Tag Archives: TLS

Kernel 4.17 released

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/756373/rss

Linus has released the 4.17 kernel, which
will indeed be called “4.17”.
No, I didn’t call it 5.0, even though all the git object count
numerology was in place for that. It will happen in the not _too_
distant future, and I’m told all the release scripts on kernel.org are
ready for it, but I didn’t feel there was any real reason for it.

Headline features in this release include
improved load estimation in the CPU
BPF tracepoints
lazytime support in the XFS filesystem,
full in-kernel TLS protocol support,
histogram triggers for tracing,
mitigations for the latest Spectre variants,
and, of course, the removal of support for eight unloved processor

Security updates for Friday

Post Syndicated from ris original https://lwn.net/Articles/755667/rss

Security updates have been issued by Arch Linux (bind, libofx, and thunderbird), Debian (thunderbird, xdg-utils, and xen), Fedora (procps-ng), Mageia (gnupg2, mbedtls, pdns, and pdns-recursor), openSUSE (bash, GraphicsMagick, icu, and kernel), Oracle (thunderbird), Red Hat (java-1.7.1-ibm, java-1.8.0-ibm, and thunderbird), Scientific Linux (thunderbird), and Ubuntu (curl).

Security updates for Monday

Post Syndicated from ris original https://lwn.net/Articles/755076/rss

Security updates have been issued by Arch Linux (lib32-curl, lib32-libcurl-compat, lib32-libcurl-gnutls, libcurl-compat, and libcurl-gnutls), CentOS (firefox), Debian (imagemagick), Fedora (exiv2, LibRaw, and love), Gentoo (chromium), Mageia (kernel, librelp, and miniupnpc), openSUSE (curl, enigmail, ghostscript, libvorbis, lilypond, and thunderbird), Red Hat (Red Hat OpenStack Platform director), and Ubuntu (firefox).

AWS IoT 1-Click – Use Simple Devices to Trigger Lambda Functions

Post Syndicated from Jeff Barr original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/aws-iot-1-click-use-simple-devices-to-trigger-lambda-functions/

We announced a preview of AWS IoT 1-Click at AWS re:Invent 2017 and have been refining it ever since, focusing on simplicity and a clean out-of-box experience. Designed to make IoT available and accessible to a broad audience, AWS IoT 1-Click is now generally available, along with new IoT buttons from AWS and AT&T.

I sat down with the dev team a month or two ago to learn about the service so that I could start thinking about my blog post. During the meeting they gave me a pair of IoT buttons and I started to think about some creative ways to put them to use. Here are a few that I came up with:

Help Request – Earlier this month I spent a very pleasant weekend at the HackTillDawn hackathon in Los Angeles. As the participants were hacking away, they occasionally had questions about AWS, machine learning, Amazon SageMaker, and AWS DeepLens. While we had plenty of AWS Solution Architects on hand (decked out in fashionable & distinctive AWS shirts for easy identification), I imagined an IoT button for each team. Pressing the button would alert the SA crew via SMS and direct them to the proper table.

Camera ControlTim Bray and I were in the AWS video studio, prepping for the first episode of Tim’s series on AWS Messaging. Minutes before we opened the Twitch stream I realized that we did not have a clean, unobtrusive way to ask the camera operator to switch to a closeup view. Again, I imagined that a couple of IoT buttons would allow us to make the request.

Remote Dog Treat Dispenser – My dog barks every time a stranger opens the gate in front of our house. While it is great to have confirmation that my Ring doorbell is working, I would like to be able to press a button and dispense a treat so that Luna stops barking!

Homes, offices, factories, schools, vehicles, and health care facilities can all benefit from IoT buttons and other simple IoT devices, all managed using AWS IoT 1-Click.

All About AWS IoT 1-Click
As I said earlier, we have been focusing on simplicity and a clean out-of-box experience. Here’s what that means:

Architects can dream up applications for inexpensive, low-powered devices.

Developers don’t need to write any device-level code. They can make use of pre-built actions, which send email or SMS messages, or write their own custom actions using AWS Lambda functions.

Installers don’t have to install certificates or configure cloud endpoints on newly acquired devices, and don’t have to worry about firmware updates.

Administrators can monitor the overall status and health of each device, and can arrange to receive alerts when a device nears the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced, using a single interface that spans device types and manufacturers.

I’ll show you how easy this is in just a moment. But first, let’s talk about the current set of devices that are supported by AWS IoT 1-Click.

Who’s Got the Button?
We’re launching with support for two types of buttons (both pictured above). Both types of buttons are pre-configured with X.509 certificates, communicate to the cloud over secure connections, and are ready to use.

The AWS IoT Enterprise Button communicates via Wi-Fi. It has a 2000-click lifetime, encrypts outbound data using TLS, and can be configured using BLE and our mobile app. It retails for $19.99 (shipping and handling not included) and can be used in the United States, Europe, and Japan.

The AT&T LTE-M Button communicates via the LTE-M cellular network. It has a 1500-click lifetime, and also encrypts outbound data using TLS. The device and the bundled data plan is available an an introductory price of $29.99 (shipping and handling not included), and can be used in the United States.

We are very interested in working with device manufacturers in order to make even more shapes, sizes, and types of devices (badge readers, asset trackers, motion detectors, and industrial sensors, to name a few) available to our customers. Our team will be happy to tell you about our provisioning tools and our facility for pushing OTA (over the air) updates to large fleets of devices; you can contact them at [email protected].

AWS IoT 1-Click Concepts
I’m eager to show you how to use AWS IoT 1-Click and the buttons, but need to introduce a few concepts first.

Device – A button or other item that can send messages. Each device is uniquely identified by a serial number.

Placement Template – Describes a like-minded collection of devices to be deployed. Specifies the action to be performed and lists the names of custom attributes for each device.

Placement – A device that has been deployed. Referring to placements instead of devices gives you the freedom to replace and upgrade devices with minimal disruption. Each placement can include values for custom attributes such as a location (“Building 8, 3rd Floor, Room 1337”) or a purpose (“Coffee Request Button”).

