Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Akamai Reissues All SSL Certificates After Admitting Heartbleed Patch Was Faulty

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the try-it-again dept.

Security 56

SpacemanukBEJY.53u (3309653) writes "It took security researcher Willem Pinckaers all of 15 minutes to spot a flaw in code created by Akamai that the company thought shielded most of its users from one of the pernicious aspects of the Heartbleed flaw in OpenSSL. More than a decade ago, Akamai modified parts of OpenSSL it felt were weak related to key storage. Akamai CTO Andy Ellis wrote last week that the modification protected most customers from having their private SSL stolen despite the Heartbleed bug. But on Sunday Ellis wrote Akamai was wrong after Pinckaers found several flaws in the code. Akamai is now reissuing all SSL certificates and keys to its customers."

cancel ×

56 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Do I get this right: (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 4 months ago | (#46746213)

So Akamai claims that they protected certificates in memory. So that would be independent of the heart bleed bug, if we assume that heartbleed only managed to report "unprotected" data. And someone found that the protection isn't as good as they thought it was. Still doesn't answer the question if the Akamai code was vulnerable to Heartbleed in the first place. (So that's similar to the claims that OpenSSL didn't use malloc and therefore data had less protection, which doesn't make the Heartbleed bug less bad, but could have protected some data).

Re:Do I get this right: (0)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 4 months ago | (#46746227)

Still doesn't answer the question if the Akamai code was vulnerable to Heartbleed in the first place.

Everything is vulnerable to Heartbleed.

Re:Do I get this right: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46746275)

That statement is so generic that I'm going to start calling it Fartbleed instead.

Re:Do I get this right: (3, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#46746363)

I'm glad to learn that my toaster is vulnerable to Heartbleed.

Re:Do I get this right: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46746479)

Leaking up to 64mg of peanut butter per request!

Re:Do I get this right: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46746625)

Is this [embeddedarm.com] your toaster, by any chance?

Re:Do I get this right: (4, Funny)

ProzacPatient (915544) | about 4 months ago | (#46747211)

The Colonial fleet will be pleased to hear that toasters are vulnerable to heartbleed; hopefully it'll give them an edge against the Cylon menace.

Cylons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46748429)

Nope, the cyclons have solid configuration management on the Centurions and the meatbops don't have open ports.

Re:Cylons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752073)

I'd be very upset to meet up with #6, and find out she didn't have any "open ports".

Re:Do I get this right: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46747319)

The FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

YOUR TOASTER HAS BEEN LOCKED!

Your IP: xxxx | Your City: xxxx | Your ISP: xxxx

All activity of this toaster has been recorded. If your toaster has a camera, videos were saved for identification. The report about you has been sent to your Internet Service Provider to get more personal information and statistics on toaster usage.

Probable reasons of locking:
* You are running pirated software on your toaster.
* You did not leggo their eggo.
* You are forcing bagels into a toaster that was not designed to handle bagels.
* You are burning images of child pornography and/or the messiah onto your toast.

According to the international laws on struggle against illegal toaster usage, you are obliged to pay the penalty at a rate of $200. To make the protected payment you ought to use XXXXX XXXXX. To perform the payment, enter acquired XXXXX code into the form of payment using the Pin-Pad and press 'Pay the fine' button.

After successful payment, your toaster will automatically unlock.

YOUR TOASTER HAS BEEN LOCKED!

Re:Do I get this right: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46747381)

Wait... is this CryptoToaster version come with its own crypto library?

Re:Do I get this right: (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 4 months ago | (#46746547)

No, I'm pretty paper, clay tablets, and our imaginations are safe from Heartbleed.

Re:Do I get this right: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46748593)

No, I'm pretty paper, clay tablets, and our imaginations are safe from Heartbleed.

Cute, you try to steal from XKCD and manage to completely fuck it up. Hey everyone, oodaloop (1229816) [slashdot.org] is a genius.

Re:Do I get this right: (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 4 months ago | (#46749557)

OMG I has a stalker! Finally!

Re:Do I get this right: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46749661)

You're pretty paper, huh?

Re:Do I get this right: (3, Informative)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 4 months ago | (#46746965)

IIS is not. It uses schannel, not OpenSSL.

Re:Do I get this right: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46747755)

Thanks, that's a load off my mind. Now all we have to worry about is the X thousand other critical priv escalations in Windows OSs because the codebase is proprietary.

Wonder how many times this one was used before it was found:
http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/... [cvedetails.com]

Re:Do I get this right: (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 4 months ago | (#46750553)

Going off on the Windows OS codebase and license in a heartbleed discussion? No personal vendetta detected here, no sir.

