admire about FreeBSD - commits are actually read = carefully, by many people, and frequently commented upon. Erik= --Apple-Mail-474-578398603-- From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 14:54:44 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFADB1065675 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:54:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfarmer@predatorlabs.net) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8631A8FC16 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:54:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28so1553150gxk.17 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:54:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.215.2 with SMTP id n2mr10144512ybg.55.1292423180197; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:26:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.59.69 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:26:20 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [128.95.133.99] In-Reply-To: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> References: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:26:20 -0800 Message-ID: From: Rob Farmer To: akosela@andykosela.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:54:44 -0000 On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 03:36, Andy Kosela wrote: > > Some of you probably already read this: > > =A0http://marc.info/?l=3Dopenbsd-tech&m=3D129236621626462&w=3D2 > > Interesting...I wonder what is the impact of all this on FreeBSD code. > We may very well suppose that any government or corporation funded code > can theoretically have some kind of backdoor inside. If his allegations are correct, they should be easy to verify. He could post a copy of the NDA and a Freedom of Information Act request could be submitted to verify it. If, as claimed, the NDA expired and this can be discussed freely by the general public, then they would not be able to deny the request. --=20 Rob Farmer From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 16:05:46 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A2A1065693 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:05:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfarmer@predatorlabs.net) Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com (mail-qy0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441F68FC12 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:05:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qyk36 with SMTP id 36so2038396qyk.13 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:05:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.75.8 with SMTP id w8mr626005qcj.94.1292429145396; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:05:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.59.69 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:05:45 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [128.95.133.99] In-Reply-To: <19720.57471.684530.72355@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> <19720.57471.684530.72355@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:05:45 -0800 Message-ID: From: Rob Farmer To: Garrett Wollman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:05:46 -0000 On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:36, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > >> If his allegations are correct, they should be easy to verify. He >> could post a copy of the NDA and a Freedom of Information Act request >> could be submitted to verify it. If, as claimed, the NDA expired and >> this can be discussed freely by the general public, then they would >> not be able to deny the request. > > Actually, they would, because it would fall under the "internal > personnel matter" exemption from FOIA. > > -GAWollman > I'm not a lawyer, but couldn't he exempt himself and they black out the other people's names? If he could provide some evidence that this isn't a publicity stunt and interest a major media organization or a civil rights group (like the ACLU or EFF), I suspect they could apply enough political and legal pressure to avoid getting brushed off. Besides, if this were legitimate, it could benefit the Democrats (given that it supposedly occurred during the Bush administration), so how hard would they really fight it? -- Rob Farmer From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 16:22:16 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49E61065747 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:22:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from smtp.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B878FC1F for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:22:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ds4.des.no (des.no [84.49.246.2]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id F10F71FFC3E; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:06:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id BED498448E; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:06:48 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Jakub Lach References: <30464535.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:06:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: <30464535.post@talk.nabble.com> (Jakub Lach's message of "Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:56:58 -0800 (PST)") Message-ID: <867hfbkokn.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPSEC allegations X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:22:17 -0000 [redirected from -hackers to -security] Jakub Lach writes: > http://marc.info/?l=3Dopenbsd-tech&m=3D129236621626462&w=3D2 http://maycontaintracesofbolts.blogspot.com/2010/12/openbsd-ipsec-backdoor-= allegations.html DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 16:48:14 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5404106579C for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:48:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DFA28FC1C for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:48:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28so1677738gxk.17 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:48:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:reply-to :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=0c8Kpm+tUS7zipyGTsR5mgvzrHq340TpZB/Tdt1Du9c=; b=qj1ZqpqXBWRFy1XTebt3GnjhSyjb9v3/eMtJoB3qRStmWn8kOAVC0Thbs+scbJzNv9 UTtDq8okilJqnfMXbwsmqlCSX/PEOblv0GxmI319MR3+g49+QMrjKvZU4lvAq6TDzu01 IwJfLZbh6MWmh0Pi/iUALWbmi1Z3DuhbOc5G0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=sdo/93a8eQBfLVx9vxsCTGbvNv61/tvDanrh+NNfoYJQrI+3OwZSL8itHpICs5VKwv dJrq+6ZtdEbUxCloukzcO0vKPRQhtrAD/6XfVNmup0hJsGlddu6w/GUVBMtq8qVlqYAp