Action – The AWS Lambda function to invoke when the button is pressed. You can write a function from scratch, or you can make use of a pair of predefined functions that send an email or an SMS message. The actions have access to the attributes; you can, for example, send an SMS message with the text “Urgent need for coffee in Building 8, 3rd Floor, Room 1337.”

Getting Started with AWS IoT 1-Click
Let’s set up an IoT button using the AWS IoT 1-Click Console:

If I didn’t have any buttons I could click Buy devices to get some. But, I do have some, so I click Claim devices to move ahead. I enter the device ID or claim code for my AT&T button and click Claim (I can enter multiple claim codes or device IDs if I want):

The AWS buttons can be claimed using the console or the mobile app; the first step is to use the mobile app to configure the button to use my Wi-Fi:

Then I scan the barcode on the box and click the button to complete the process of claiming the device. Both of my buttons are now visible in the console:

I am now ready to put them to use. I click on Projects, and then Create a project:

I name and describe my project, and click Next to proceed:

Now I define a device template, along with names and default values for the placement attributes. Here’s how I set up a device template (projects can contain several, but I just need one):

The action has two mandatory parameters (phone number and SMS message) built in; I add three more (Building, Room, and Floor) and click Create project:

I’m almost ready to ask for some coffee! The next step is to associate my buttons with this project by creating a placement for each one. I click Create placements to proceed. I name each placement, select the device to associate with it, and then enter values for the attributes that I established for the project. I can also add additional attributes that are peculiar to this placement:

I can inspect my project and see that everything looks good:

I click on the buttons and the SMS messages appear:

I can monitor device activity in the AWS IoT 1-Click Console:

And also in the Lambda Console:

The Lambda function itself is also accessible, and can be used as-is or customized:

As you can see, this is the code that lets me use {{*}}include all of the placement attributes in the message and {{Building}} (for example) to include a specific placement attribute.

Now Available
I’ve barely scratched the surface of this cool new service and I encourage you to give it a try (or a click) yourself. Buy a button or two, build something cool, and let me know all about it!

Pricing is based on the number of enabled devices in your account, measured monthly and pro-rated for partial months. Devices can be enabled or disabled at any time. See the AWS IoT 1-Click Pricing page for more info.

To learn more, visit the AWS IoT 1-Click home page or read the AWS IoT 1-Click documentation.



Some notes on eFail

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original https://blog.erratasec.com/2018/05/some-notes-on-efail.html

I’ve been busy trying to replicate the “eFail” PGP/SMIME bug. I thought I’d write up some notes.

PGP and S/MIME encrypt emails, so that eavesdroppers can’t read them. The bugs potentially allow eavesdroppers to take the encrypted emails they’ve captured and resend them to you, reformatted in a way that allows them to decrypt the messages.

Disable remote/external content in email

The most important defense is to disable “external” or “remote” content from being automatically loaded. This is when HTML-formatted emails attempt to load images from remote websites. This happens legitimately when they want to display images, but not fill up the email with them. But most of the time this is illegitimate, they hide images on the webpage in order to track you with unique IDs and cookies. For example, this is the code at the end of an email from politician Bernie Sanders to his supporters. Notice the long random number assigned to track me, and the width/height of this image is set to one pixel, so you don’t even see it:

Such trackers are so pernicious they are disabled by default in most email clients. This is an example of the settings in Thunderbird:

The problem is that as you read email messages, you often get frustrated by the fact the error messages and missing content, so you keep adding exceptions:

The correct defense against this eFail bug is to make sure such remote content is disabled and that you have no exceptions, or at least, no HTTP exceptions. HTTPS exceptions (those using SSL) are okay as long as they aren’t to a website the attacker controls. Unencrypted exceptions, though, the hacker can eavesdrop on, so it doesn’t matter if they control the website the requests go to. If the attacker can eavesdrop on your emails, they can probably eavesdrop on your HTTP sessions as well.

Some have recommended disabling PGP and S/MIME completely. That’s probably overkill. As long as the attacker can’t use the “remote content” in emails, you are fine. Likewise, some have recommend disabling HTML completely. That’s not even an option in any email client I’ve used — you can disable sending HTML emails, but not receiving them. It’s sufficient to just disable grabbing remote content, not the rest of HTML email rendering.

I couldn’t replicate the direct exfiltration

There rare two related bugs. One allows direct exfiltration, which appends the decrypted PGP email onto the end of an IMG tag (like one of those tracking tags), allowing the entire message to be decrypted.

An example of this is the following email. This is a standard HTML email message consisting of multiple parts. The trick is that the IMG tag in the first part starts the URL (blog.robertgraham.com/…) but doesn’t end it. It has the starting quotes in front of the URL but no ending quotes. The ending will in the next chunk.

The next chunk isn’t HTML, though, it’s PGP. The PGP extension (in my case, Enignmail) will detect this and automatically decrypt it. In this case, it’s some previous email message I’ve received the attacker captured by eavesdropping, who then pastes the contents into this email message in order to get it decrypted.

What should happen at this point is that Thunderbird will generate a request (if “remote content” is enabled) to the blog.robertgraham.com server with the decrypted contents of the PGP email appended to it. But that’s not what happens. Instead, I get this:

I am indeed getting weird stuff in the URL (the bit after the GET /), but it’s not the PGP decrypted message. Instead what’s going on is that when Thunderbird puts together a “multipart/mixed” message, it adds it’s own HTML tags consisting of lines between each part. In the email client it looks like this:

The HTML code it adds looks like:

That’s what you see in the above URL, all this code up to the first quotes. Those quotes terminate the quotes in the URL from the first multipart section, causing the rest of the content to be ignored (as far as being sent as part of the URL).

So at least for the latest version of Thunderbird, you are accidentally safe, even if you have “remote content” enabled. Though, this is only according to my tests, there may be a work around to this that hackers could exploit.


In the old days, email was sent plaintext over the wire so that it could be passively eavesdropped on. Nowadays, most providers send it via “STARTTLS”, which sorta encrypts it. Attackers can still intercept such email, but they have to do so actively, using man-in-the-middle. Such active techniques can be detected if you are careful and look for them.
Some organizations don’t care. Apparently, some nation states are just blocking all STARTTLS and forcing email to be sent unencrypted. Others do care. The NSA will passively sniff all the email they can in nations like Iraq, but they won’t actively intercept STARTTLS messages, for fear of getting caught.
The consequence is that it’s much less likely that somebody has been eavesdropping on you, passively grabbing all your PGP/SMIME emails. If you fear they have been, you should look (e.g. send emails from GMail and see if they are intercepted by sniffing the wire).

You’ll know if you are getting hacked

If somebody attacks you using eFail, you’ll know. You’ll get an email message formatted this way, with multipart/mixed components, some with corrupt HTML, some encrypted via PGP. This means that for the most part, your risk is that you’ll be attacked only once — the hacker will only be able to get one message through and decrypt it before you notice that something is amiss. Though to be fair, they can probably include all the emails they want decrypted as attachments to the single email they sent you, so the risk isn’t necessarily that you’ll only get one decrypted.
As mentioned above, a lot of attackers (e.g. the NSA) won’t attack you if its so easy to get caught. Other attackers, though, like anonymous hackers, don’t care.
Somebody ought to write a plugin to Thunderbird to detect this.


It only works if attackers have already captured your emails (though, that’s why you use PGP/SMIME in the first place, to guard against that).
It only works if you’ve enabled your email client to automatically grab external/remote content.
It seems to not be easily reproducible in all cases.
Instead of disabling PGP/SMIME, you should make sure your email client hast remote/external content disabled — that’s a huge privacy violation even without this bug.

Notes: The default email client on the Mac enables remote content by default, which is bad:

Enhanced Domain Protections for Amazon CloudFront Requests

Post Syndicated from Colm MacCarthaigh original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/enhanced-domain-protections-for-amazon-cloudfront-requests/

Over the coming weeks, we’ll be adding enhanced domain protections to Amazon CloudFront. The short version is this: the new measures are designed to ensure that requests handled by CloudFront are handled on behalf of legitimate domain owners.

Using CloudFront to receive traffic for a domain you aren’t authorized to use is already a violation of our AWS Terms of Service. When we become aware of this type of activity, we deal with it behind the scenes by disabling abusive accounts. Now we’re integrating checks directly into the CloudFront API and Content Distribution service, as well.

Enhanced Protection against Dangling DNS entries
To use CloudFront with your domain, you must configure your domain to point at CloudFront. You may use a traditional CNAME, or an Amazon Route 53 “ALIAS” record.

A problem can arise if you delete your CloudFront distribution, but leave your DNS still pointing at CloudFront, popularly known as a “dangling” DNS entry. Thankfully, this is very rare, as the domain will no longer work, but we occasionally see customers who leave their old domains dormant. This can also happen if you leave this kind of “dangling” DNS entry pointing at other infrastructure you no longer control. For example, if you leave a domain pointing at an IP address that you don’t control, then there is a risk that someone may come along and “claim” traffic destined for your domain.

In an even more rare set of circumstances, an abuser can exploit a subdomain of a domain that you are actively using. For example, if a customer left “images.example.com” dangling and pointing to a deleted CloudFront distribution which is no longer in use, but they still actively use the parent domain “example.com”, then an abuser could come along and register “images.example.com” as an alternative name on their own distribution and claim traffic that they aren’t entitled to. This also means that cookies may be set and intercepted for HTTP traffic potentially including the parent domain. HTTPS traffic remains protected if you’ve removed the certificate associated with the original CloudFront distribution.

Of course, the best fix for this kind of risk is not to leave dangling DNS entries in the first place. Earlier in February, 2018, we added a new warning to our systems. With this warning, if you remove an alternate domain name from a distribution, you are reminded to delete any DNS entries that may still be pointing at CloudFront.

We also have long-standing checks in the CloudFront API that ensure this kind of domain claiming can’t occur when you are using wildcard domains. If you attempt to add *.example.com to your CloudFront distribution, but another account has already registered www.example.com, then the attempt will fail.

With the new enhanced domain protection, CloudFront will now also check your DNS whenever you remove an alternate domain. If we determine that the domain is still pointing at your CloudFront distribution, the API call will fail and no other accounts will be able to claim this traffic in the future.

Enhanced Protection against Domain Fronting
CloudFront will also be soon be implementing enhanced protections against so-called “Domain Fronting”. Domain Fronting is when a non-standard client makes a TLS/SSL connection to a certain name, but then makes a HTTPS request for an unrelated name. For example, the TLS connection may connect to “www.example.com” but then issue a request for “www.example.org”.

In certain circumstances this is normal and expected. For example, browsers can re-use persistent connections for any domain that is listed in the same SSL Certificate, and these are considered related domains. But in other cases, tools including malware can use this technique between completely unrelated domains to evade restrictions and blocks that can be imposed at the TLS/SSL layer.

To be clear, this technique can’t be used to impersonate domains. The clients are non-standard and are working around the usual TLS/SSL checks that ordinary clients impose. But clearly, no customer ever wants to find that someone else is masquerading as their innocent, ordinary domain. Although these cases are also already handled as a breach of our AWS Terms of Service, in the coming weeks we will be checking that the account that owns the certificate we serve for a particular connection always matches the account that owns the request we handle on that connection. As ever, the security of our customers is our top priority, and we will continue to provide enhanced protection against misconfigurations and abuse from unrelated parties.

Interested in additional AWS Security news? Follow the AWS Security Blog on Twitter.

New .BOT gTLD from Amazon

Post Syndicated from Randall Hunt original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-bot-gtld-from-amazon/

Today, I’m excited to announce the launch of .BOT, a new generic top-level domain (gTLD) from Amazon. Customers can use .BOT domains to provide an identity and portal for their bots. Fitness bots, slack bots, e-commerce bots, and more can all benefit from an easy-to-access .BOT domain. The phrase “bot” was the 4th most registered domain keyword within the .COM TLD in 2016 with more than 6000 domains per month. A .BOT domain allows customers to provide a definitive internet identity for their bots as well as enhancing SEO performance.