Seriously, a discussion on how FOSS dropped the ball so seriously that private keys are being disclosed is not the time to bring up complaints about Windows.

Re:Do I get this right: (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about 4 months ago | (#46750751)

I was completely unaffected by Heartbleed even though there are dozens of SSL sites on my servers.

It turns out A10 load balancers don't use OpenSSL. :)

Re:Do I get this right: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46767129)

Fortunately, while they use OpenSSL, most F5 load balancers don't use a vulnerable version. For once I'm actually happy my lazy ops guys didn't update to the latest release.

Re:Do I get this right: (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46746269)

The fact that they are re-issuing certificates clearly indicates that they were open to Heartbleed. They had tried to add another layer of protections to protect against bugs like this (which is honorable), but found that they were insufficient to protect the certificate. I haven't read up on the details, but it is likely that temporary decryption operations exposed enough information so that the ssl key could be regenerated, even if the ssl key itself was protected. Crypto is difficult, and trying to protect against unknown bugs is even harder.

Re:Do I get this right: (3, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 4 months ago | (#46746643)

The fact that they are re-issuing certificates clearly indicates that they were open to Heartbleed.

That seems to be the US thing, where trying to fix a problem is taken as admission of guilt. (I heard this weird story that US hospitals have a problem if one of their X-ray machines breaks and the replacement is a better model, because anyone examined using the older machines can claim they didn't get the best possible treatment).

Re:Do I get this right: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46746755)

That says nothing about guilt, only that trying to fix a problem indicates they think there is a problem...

Re:Do I get this right: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46753179)

You obviously know nothing about the US, the only country in the world where you can sue somebody after demanding to receive boiling-hot coffee and then spilling it on yourself. Unfortunately, thats not a joke or hyperbole.

Re:Do I get this right: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46749853)

Posting anonymously, as I've read this in an internal email. I am 90% certain this is public knowledge, which is why I'm allowing myself to post this, but still.

The patch successfully protected the key parts of the private key from exposure. That's p and q (the primes) and d (the number by the power of which you raise in order to decrypt).

The problem with the patch was that it disregarded the Chinese Remainder Theorem used in order to speed up decryption. I do not remember the precise values, but it was something to the effect of d mod p, q mod p and something else.

The thing is, you can use those three details that were leakable, along with n (p*q), which is public, to calculate the other three, effectively nullifying the protection. So Akamai, in my (obviously biased) opinion, is doing the right thing and is reissuing the whole set, as well as giving a public disclosure to the effect.

I'll just point out that the only reason a researcher found out that bug was because Akamai published the patch.

They deserve congratulations ... (5, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 4 months ago | (#46746239)

for having the integrity to admit that they screwed up the first time.

Re:They deserve congratulations ... (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 4 months ago | (#46746359)

for having the integrity to admit that they screwed up the first time.

Absolutely. So many companies would have tried to say that protection was "good enough" or "unlikely to be exploitable in real situations".

Re:They deserve congratulations ... (3, Interesting)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 4 months ago | (#46746381)

Yes. The corporate opposite of General Motors trying to explain to Congress the years-long lapse in reporting and repairing the ignition problems of millions of vehicles.

Here's to hoping they are rewarded for their prompt honesty, rather than persecuted, as we certainly need to set some positive precedents for this exact type of conduct.

Re:They deserve congratulations ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46747389)

Integrity, at least in part, is what you would do if NOBODY else knew.
Doing the right thing after all other possibilities are exhausted is something else.
True integrity would dictate killing off openssl and admiting that programmers belong in cubicles under a very tight auditing system.
This is all Torvolds fault.
WINDOWS 8 really is better after all. Get used to tiles mofos.

Re:They deserve congratulations ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46748457)

http://www.wtvf.com/story/25236404/heartbleed-virus-creating-major-headaches BUT my local news told me that "the heartbleed virus is watching what I type, my passwords, and my emails" and other such junk... LOL

If you don't want anyone to see it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46746249)

...don't send it over a well-known public network. There are so many potential points of failure on the Internet that I assume anyone sufficiently powerful can see anything I'm doing, from a competitor to a government. The only effective protection is democratic regulation, not an arms race.

Anyway, good on Akamai for admitting to and fixing their fault. Humility is the best trait.

Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (2)

Ronin Developer (67677) | about 4 months ago | (#46746431)

Earlier this morning, I read on another post that someone was saying how Heartbleed compromised many bank's systems. This was contrary to what was posted on sites such as CNET that provided a list of providers and websites that claim they were not vulnerable. It sounded incredulous. Frankly, still does.