QCYbUUkROgRRX8k4rhW91EmHLHavMPWjf7XQk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.103.133 with SMTP id f5mr5903316yhg.14.1292430272684; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:24:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.102.142 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:24:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> <19720.57471.684530.72355@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:24:32 +0000 Message-ID: From: "b. f." To: Rob Farmer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, Garrett Wollman Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bf1783@gmail.com List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:48:14 -0000 On 12/15/10, Rob Farmer wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:36, Garrett Wollman > wrote: >> <> said: >> >>> If his allegations are correct, they should be easy to verify. He >>> could post a copy of the NDA and a Freedom of Information Act request >>> could be submitted to verify it. If, as claimed, the NDA expired and >>> this can be discussed freely by the general public, then they would >>> not be able to deny the request. >> >> Actually, they would, because it would fall under the "internal >> personnel matter" exemption from FOIA. >> >> -GAWollman >> > > I'm not a lawyer, but couldn't he exempt himself and they black out > the other people's names? If he could provide some evidence that this > isn't a publicity stunt and interest a major media organization or a > civil rights group (like the ACLU or EFF), I suspect they could apply > enough political and legal pressure to avoid getting brushed off. > > Besides, if this were legitimate, it could benefit the Democrats > (given that it supposedly occurred during the Bush administration), so > how hard would they really fight it? I don't think that your reasoning about the government's willingness to release this information, or the extent to which this is a partisan issue, is correct. But the details of who was involved, and what agreements were in place, are secondary to the issue of whether there are vulnerabilities, intentional or otherwise, in the code. For those who have the time and ability to audit the code, there are some possible problems to look for: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129237675106730&w=2 b. From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 17:38:50 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B734106566B for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:38:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfarmer@predatorlabs.net) Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com (mail-qy0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF5908FC08 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:38:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qyk36 with SMTP id 36so2129992qyk.13 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:38:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.189.72 with SMTP id dd8mr731861qcb.18.1292434728714; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:38:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.59.69 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:38:48 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [128.95.133.99] In-Reply-To: References: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> <19720.57471.684530.72355@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:38:48 -0800 Message-ID: From: Rob Farmer To: bf1783@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, Garrett Wollman Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:38:50 -0000 On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 08:24, b. f. wrote: > I don't think that your reasoning about the government's willingness > to release this information, or the extent to which this is a partisan > issue, is correct. Well, the NSA wiretap thing was leaked only a couple years after it started. If you want to believe that *nobody* in Washington, through several election cycles and a change in majority party, would be interested in exposing this for political (or financial, in the case of the media) gain and his "NDA" accidentally timed out or whatever, feel free. > But the details of who was involved, and what > agreements were in place, are secondary to the issue of whether there > are vulnerabilities, intentional or otherwise, in the code. =A0For those > who have the time and ability to audit the code, there are some > possible problems to look for: > > http://marc.info/?l=3Dopenbsd-tech&m=3D129237675106730&w=3D2 > > b. > They won't be secondary if someone does find a minor bug in the network stack (regardless who introduced it or if it is even related), which will probably happen given the attention this will invariably receive. --=20 Rob Farmer From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 17:45:32 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F95106564A for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:45:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com) Received: from mail.bitblocks.com (mail.bitblocks.com [64.142.15.60]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7938FC1C for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:45:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bitblocks.com (localhost.bitblocks.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.bitblocks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB915B73; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:10:13 -0800 (PST) To: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:06:48 +0100." <867hfbkokn.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <30464535.post@talk.nabble.com> <867hfbkokn.fsf@ds4.des.no> Comments: In-reply-to =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= message dated "Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:06:48 +0100." Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:10:13 -0800 From: Bakul Shah Message-Id: <20101215171014.1BB915B73@mail.bitblocks.com> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPSEC allegations X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:45:32 -0000 On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:06:48 +0100 =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= wrote: > [redirected from -hackers to -security] > > Jakub Lach writes: > > http://marc.info/?l=3Dopenbsd-tech&m=3D129236621626462&w=3D2 > > http://maycontaintracesofbolts.blogspot.com/2010/12/openbsd-ipsec-backdoor-= > allegations.html I am looking at this only as an interesting puzzle (any motivations of various parties involved are of no relevance in this narrow context). I have no crypto expertise so my question may make no sense. But can one do a "black box" analysis (that is, no peeking at source code!) to figure out if keys are being leaked etc.? I am thinking something analogous to spectal analysis of signals. For instance, doing fourier analysis on the encrypted white noise or some such. Thanks! From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 19:33:18 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD559106566C for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:33:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from johans@stack.nl) Received: from mx1.stack.nl (relay02.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5010::104]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D888FC12 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:33:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mx1.stack.nl (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2A4AB35AA00; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:33:17 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-DCC: Misty: scanner01.stack.nl 1170; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on scanner01.stack.nl X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS, NO_RELAYS autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Relay-Country: _RELAYCOUNTRY_ Received: from mud.stack.nl (mud.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5011:230:48ff:fe12:2794]) by mx1.stack.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3519B35A9F3; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:33:15 +0100 (CET) Received: by mud.stack.nl (Postfix, from userid 801) id 2DB6311446; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:33:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:33:15 +0100 From: Johan van Selst To: Andy Kosela Message-ID: <20101215193315.GA41513@mud.stack.nl> References: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-14) Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:33:18 -0000 --r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Andy Kosela wrote: > Some of you probably already read this: > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129236621626462&w=2 Then also read Jason Wright's response and clear denial: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129244045916861&w=2 Regards, Johan --r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF4EAREIAAYFAk0JF/oACgkQAEpMHW8nCPT14wEAhK4WoBzlnM/9RzcBAhOTXeSd fb6jXHC9IRcctc3PwEsBAN3GHaWtCzDHe9W1YFwAATyeVyPT5sItI/iKx7d3wD+T =h0Tn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3-- From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 22:09:52 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50AA6106564A for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:09:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andy.kosela@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f49.google.com (mail-bw0-f49.google.com [209.85.214.49]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6E58FC12 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:09:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so2920723bwz.8 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:09:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=B3y85nTnuEkXlDrXrFp2n7UgKiSITydJ8yecRn05bCM=; b=BuH8JueqjvUz65nljJ1iDMo2FxaqXCMqj12fUIG8uFvjqrCGb31H4m4dv8CfZL/2W2 w5D5UHjUdK6XVr9cN9PleQ8WuqClcP42Hj6DZ49ORDw4XrxnnjF2bh6zPK0XrDJH+Z8x NeL2EuCBgKkVJzxYMEGWNoZrM5+JBK76ovV6g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=N5KuflPoi5OA5gnR5c/n80MlYcU15sDluPYms93p8OJhM4Xlovzr5Gf+TG19t4OF4T DvznKSSUyYeU1oO4+cDrVIOkH8xo/lo927Hv6X547wvxUOs7f4KKAy9Yim7RCZr2GyOg oeF8c8C+/qk8y2/LYMol8a0PpbX9AGoArCWhg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.67.5 with SMTP id p5mr7754626bki.59.1292450988733; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:09:48 -0800 (PST) Sender: andy.kosela@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.121.147 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:09:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20101215193315.GA41513@mud.stack.nl> References: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> <20101215193315.GA41513@mud.stack.nl> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:09:48 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: -kbiM7gPTsDhJgZKNQBuPrWUzvI Message-ID: From: Andy Kosela To: Johan van Selst Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:09:52 -0000 On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Johan van Selst wrote: > Andy Kosela wrote: >> Some of you probably already read this: >> =A0http://marc.info/?l=3Dopenbsd-tech&m=3D129236621626462&w=3D2 > > Then also read Jason Wright's response and clear denial: > http://marc.info/?l=3Dopenbsd-tech&m=3D129244045916861&w=3D2 Would you publically say: "yes, I was on the FBI payroll and planted those backdoors". Let's be honest here. We need to witness what Greg Perry has more to say about this. If he claims this is true I guess he still got the code for that -- let him publish it or at least point us in the right direction in the OpenBSD source code. Even if this is all false, hypothetically it is not that hard to plant such a backdoor in the Open Source project, not to say that it would be even easier to do that in closed source project. http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-17-09%20Schaeffer%20Testimony.pdf Some of the similar cases are actually somewhat documented -- this is from the same period (around '99) and concerns NSA and M$: http://cypherspace.org/adam/hacks/ms-nsa-key.html From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 16 05:20:22 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEFA21065672 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 05:20:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfarmer@predatorlabs.net) Received: from mail-qw0-f54.google.com (mail-qw0-f54.google.com [209.85.216.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3CA8FC15 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 05:20:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qwj9 with SMTP id 9so2820874qwj.13 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:20:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.67.136 with SMTP id r8mr7399779qai.63.1292476821789; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:20:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.59.69 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:20:21 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [128.95.133.99] In-Reply-To: References: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> <20101215193315.GA41513@mud.stack.nl> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:20:21 -0800 Message-ID: From: Rob Farmer To: Andy Kosela Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Johan van Selst , freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 05:20:22 -0000 On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 14:09, Andy Kosela wrote: > Would you publically say: "yes, I was on the FBI payroll and planted > those backdoors". =A0Let's be honest here. Yes, let's. What is your motive for bringing up this issue? Are you on an intelligence agency's payroll, which has inserted backdoors into another OS (say Linux), and are trying to get people to switch from BSD? Can you prove this isn't true? The problem with this, and other conspiracy theories, is they are characterized by vague accusations that are hard to verify, one way or another. Governments (and virtually all large organizations) have done unethical things in the past and will do so in the future. As I see it, either this type of thing is widespread, in which all OSes (open and proprietary) are probably affected, or it is BS. Security experts may audit the code, but since they could be in on it, their results can't be trusted. And if you can't trust the reputation of the developers, then what? Audit the entire thing yourself? How many people have the time and skills to do so? There's nothing average people can do with these allegations, other than accept (without evidence) that those named are sleazes, which is unfair, to say the least - how does one prove they aren't involved in such a thing? And why should they have to? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" >=A0We need to witness what Greg > Perry has more to say about this. =A0If he claims this is true I guess > he still got the code for that -- let him publish it or at least point > us in the right direction in the OpenBSD source code. That should have been done at the start. --=20 Rob Farmer From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 16 08:26:57 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84488106564A for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:26:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cperciva@freebsd.org) Received: from xps.daemonology.net (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A73214E1BA for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:26:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 34675 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2010 08:26:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO xps.daemonology.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Dec 2010 08:26:56 -0000 Message-ID: <4D09CD50.1030605@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:26:56 -0800 From: FreeBSD Security Officer Organization: FreeBSD Project User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100803 Thunderbird/3.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd security X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Claims of FBI backdoors in OpenBSD cryptographic code X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: security-officer@freebsd.org List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:26:57 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, We are aware of the email forwarded by Theo de Raadt to the openbsd-tech mailing list concerning alleged backdoor(s) in OpenBSD's IPSec stack and/or other cryptographic code. The FreeBSD operating system contains code derived from OpenBSD, including the crypto(4) driver, the IPSec stack, OpenSSH, and the pf firewall. As we do with all such derived code, we keep an eye on the upstream projects so that we can respond promptly to any vulnerabilities which are found. It is worth noting, however, that vulnerabilities are found in upstream codebases on a regular basis, and even if some are found in the alleged areas it does not necessarily imply that they were deliberately inserted. One of the great advantages of open source software is that it is possible for many people to audit it; the "many eyes" theory, however, depends on having many people who actually _do_ look at the code, not merely having many people who _can_ look at the code, and to that end we always encourage more independent auditing of code in FreeBSD. In the case of code which came to FreeBSD via other projects, this is no less important: For a variety of reasons, the code in FreeBSD is almost never identical to the code in upstream projects, and in bringing code to FreeBSD it is entirely possible for bugs to be added or removed. As always, anyone who believes that they have found a vulnerability affecting FreeBSD is requested to contact secteam@freebsd.org. - -- Colin Percival Security Officer, FreeBSD | freebsd.org | The power to serve Founder / author, Tarsnap | tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk0JzVAACgkQFdaIBMps37JnkgCfeK8w1BFQwbDeYNRcZUYuAVuJ uJAAnA7F/utOgkkHWI9mB2fh7oB/6ZPd =EUq1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 16 15:17:58 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2911065670 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:17:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailnull@mips.inka.de) Received: from mail-in-07.arcor-online.net (mail-in-07.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.47]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7438FC12 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:17:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-in-12-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-12-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.29]) by mx.arcor.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7BC1081C9 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:47:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-in-06.arcor-online.net (mail-in-06.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.46]) by mail-in-12-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD581DF394 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:47:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from lorvorc.mips.inka.de (dslb-094-217-108-083.pools.arcor-ip.net [94.217.108.83]) by mail-in-06.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D5AD10C127 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:47:09 +0100 (CET) X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 mail-in-06.arcor-online.net 4D5AD10C127 Received: from lorvorc.mips.inka.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lorvorc.mips.inka.de (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBGEl8BT022314 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:47:08 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mailnull@lorvorc.mips.inka.de) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by lorvorc.mips.inka.