At the time of this writing .BOT domains start at $75 each and must be verified and published with a supported tool like: Amazon Lex, Botkit Studio, Dialogflow, Gupshup, Microsoft Bot Framework, or Pandorabots. You can expect support for more tools over time and if your favorite bot framework isn’t supported feel free to contact us here: [email protected].

Below, I’ll walk through the experience of registering and provisioning a domain for my bot, whereml.bot. Then we’ll look at setting up the domain as a hosted zone in Amazon Route 53. Let’s get started.

Registering a .BOT domain

First, I’ll head over to https://amazonregistry.com/bot, type in a new domain, and click magnifying class to make sure my domain is available and get taken to the registration wizard.

Next, I have the opportunity to choose how I want to verify my bot. I build all of my bots with Amazon Lex so I’ll select that in the drop down and get prompted for instructions specific to AWS. If I had my bot hosted somewhere else I would need to follow the unique verification instructions for that particular framework.

To verify my Lex bot I need to give the Amazon Registry permissions to invoke the bot and verify it’s existence. I’ll do this by creating an AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) cross account role and providing the AmazonLexReadOnly permissions to that role. This is easily accomplished in the AWS Console. Be sure to provide the account number and external ID shown on the registration page.

Now I’ll add read only permissions to our Amazon Lex bots.

I’ll give my role a fancy name like DotBotCrossAccountVerifyRole and a description so it’s easy to remember why I made this then I’ll click create to create the role and be transported to the role summary page.

Finally, I’ll copy the ARN from the created role and save it for my next step.

Here I’ll add all the details of my Amazon Lex bot. If you haven’t made a bot yet you can follow the tutorial to build a basic bot. I can refer to any alias I’ve deployed but if I just want to grab the latest published bot I can pass in $LATEST as the alias. Finally I’ll click Validate and proceed to registering my domain.

Amazon Registry works with a partner EnCirca to register our domains so we’ll select them and optionally grab Site Builder. I know how to sling some HTML and Javascript together so I’ll pass on the Site Builder side of things.


After I click continue we’re taken to EnCirca’s website to finalize the registration and with any luck within a few minutes of purchasing and completing the registration we should receive an email with some good news:

Alright, now that we have a domain name let’s find out how to host things on it.

Using Amazon Route53 with a .BOT domain

Amazon Route 53 is a highly available and scalable DNS with robust APIs, healthchecks, service discovery, and many other features. I definitely want to use this to host my new domain. The first thing I’ll do is navigate to the Route53 console and create a hosted zone with the same name as my domain.

Great! Now, I need to take the Name Server (NS) records that Route53 created for me and use EnCirca’s portal to add these as the authoritative nameservers on the domain.

Now I just add my records to my hosted zone and I should be able to serve traffic! Way cool, I’ve got my very own .bot domain for @WhereML.

Next Steps

  • I could and should add to the security of my site by creating TLS certificates for people who intend to access my domain over TLS. Luckily with AWS Certificate Manager (ACM) this is extremely straightforward and I’ve got my subdomains and root domain verified in just a few clicks.
  • I could create a cloudfront distrobution to front an S3 static single page application to host my entire chatbot and invoke Amazon Lex with a cognito identity right from the browser.


Security updates for Monday

Post Syndicated from ris original https://lwn.net/Articles/752544/rss

Security updates have been issued by Debian (gunicorn, libreoffice, libsdl2-image, ruby1.8, and ruby1.9.1), Fedora (java-1.8.0-openjdk, jgraphx, memcached, nghttp2, perl, perl-Module-CoreList, and roundcubemail), Gentoo (clamav, librelp, mbedtls, quagga, tenshi, and unadf), Mageia (freeplane, libcdio, libtiff, thunderbird, and zsh), openSUSE (cfitsio, chromium, mbedtls, and nextcloud), and Red Hat (chromium-browser, kernel, and rh-perl524-perl).

RDS for Oracle: Extending Outbound Network Access to use SSL/TLS

Post Syndicated from Surya Nallu original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/rds-for-oracle-extending-outbound-network-access-to-use-ssltls/

In December 2016, we launched the Outbound Network Access functionality for Amazon RDS for Oracle, enabling customers to use their RDS for Oracle database instances to communicate with external web endpoints using the utl_http and utl tcp packages, and sending emails through utl_smtp. We extended the functionality by adding the option of using custom DNS servers, allowing such outbound network accesses to make use of any DNS server a customer chooses to use. These releases enabled HTTP, TCP and SMTP communication originating out of RDS for Oracle instances – limited to non-secure (non-SSL) mediums.

To overcome the limitation over SSL connections, we recently published a whitepaper, that guides through the process of creating customized Oracle wallet bundles on your RDS for Oracle instances. By making use of such wallets, you can now extend the Outbound Network Access capability to have external communications happen over secure (SSL/TLS) connections. This opens up new use cases for your RDS for Oracle instances.

With the right set of certificates imported into your RDS for Oracle instances (through Oracle wallets), your database instances can now:

  • Communicate with a HTTPS endpoint: Using utl_http, access a resource such as https://status.aws.amazon.com/robots.txt
  • Download files from Amazon S3 securely: Using a presigned URL from Amazon S3, you can now download any file over SSL
  • Extending Oracle Database links to use SSL: Database links between RDS for Oracle instances can now use SSL as long as the instances have the SSL option installed
  • Sending email over SMTPS:
    • You can now integrate with Amazon SES to send emails from your database instances and any other generic SMTPS with which the provider can be integrated

These are just a few high-level examples of new use cases that have opened up with the whitepaper. As a reminder, always ensure to have best security practices in place when making use of Outbound Network Access (detailed in the whitepaper).

About the Author

Surya Nallu is a Software Development Engineer on the Amazon RDS for Oracle team.