I can see financial institutions using an open solution for their public facing websites. But, how many actually "run" an operating system that is based on Open Source for their financial transactions? Exactly. Most, I suspect, are likely running another fully patched, proprietary OS and few, if any, would be permitted to run on public or open software. Still, those customer facing systems could be compromised and there might be a way to capture a customer's banking credentials.

The good news is, if your bank is FDIC insured, your money is safe - up to the limit of the Insurance ($250K???) Still, it's a major inconvenience. And, while there is genuine concern here, there is too much FUD being spread.

What is really needed right now is a secure, public, searchable list of sites that are vulnerable, not vulnerable and unknown. And, institutions what have your contact information or sensitive information (ie. credit card info) should be contacting all customers to inform them if their data or accounts might have been compromised, what actions are being taken, and what actions the customer must take (such as when it's safe to actually change one's password, force a password reset, go to 2 factor authentication, etc).

Lastly, I can understand why a mobile device might not check a certificate revocation list. But, there is no excuse for a desktop server to not check the SSL cert's validity. And, if the user still wants to go to the site, the warning should remain on the screen a highly visible form (like putting a BIG red border about the frame with text reading (THIS SITE MAY HAVE BEEN COMPROMISED) .

Re:Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (-1, Flamebait)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 4 months ago | (#46746469)

If they're running Verisign, which is still pretty common around the web on large commercial websites, they were not vulnerable to Heartbleed.

Re:Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (3, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#46746523)

What is 'verisign' ... I mean, I know of the company named verisign that functions as a root CA, but they don't have magical certs that are safe, they are just like all other certs.

A quick Google search yields too much about the company, can you point me at what you're referring to so I can clear my ignorance?

Re:Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46748379)

Wrong. Verisign is magic. Ask anyone in marketing.

Re:Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about 4 months ago | (#46751357)

Actually Verisign is a company that runs the root DNS for .com and .net, among some other TLDs. They don't do security or certification.

You're thinking of Symantec.

Re:Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46746681)

... You have not worked directly with banks and their development teams have you?

If you had, you would know you were wrong...

Re:Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (2)

garyebickford (222422) | about 4 months ago | (#46747719)

Indeed. Bank managements are interested in making money, not spending it on IT. A big part of JPMorgan's present problems (and some forthcoming ones that have not hit the fan yet, according to rumor) are due to their CIO's refusal to implement required IT risk management, despite repeated warnings from their auditors. If they fail this aspect of the audit a third time, hundreds of pension funds will be required by law to provide personnel to stand behind the JPM traders and monitor their activities - or move their funds to a different bank. This will be a bad thing for JPM, and fully deserved.

NB: no, I can't provide a citation. Source was a personal discussion. I will note that one of their top risk management people just got fired, basically for bringing this up. That's the third in a row in that position.

Re:Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46746855)

This was contrary to what was posted on sites such as CNET that provided a list of providers and websites that claim they were not vulnerable. It sounded incredulous. Frankly, still does. I can see financial institutions using an open solution for their public facing websites. But, how many actually "run" an operating system that is based on Open Source for their financial transactions?

What's a financial transaction, per say?

Do you want people logging into your online account overview?

And there's the damning rub - most of the, "LOL LOOK GAIZ NO HEARTBLEED!" lists are testing the main websites of banks. They're not testing online banking portals.

Re:Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46746953)

Incredulous does not mean what you think it does. You can be incredulous, a claim cannot.

Re:Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46747565)

I can see financial institutions using an open solution for their public facing websites. But, how many actually "run" an operating system that is based on Open Source for their financial transactions?

Many of them run their online banking websites on java, websphere, IIS and the like.

And the issue isn't with the operating system, the issue is with an application, OpenSSL, which runs on many different operating systems.

The good news is, if your bank is FDIC insured, your money is safe - up to the limit of the Insurance

Completely irrelevant. FDIC insurance protects your money IF your bank goes bankrupt - that's all.

FDIC insurance does NOT protect you from fraud or identity theft.

Re:Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46747747)

Rule #1 of Online Banking: Don't do banking online.
Rule #2 of Online Banking: Go to the physical bank to do banking.
Rule #3 of Online Banking: Don't do banking online.

Re:Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46749159)

or just make sure your bank doesn't use shitty open source software.

Re:Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (2)

malvcr (2932649) | about 4 months ago | (#46747873)

I was checking the source code of the original and the "official" (not the Akamai) patch itself.

In fact, the original code (with the bug) is more ordered and clear than the patch. But in general, the issue is that OpenSSL is a very big and complex piece of code maintained by a group of people with a very small quantity of resources, but being used by many important organisations around the world.