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id oBGEl8dh022313 for freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:47:08 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mailnull) From: naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:47:08 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> Originator: naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:17:58 -0000 Rob Farmer wrote: > They won't be secondary if someone does find a minor bug in the > network stack (regardless who introduced it or if it is even related), > which will probably happen given the attention this will invariably > receive. Here's the first one: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=129245633605693&w=2 (Not a back door, but actually recommended practice at the time, see RFC 2451.) -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 16 16:41:38 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7478E106566C for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:41:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andy.kosela@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f49.google.com (mail-bw0-f49.google.com [209.85.214.49]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9BA8FC1A for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:41:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so3873780bwz.8 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:41:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WRVOL9LfKsY4TjboXxHFVGCtVkDjfKYn9yyh12E0asc=; b=nft+6YTaKOpxHunUQx72Ty8/n2mS76LnA8kd9S6uPqcguvEXu+b5VSl0U3DRoKjKQf /Vrpo0LJUDpnJcVR7yihNlCSALhKCM8i0ixAH9s9yDfK8m6EgqFRsdAGvyBiG3DIDMua ddteBoUNg9ifggqF5YCP8oe2XmV/EYKy0lreQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=x3pHjgioc+5TVwqBkBtyLOCmnWXlx9FP6W9VjYDt1T2ldtLQcKFiw155Rok/OxXuDU 2dg5m3HGlbwhj1hFJD/6WHAJzcVAaEV66VQj2Jbf0VYh/8JEptxPl6ppTPjGzcHUmiJm SCQsNS3EYdhndkWo4SN5bMwwIhlTPNwtPI4tg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.46.18 with SMTP id h18mr7650830bkf.113.1292517695502; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:41:35 -0800 (PST) Sender: andy.kosela@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.121.147 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:41:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:41:35 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ovfazt2ZLtRFPCh9TG8KpyUlsXk Message-ID: From: Andy Kosela To: Christian Weisgerber Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:41:38 -0000 On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Rob Farmer wrote: > >> They won't be secondary if someone does find a minor bug in the >> network stack (regardless who introduced it or if it is even related), >> which will probably happen given the attention this will invariably >> receive. > > Here's the first one: > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=129245633605693&w=2 Like des@ written in the other post even if the backdoor is still present in the OpenBSD code, IMHO it is very probable that FreeBSD is unaffected as the FreeBSD OCF implementation has been substantially modified. http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/bsdcon03/tech/leffler_crypto/leffler_crypto.pdf Either way we will all know for sure in the not distant future... --Andy From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 17 19:51:15 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC4331065674 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:51:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C020E8FC19 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:51:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 716FC46B65 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:51:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:04:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: security@FreeBSD.org, trustedbsd-discuss@TrustedBSD.org Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-ID: ReSent-Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:51:09 +0000 (GMT) ReSent-From: robert ReSent-To: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org ReSent-Subject: [capsicum] Capability Mode (fwd) ReSent-Message-ID: ReSent-User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cc: Subject: [capsicum] Capability Mode (fwd) X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:51:16 -0000 Dear all: Some of you will have spotted Cambridge's "Capsicum" paper in the USENIX Security proceedings this summer, and presented previously at the Cambridge and Ottawa FreeBSD developer summits. We are in the throes of preparing basic kernel support for Capsicum to merge to the FreeBSD tree. This work will enter the tree in a number of phases -- some will require more architectural discussion in the FreeBSD community (such as process descriptors), but other bits (such as capability mode) we'll assume people have been following along and plan to merge unless anyone screams. If you're interested in the topic, and in particular, interested in helping us review and test Capsicum patches as they head in the direction of 9-CURRENT, please join us on the cl-capsicum-discss mailing list. You can learn more about Capsicum, including finding papers and talks to date, and a pointer to a recording of the USENIX Security talk on the topic, here: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/capsicum/ You can subscribe to our mailing list here: https://lists.cam.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/cl-capsicum-discuss Over the next few months we plan to kick off a larger project to explore applications of Capsicum in other parts of FreeBSD than the ones explored to date. A hand-wave at a general schedule for merging various new TrustedBSD-related features to FreeBSD can be found here: http://wiki.freebsd.org/TrustedBSDSchedule It is very much a hand-wave, however! (It seems clear already that capability mode support might well slip to January) Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:55:22 -0330 From: Jonathan Anderson To: cl-capsicum-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk Subject: [capsicum] Capability Mode Here's a patch against -CURRENT (r216376) that is the first step in a multi-phase programme: 1. Capability mode with a restrictive syscall mask (no openat(2) functions, etc.) 2. Capabilities 3. Deep semantic constraints which allow openat(2), etc. - once we've convinced ourselves that our changes to namei() and friends don't introduce race conditions w.r.t. rename 4. Process descriptors - once we've convinced ourselves that we haven't broken e.g. the garbage collection of UNIX domain sockets Anyway, please find the proposed first patch attached. Comments? Jon