Securing messages published to Amazon SNS with AWS PrivateLink

Post Syndicated from Otavio Ferreira original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/securing-messages-published-to-amazon-sns-with-aws-privatelink/

Amazon Simple Notification Service (SNS) now supports VPC Endpoints (VPCE) via AWS PrivateLink. You can use VPC Endpoints to privately publish messages to SNS topics, from an Amazon Virtual Private Cloud (VPC), without traversing the public internet. When you use AWS PrivateLink, you don’t need to set up an Internet Gateway (IGW), Network Address Translation (NAT) device, or Virtual Private Network (VPN) connection. You don’t need to use public IP addresses, either.

VPC Endpoints doesn’t require code changes and can bring additional security to Pub/Sub Messaging use cases that rely on SNS. VPC Endpoints helps promote data privacy and is aligned with assurance programs, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), FedRAMP, and others discussed below.

VPC Endpoints for SNS in action

Here’s how VPC Endpoints for SNS works. The following example is based on a banking system that processes mortgage applications. This banking system, which has been deployed to a VPC, publishes each mortgage application to an SNS topic. The SNS topic then fans out the mortgage application message to two subscribing AWS Lambda functions:

  • Save-Mortgage-Application stores the application in an Amazon DynamoDB table. As the mortgage application contains personally identifiable information (PII), the message must not traverse the public internet.
  • Save-Credit-Report checks the applicant’s credit history against an external Credit Reporting Agency (CRA), then stores the final credit report in an Amazon S3 bucket.

The following diagram depicts the underlying architecture for this banking system:
Diagram depicting the architecture for the example banking system
To protect applicants’ data, the financial institution responsible for developing this banking system needed a mechanism to prevent PII data from traversing the internet when publishing mortgage applications from their VPC to the SNS topic. Therefore, they created a VPC endpoint to enable their publisher Amazon EC2 instance to privately connect to the SNS API. As shown in the diagram, when the VPC endpoint is created, an Elastic Network Interface (ENI) is automatically placed in the same VPC subnet as the publisher EC2 instance. This ENI exposes a private IP address that is used as the entry point for traffic destined to SNS. This ensures that traffic between the VPC and SNS doesn’t leave the Amazon network.

Set up VPC Endpoints for SNS

The process for creating a VPC endpoint to privately connect to SNS doesn’t require code changes: access the VPC Management Console, navigate to the Endpoints section, and create a new Endpoint. Three attributes are required:

  • The SNS service name.
  • The VPC and Availability Zones (AZs) from which you’ll publish your messages.
  • The Security Group (SG) to be associated with the endpoint network interface. The Security Group controls the traffic to the endpoint network interface from resources in your VPC. If you don’t specify a Security Group, the default Security Group for your VPC will be associated.

Help ensure your security and compliance

SNS can support messaging use cases in regulated market segments, such as healthcare provider systems subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and financial systems subject to the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), and is also in-scope with the following Assurance Programs:

The SNS API is served through HTTP Secure (HTTPS), and encrypts all messages in transit with Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates issued by Amazon Trust Services (ATS). The certificates verify the identity of the SNS API server when encrypted connections are established. The certificates help establish proof that your SNS API client (SDK, CLI) is communicating securely with the SNS API server. A Certificate Authority (CA) issues the certificate to a specific domain. Hence, when a domain presents a certificate that’s issued by a trusted CA, the SNS API client knows it’s safe to make the connection.


VPC Endpoints can increase the security of your pub/sub messaging use cases by allowing you to publish messages to SNS topics, from instances in your VPC, without traversing the internet. Setting up VPC Endpoints for SNS doesn’t require any code changes because the SNS API address remains the same.

VPC Endpoints for SNS is now available in all AWS Regions where AWS PrivateLink is available. For information on pricing and regional availability, visit the VPC pricing page.
For more information and on-boarding, see Publishing to Amazon SNS Topics from Amazon Virtual Private Cloud in the SNS documentation.

If you have comments about this post, submit them in the Comments section below. If you have questions about anything in this post, start a new thread on the Amazon SNS forum or contact AWS Support.

Want more AWS Security news? Follow us on Twitter.

New – Encryption of Data in Transit for Amazon EFS

Post Syndicated from Jeff Barr original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-encryption-of-data-in-transit-for-amazon-efs/

Amazon Elastic File System was designed to be the file system of choice for cloud-native applications that require shared access to file-based storage. We launched EFS in mid-2016 and have added several important features since then including on-premises access via Direct Connect and encryption of data at rest. We have also made EFS available in additional AWS Regions, most recently US West (Northern California). As was the case with EFS itself, these enhancements were made in response to customer feedback, and reflect our desire to serve an ever-widening customer base.

Encryption in Transit
Today we are making EFS even more useful with the addition of support for encryption of data in transit. When used in conjunction with the existing support for encryption of data at rest, you now have the ability to protect your stored files using a defense-in-depth security strategy.

In order to make it easy for you to implement encryption in transit, we are also releasing an EFS mount helper. The helper (available in source code and RPM form) takes care of setting up a TLS tunnel to EFS, and also allows you to mount file systems by ID. The two features are independent; you can use the helper to mount file systems by ID even if you don’t make use of encryption in transit. The helper also supplies a recommended set of default options to the actual mount command.

Setting up Encryption
I start by installing the EFS mount helper on my Amazon Linux instance:

$ sudo yum install -y amazon-efs-utils

Next, I visit the EFS Console and capture the file system ID:

Then I specify the ID (and the TLS option) to mount the file system:

$ sudo mount -t efs fs-92758f7b -o tls /mnt/efs

And that’s it! The encryption is transparent and has an almost negligible impact on data transfer speed.

Available Now
You can start using encryption in transit today in all AWS Regions where EFS is available.

The mount helper is available for Amazon Linux. If you are running another distribution of Linux you will need to clone the GitHub repo and build your own RPM, as described in the README.


Engineering deep dive: Encoding of SCTs in certificates

Post Syndicated from Let's Encrypt - Free SSL/TLS Certificates original https://letsencrypt.org/2018/04/04/sct-encoding.html

<p>Let&rsquo;s Encrypt recently <a href="https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/signed-certificate-timestamps-embedded-in-certificates/57187">launched SCT embedding in
This feature allows browsers to check that a certificate was submitted to a
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_Transparency">Certificate Transparency</a>
log. As part of the launch, we did a thorough review
that the encoding of Signed Certificate Timestamps (SCTs) in our certificates
matches the relevant specifications. In this post, I&rsquo;ll dive into the details.
You&rsquo;ll learn more about X.509, ASN.1, DER, and TLS encoding, with references to
the relevant RFCs.</p>

<p>Certificate Transparency offers three ways to deliver SCTs to a browser: In a
TLS extension, in stapled OCSP, or embedded in a certificate. We chose to
implement the embedding method because it would just work for Let&rsquo;s Encrypt
subscribers without additional work. In the SCT embedding method, we submit
a &ldquo;precertificate&rdquo; with a <a href="#poison">poison extension</a> to a set of
CT logs, and get back SCTs. We then issue a real certificate based on the
precertificate, with two changes: The poison extension is removed, and the SCTs
obtained earlier are added in another extension.</p>

<p>Given a certificate, let&rsquo;s first look for the SCT list extension. According to CT (<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6962#section-3.3">RFC 6962
section 3.3</a>),
the extension OID for a list of SCTs is <code></code>. An <a href="http://www.hl7.org/Oid/information.cfm">OID (object
ID)</a> is a series of integers, hierarchically
assigned and globally unique. They are used extensively in X.509, for instance
to uniquely identify extensions.</p>

<p>We can <a href="https://acme-v01.api.letsencrypt.org/acme/cert/031f2484307c9bc511b3123cb236a480d451">download an example certificate</a>,
and view it using OpenSSL (if your OpenSSL is old, it may not display the
detailed information):</p>

<pre><code>$ openssl x509 -noout -text -inform der -in Downloads/031f2484307c9bc511b3123cb236a480d451

CT Precertificate SCTs:
Signed Certificate Timestamp:
Version : v1(0)
Log ID : DB:74:AF:EE:CB:29:EC:B1:FE:CA:3E:71:6D:2C:E5:B9:
Timestamp : Mar 29 18:45:07.993 2018 GMT
Extensions: none
Signature : ecdsa-with-SHA256
Signed Certificate Timestamp:
Version : v1(0)
Log ID : 29:3C:51:96:54:C8:39:65:BA:AA:50:FC:58:07:D4:B7:
Timestamp : Mar 29 18:45:08.010 2018 GMT
Extensions: none
Signature : ecdsa-with-SHA256

<p>Now let&rsquo;s go a little deeper. How is that extension represented in
the certificate? Certificates are expressed in
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Syntax_Notation_One">ASN.1</a>,
which generally refers to both a language for expressing data structures
and a set of formats for encoding them. The most common format,
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.690#DER_encoding">DER</a>,
is a tag-length-value format. That is, to encode an object, first you write
down a tag representing its type (usually one byte), then you write
down a number expressing how long the object is, then you write down
the object contents. This is recursive: An object can contain multiple
objects within it, each of which has its own tag, length, and value.</p>

<p>One of the cool things about DER and other tag-length-value formats is that you
can decode them to some degree without knowing what they mean. For instance, I
can tell you that 0x30 means the data type &ldquo;SEQUENCE&rdquo; (a struct, in ASN.1
terms), and 0x02 means &ldquo;INTEGER&rdquo;, then give you this hex byte sequence to

<pre><code>30 06 02 01 03 02 01 0A

<p>You could tell me right away that decodes to:</p>


<p>Try it yourself with this great <a href="https://lapo.it/asn1js/#300602010302010A">JavaScript ASN.1
decoder</a>. However, you wouldn&rsquo;t know
what those integers represent without the corresponding ASN.1 schema (or
&ldquo;module&rdquo;). For instance, if you knew that this was a piece of DogData, and the
schema was:</p>

<pre><code>DogData ::= SEQUENCE {
cutenessLevel INTEGER

<p>You&rsquo;d know this referred to a three-legged dog with a cuteness level of 10.</p>

