Posted by: h4ck@lyst | May 15, 2008

Debian SSH keys insecure! Ubuntu also affected!

A weakness has been discovered in the random number generator used by OpenSSL on Debian and Ubuntu systems. As a result of this weakness, certain encryption keys are much more common than they should be, such that an attacker could guess the key through a brute-force attack given minimal knowledge of the system. This particularly affects the use of encryption keys in OpenSSH, OpenVPN  and SSL certificates.This vulnerability only affects operating systems which (like Ubuntu) are based on Debian. However, other systems can be indirectly affected if weak keys are imported into them.

This advisory also applies to the corresponding versions of Kubuntu, Edubuntu, and Xubuntu.

== Who is affected ==

Systems which are running any of the following releases:

* Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty)
* Ubuntu 7.10 (Gutsy)
* Ubuntu 8.04 LTS (Hardy)
* Ubuntu “Intrepid Ibex” (development): libssl <= 0.9.8g-8
* Debian 4.0 (etch) (see corresponding Debian security advisory)

Debian package maintainers tend to very often modify the source code of the package they are maintaining so that it better fits into the distribution itself. However, most of the time, their changes are not sent back to upstream for validation, which might cause some tension between upstream developers and Debian packagers.  A critical security advisory has been released: a Debian packager modified the source code of OpenSSL back in 2006 so as to remove the seeding of OpenSSL random number generator, which in turns makes cryptographic key material generated on a Debian system guessable. The solution? Upgrade OpenSSL and re-generate all your SSH and SSL keys. This problem not only affects Debian, but also all its derivatives, such as Ubuntu.

And the whole detail of how this thing happened out here..

“The patch that broke it was checked in by Kurt Roeckx []. Don’t know if he broke it or if he was just the gatekeeper for checkins. See: [] which shows the change that introduced the bug; and its parent node: [] which shows the maintainer responsible.

From looking at this patch, I think this is what happened. valgrind complained about a rather unusual coding convention in ssleay_rand_bytes. This is a function that returns random data into a buffer. However, before writing into the buffer, it reads from the buffer and incorporates the old contents into the internal random state. valgrind complained about this use of an output buffer for input. Normally you would never want to use potentially uninitialized data like this, but in this case it is OK as all that is being done is the data is being folded into the random state. In the worst case, this can’t hurt, and maybe it will help, if the old data had some randomness.

Anyway, valgrind complained about it, and the maintainer commented out the use of the buffer. That would actually be OK, it is not a big deal. But the implementor made a mistake, and also commented out another similar usage, in a different function, ssleay_rand_add. This was a huge mistake, as the purpose of ssleay_rand_add is to add randomness into the random state. In that function, buf is an INPUT buffer, and adding it into the random state is perfectly legitimate, in fact it is the whole purpose of the function. But apparently because it looked similar to the questionable usage in ssleay_rand_bytes, the maintainer commented out the code in ssleay_rand_add at the same time. (I don’t know whether valgrind also complained about this second usage, but if so, it was mistaken. I think it’s more likely that the maintainer just got fooled and over-generalized from the valgrind complaint.)

So the whole thing was an attempt to clean up code and remove warnings, but the fix accidentally broke a crucial piece of functionality, rendering ssleay_rand_add completely non-functional. So any attempt to add randomness into the RNG state, such as for seeding purposes, is ineffective. The random state ends up with much less variability, and therefore all the crypto is weak. As Bruce Schneier points out, bad crypto looks much the same as good crypto, so it took this long to notice it.

Hats off to the reviewer who picked up on the problem. Don’t know who it was, but the same Kurt Roeckx [] checked in the fix.””



  1. mm… luv it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: