Biblio

In December 2015, Juniper Networks announced multiple security vulnerabilities stemming from unauthorized code in ScreenOS, the operating system for their NetScreen VPN routers. The more sophisticated of these vulnerabilities was a passive VPN decryption capability, enabled by a change to one of the elliptic curve points used by the Dual EC pseudorandom number generator. In this paper, we describe the results of a full independent analysis of the ScreenOS randomness and VPN key establishment protocol subsystems, which we carried out in response to this incident. While Dual EC is known to be insecure against an attacker who can choose the elliptic curve parameters, Juniper had claimed in 2013 that ScreenOS included countermeasures against this type of attack. We find that, contrary to Juniper's public statements, the ScreenOS VPN implementation has been vulnerable since 2008 to passive exploitation by an attacker who selects the Dual EC curve point. This vulnerability arises due to apparent flaws in Juniper's countermeasures as well as a cluster of changes that were all introduced concurrently with the inclusion of Dual EC in a single 2008 release. We demonstrate the vulnerability on a real NetScreen device by modifying the firmware to install our own parameters, and we show that it is possible to passively decrypt an individual VPN session in isolation without observing any other network traffic. We investigate the possibility of passively fingerprinting ScreenOS implementations in the wild. This incident is an important example of how guidelines for random number generation, engineering, and validation can fail in practice.

In 2012, two academic groups reported having computed the RSA private keys for 0.5% of HTTPS hosts on the internet, and traced the underlying issue to widespread random number generation failures on networked devices. The vulnerability was reported to dozens of vendors, several of whom responded with security advisories, and the Linux kernel was patched to fix a boottime entropy hole that contributed to the failures. In this paper, we measure the actions taken by vendors and end users over time in response to the original disclosure. We analyzed public internet-wide TLS scans performed between July 2010 and May 2016 and extracted 81 million distinct RSA keys. We then computed the pairwise common divisors for the entire set in order to factor over 313,000 keys vulnerable to the aw, and fingerprinted implementations to study patching behavior over time across vendors. We find that many vendors appear to have never produced a patch, and observed little to no patching behavior by end users of affected devices. The number of vulnerable hosts increased in the years after notification and public disclosure, and several newly vulnerable implementations have appeared since 2012. Vendor notification, positive vendor responses, and even vendor-produced public security advisories appear to have little correlation with end-user security.

Contrary to widespread assumption, dynamic RAM (DRAM), the main memory in most modern computers, retains its contents for several seconds after power is lost, even at room temperature and even if removed from a motherboard. Although DRAM becomes less reliable when it is not refreshed, it is not immediately erased, and its contents persist sufficiently for malicious (or forensic) acquisition of usable full-system memory images. We show that this phenomenon limits the ability of an operating system to protect cryptographic key material from an attacker with physical access to a machine. It poses a particular threat to laptop users who rely on disk encryption: we demonstrate that it could be used to compromise several popular disk encryption products without the need for any special devices or materials. We experimentally characterize the extent and predictability of memory retention and report that remanence times can be increased dramatically with simple cooling techniques. We offer new algorithms for finding cryptographic keys in memory images and for correcting errors caused by bit decay. Though we discuss several strategies for mitigating these risks, we know of no simple remedy that would eliminate them.