<p>We can take some of this knowledge and apply it to our certificates. As a first
step, convert the above certificate to hex with
<code>xxd -ps &lt; Downloads/031f2484307c9bc511b3123cb236a480d451</code>. You can then copy
and paste the result into
<a href="https://lapo.it/asn1js">lapo.it/asn1js</a> (or use <a href="https://lapo.it/asn1js/#3082062F30820517A0030201020212031F2484307C9BC511B3123CB236A480D451300D06092A864886F70D01010B0500304A310B300906035504061302555331163014060355040A130D4C6574277320456E6372797074312330210603550403131A4C6574277320456E637279707420417574686F72697479205833301E170D3138303332393137343530375A170D3138303632373137343530375A302D312B3029060355040313223563396137662E6C652D746573742E686F66666D616E2D616E64726577732E636F6D30820122300D06092A864886F70D01010105000382010F003082010A0282010100BCEAE8F504D9D91FCFC69DB943254A7FED7C6A3C04E2D5C7DDD010CBBC555887274489CA4F432DCE6D7AB83D0D7BDB49C466FBCA93102DC63E0EB1FB2A0C50654FD90B81A6CB357F58E26E50F752BF7BFE9B56190126A47409814F59583BDD337DFB89283BE22E81E6DCE13B4E21FA6009FC8A7F903A17AB05C8BED85A715356837E849E571960A8999701EAE9CE0544EAAB936B790C3C35C375DB18E9AA627D5FA3579A0FB5F8079E4A5C9BE31C2B91A7F3A63AFDFEDB9BD4EA6668902417D286BE4BBE5E43CD9FE1B8954C06F21F5C5594FD3AB7D7A9CBD6ABF19774D652FD35C5718C25A3BA1967846CED70CDBA95831CF1E09FF7B8014E63030CE7A776750203010001A382032A30820326300E0603551D0F0101FF0404030205A0301D0603551D250416301406082B0601050507030106082B06010505070302300C0603551D130101FF04023000301D0603551D0E041604148B3A21ABADF50C4B30DCCD822724D2C4B9BA29E3301F0603551D23041830168014A84A6A63047DDDBAE6D139B7A64565EFF3A8ECA1306F06082B0601050507010104633061302E06082B060105050730018622687474703A2F2F6F6373702E696E742D78332E6C657473656E63727970742E6F7267302F06082B060105050730028623687474703A2F2F636572742E696E742D78332E6C657473656E63727970742E6F72672F302D0603551D110426302482223563396137662E6C652D746573742E686F66666D616E2D616E64726577732E636F6D3081FE0603551D200481F63081F33008060667810C0102013081E6060B2B0601040182DF130101013081D6302606082B06010505070201161A687474703A2F2F6370732E6C657473656E63727970742E6F72673081AB06082B0601050507020230819E0C819B54686973204365727469666963617465206D6179206F6E6C792062652072656C6965642075706F6E2062792052656C79696E67205061727469657320616E64206F6E6C7920696E206163636F7264616E636520776974682074686520436572746966696361746520506F6C69637920666F756E642061742068747470733A2F2F6C657473656E63727970742E6F72672F7265706F7369746F72792F30820104060A2B06010401D6790204020481F50481F200F0007500DB74AFEECB29ECB1FECA3E716D2CE5B9AABB36F7847183C75D9D4F37B61FBF64000001627313EB19000004030046304402207E1FCD1E9A2BD2A50A0C81E713033A0762340DA8F91EF27A48B3817640159CD30220659FE9F1D880E2E8F6B325BE9F18956D17C6CA8A6F2B12CB0F55FB70F759A419007700293C519654C83965BAAA50FC5807D4B76FBF587A2972DCA4C30CF4E54547F478000001627313EB2A0000040300483046022100AB72F1E4D6223EF87FC68491C208D29D4D57EBF47588BB7544D32F9537E2CEC10221008AFFC40CC6C4E3B24578DADE4F815ECBCE2D57A579342119A1E65BC7E5E69CE2300D06092A864886F70D01010B0500038201010095F87B663176776502F792DDD232C216943C7803876FCBEB46393A36354958134482E0AFEED39011618327C2F0203351758FEB420B73CE6C797B98F88076F409F3903F343D1F5D9540F41EF47EB39BD61B62873A44F00B7C8B593C6A416458CF4B5318F35235BC88EABBAA34F3E3F81BD3B047E982EE1363885E84F76F2F079F2B6EEB4ECB58EFE74C8DE7D54DE5C89C4FB5BB0694B837BD6F02BAFD5A6C007D1B93D25007BDA9B2BDBF82201FE1B76B628CE34E2D974E8E623EC57A5CB53B435DD4B9993ADF6BA3972F2B29D259594A94E17BBE06F34AAE5CF0F50297548C4DFFC5566136F78A3D3B324EAE931A14EB6BE6DA1D538E48CF077583C67B52E7E8">this handy link</a>). You can also run <code>openssl asn1parse -i -inform der -in Downloads/031f2484307c9bc511b3123cb236a480d451</code> to use OpenSSL&rsquo;s parser, which is less easy to use in some ways, but easier to copy and paste.</p>

<p>In the decoded data, we can find the OID <code></code>, indicating
the SCT list extension. Per <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#page-17">RFC 5280, section
4.1</a>, an extension is defined:</p>

<pre><code>Extension ::= SEQUENCE {
— contains the DER encoding of an ASN.1 value
— corresponding to the extension type identified
— by extnID

<p>We&rsquo;ve found the <code>extnID</code>. The &ldquo;critical&rdquo; field is omitted because it has the
default value (false). Next up is the <code>extnValue</code>. This has the type
<code>OCTET STRING</code>, which has the tag &ldquo;0x04&rdquo;. <code>OCTET STRING</code> means &ldquo;here&rsquo;s
a bunch of bytes!&rdquo; In this case, as described by the spec, those bytes
happen to contain more DER. This is a fairly common pattern in X.509
to deal with parameterized data. For instance, this allows defining a
structure for extensions without knowing ahead of time all the structures
that a future extension might want to carry in its value. If you&rsquo;re a C
programmer, think of it as a <code>void*</code> for data structures. If you prefer Go,
think of it as an <code>interface{}</code>.</p>

<p>Here&rsquo;s that <code>extnValue</code>:</p>

<pre><code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

<p>That&rsquo;s tag &ldquo;0x04&rdquo;, meaning <code>OCTET STRING</code>, followed by &ldquo;0x81 0xF5&rdquo;, meaning
&ldquo;this string is 245 bytes long&rdquo; (the 0x81 prefix is part of <a href="#variable-length">variable length
number encoding</a>).</p>

<p>According to <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6962#section-3.3">RFC 6962, section
3.3</a>, &ldquo;obtained SCTs
can be directly embedded in the final certificate, by encoding the
SignedCertificateTimestampList structure as an ASN.1 <code>OCTET STRING</code>
and inserting the resulting data in the TBSCertificate as an X.509v3
certificate extension&rdquo;</p>

<p>So, we have an <code>OCTET STRING</code>, all&rsquo;s good, right? Except if you remove the
tag and length from extnValue to get its value, you&rsquo;re left with:</p>

<pre><code>04 81 F2 00F0007500DB74AFEEC…

<p>There&rsquo;s that &ldquo;0x04&rdquo; tag again, but with a shorter length. Why
do we nest one <code>OCTET STRING</code> inside another? It&rsquo;s because the
contents of extnValue are required by RFC 5280 to be valid DER, but a
SignedCertificateTimestampList is not encoded using DER (more on that
in a minute). So, by RFC 6962, a SignedCertificateTimestampList is wrapped in an
<code>OCTET STRING</code>, which is wrapped in another <code>OCTET STRING</code> (the extnValue).</p>

<p>Once we decode that second <code>OCTET STRING</code>, we&rsquo;re left with the contents:</p>