The problem is not that the software is open source. The proprietary source also have the same level of problems, being the only difference that we can check the open sourced products and we have no idea what they did on the proprietary (a.k.a. closed) products. The problem is that the Internet has not a good international and neutral organisation to help verify the important parts that make it work and the users of the technology invest no resources to verify how well these products are made.

And yes, if a Bank has a router having OpenSSL with the bug, the router has the bug. Or it is better to say that the router has been with that level of bug for nearly two years by now, and that it is possible somebody was able to bypass the security WHEN the SSL protocol is exposed.

So ... there are many sources of problems, much more than the web servers, although these vulnerabilities will become real problems depending on how well defined is the security of the network infrastructure. Good practices let to reduced exposition to existing vulnerabilities, this is why it is important to know, to understand and to apply these good practices.

Re:Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46749777)

And, while there is genuine concern here, there is too much FUD being spread

That's pretty funny, considering how much misinformation is in this post. FDIC, really? Operating systems?

Re:Financial Institution Vulnerabilities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46750133)

It sounded incredible. I was incredulous.

More than a decade ago... (1)

alphatel (1450715) | about 4 months ago | (#46746503)

More than a decade ago, Akamai modified parts of OpenSSL it felt were weak related to key storage

Now that's insight!

Re:More than a decade ago... (2)

Abalamahalamatandra (639919) | about 4 months ago | (#46747397)

Well, when you're running edge cache servers that service gazillions of SSL sites and need to store a private key for each on each of those distributed servers, you're pretty much going to be modifying quite a lot of stuff.

Re:More than a decade ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46749919)

Without going into too much details, the level at which the private keys are protected on the edge network is fairly amazing. Beginning with physical access restrictions to the servers and going all the way to code in the crash signal handler that unmaps the memory in which the private keys reside so they don't end up in the core dump.

When heartbleed was published, I was horrified to see that openssl does nothing to protect the private keys in memory (e.g. - locking them into memory to prevent swapping out to disk of the unencrypted keys). I think such things should go without saying.

ok all you smug opensource sheep (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46747515)

You have all played an active role in THE SINGLE WORST security breach EVER.
I don't see a lot of people considering how irrecoverable this is.
Closing the barn door after the cows have run off fixes nothing.
As the thug said, when asked "Why do you rob banks"?
That's where the money is.
You dopes really don't get this whole security thing. The cat is out of the bag, and the real exploit is yet to come.

Re:ok all you smug opensource sheep (1, Insightful)

garyebickford (222422) | about 4 months ago | (#46747845)

a) I would not say this is the worst ever - it allows random data to be viewed, which may or may not contain something valuable. There is no evidence (yet) that this was actually exploited prior to its publication. Various other breeches have resulted in proven loss of millions of identities, and near-billions in actual money. If it had been exploited very much, it would probably have been tracked down earlier.

Technically it's not the worst - it's the same as literally thousands of other exploited bugs, and just yet another example of why C should not be used for applications programming, at least without a very strong IDE to catch these kinds of problems and perhaps a macro system that forces bounds-checking, etc. 'Programming without a net' is _sometimes_ necessary for programming at the metal interface, but OpenSSL, though needing high performance, is not an example of that. It's also an example of why SW quality methods need to be followed for this kind of code, especially for a relatively new member of the programming team - and why OpenSSL and other OSS projects need our support.

b) Fortunately, the barn door seems to have been shut before much got out. We'll see, but that's the present apparent situation. There will probably be a few relatively small ongoing successful exploits on servers that don't get fixed, as usual. But this is not anything like a wholesale loss of 100 million credit card records.

c) In this case there was a failure of the open source model of 'many eyes'. But there have been thousands of such failures in proprietary software, some of which resulted in most of the really big exploits, that were invisible until the exploit was used. Here, open source at least allowed researchers to identify it before it was really exploited (as far as we know today).

Re:ok all you smug opensource sheep (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46749101)

No, I remember a Sendmail hole that was worse...but that was open source too!

Not so akamai after all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46747749)

This event demonstrates the problem with giving your company a boastful name. [wiktionary.org]

Perhaps they should have named the company kapakahi [urbandictionary.com] instead.

Re:Not so akamai after all? (1)

mmell (832646) | about 4 months ago | (#46747947)

No, they should've named it "Anonymous Coward".

Open SORES (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46750215)

Fucks up, AGAIN? Oh no, "say it ain't so" Hahahaha (unbelievable)

Open SORES fucks this up, AGAIN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752577)

Oh no, "say it ain't so" Hahahaha (unbelievable)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>