<p>&ldquo;0x00&rdquo; isn&rsquo;t a valid tag in DER. What is this? It&rsquo;s TLS encoding. This is
defined in <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246#section-4">RFC 5246, section 4</a>
(the TLS 1.2 RFC). TLS encoding, like ASN.1, has both a way to define data
structures and a way to encode those structures. TLS encoding differs
from DER in that there are no tags, and lengths are only encoded when necessary for
variable-length arrays. Within an encoded structure, the type of a field is determined by
its position, rather than by a tag. This means that TLS-encoded structures are
more compact than DER structures, but also that they can&rsquo;t be processed without
knowing the corresponding schema. For instance, here&rsquo;s the top-level schema from
<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6962#section-3.3">RFC 6962, section 3.3</a>:</p>

<pre><code> The contents of the ASN.1 OCTET STRING embedded in an OCSP extension
or X509v3 certificate extension are as follows:

opaque SerializedSCT&lt;1..2^16-1&gt;;

struct {
SerializedSCT sct_list &lt;1..2^16-1&gt;;
} SignedCertificateTimestampList;

Here, &quot;SerializedSCT&quot; is an opaque byte string that contains the
serialized TLS structure.

<p>Right away, we&rsquo;ve found one of those variable-length arrays. The length of such
an array (in bytes) is always represented by a length field just big enough to
hold the max array size. The max size of an <code>sct_list</code> is 65535 bytes, so the
length field is two bytes wide. Sure enough, those first two bytes are &ldquo;0x00
0xF0&rdquo;, or 240 in decimal. In other words, this <code>sct_list</code> will have 240 bytes. We
don&rsquo;t yet know how many SCTs will be in it. That will become clear only by
continuing to parse the encoded data and seeing where each struct ends (spoiler
alert: there are two SCTs!).</p>

<p>Now we know the first SerializedSCT starts with <code>0075…</code>. SerializedSCT
is itself a variable-length field, this time containing <code>opaque</code> bytes (much like <code>OCTET STRING</code>
back in the ASN.1 world). Like SignedCertificateTimestampList, it has a max size
of 65535 bytes, so we pull off the first two bytes and discover that the first
SerializedSCT is 0x0075 (117 decimal) bytes long. Here&rsquo;s the whole thing, in


<p>This can be decoded using the TLS encoding struct defined in <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6962#page-13">RFC 6962, section

<pre><code>enum { v1(0), (255) }

struct {
opaque key_id[32];
} LogID;

opaque CtExtensions&lt;0..2^16-1&gt;;

struct {
Version sct_version;
LogID id;
uint64 timestamp;
CtExtensions extensions;
digitally-signed struct {
Version sct_version;
SignatureType signature_type = certificate_timestamp;
uint64 timestamp;
LogEntryType entry_type;
select(entry_type) {
case x509_entry: ASN.1Cert;
case precert_entry: PreCert;
} signed_entry;
CtExtensions extensions;
} SignedCertificateTimestamp;

<p>Breaking that down:</p>

<pre><code># Version sct_version v1(0)
# LogID id (aka opaque key_id[32])
# uint64 timestamp (milliseconds since the epoch)
# CtExtensions extensions (zero-length array)
# digitally-signed struct

<p>To understand the &ldquo;digitally-signed struct,&rdquo; we need to turn back to <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246#section-4.7">RFC 5246,
section 4.7</a>. It says:</p>

<pre><code>A digitally-signed element is encoded as a struct DigitallySigned:

struct {
SignatureAndHashAlgorithm algorithm;
opaque signature&lt;0..2^16-1&gt;;
} DigitallySigned;

<p>And in <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246#section-">section</a>:</p>

<pre><code>enum {
none(0), md5(1), sha1(2), sha224(3), sha256(4), sha384(5),
sha512(6), (255)
} HashAlgorithm;

enum { anonymous(0), rsa(1), dsa(2), ecdsa(3), (255) }

struct {
HashAlgorithm hash;
SignatureAlgorithm signature;
} SignatureAndHashAlgorithm;

<p>We have &ldquo;0x0403&rdquo;, which corresponds to sha256(4) and ecdsa(3). The next two
bytes, &ldquo;0x0046&rdquo;, tell us the length of the &ldquo;opaque signature&rdquo; field, 70 bytes in
decimal. To decode the signature, we reference <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4492#page-20">RFC 4492 section
5.4</a>, which says:</p>

<pre><code>The digitally-signed element is encoded as an opaque vector &lt;0..2^16-1&gt;, the
contents of which are the DER encoding corresponding to the
following ASN.1 notation.

Ecdsa-Sig-Value ::= SEQUENCE {

<p>Having dived through two layers of TLS encoding, we are now back in ASN.1 land!
<a href="https://lapo.it/asn1js/#304402207E1FCD1E9A2BD2A50A0C81E713033A0762340DA8F91EF27A48B3817640159CD30220659FE9F1D880E2E8F6B325BE9F18956D17C6CA8A6F2B12CB0F55FB70F759A419">decode</a>
the remaining bytes into a SEQUENCE containing two INTEGERS. And we&rsquo;re done! Here&rsquo;s the whole
extension decoded:</p>

<pre><code># Extension SEQUENCE – RFC 5280
# length 0x0104 bytes (260 decimal)
# length 0x0A bytes (10 decimal)
# value (
# length 0xF5 bytes (245 decimal)
# OCTET STRING (embedded) – RFC 6962
# length 0xF2 bytes (242 decimal)
# Beginning of TLS encoded SignedCertificateTimestampList – RFC 5246 / 6962
# length 0xF0 bytes
# opaque SerializedSCT&lt;1..2^16-1&gt;
# length 0x75 bytes
# Version sct_version v1(0)
# LogID id (aka opaque key_id[32])
# uint64 timestamp (milliseconds since the epoch)
# CtExtensions extensions (zero-length array)
# digitally-signed struct – RFC 5426
# SignatureAndHashAlgorithm (ecdsa-sha256)
# opaque signature&lt;0..2^16-1&gt;;
# length 0x0046
# DER-encoded Ecdsa-Sig-Value – RFC 4492
44 # length 0x44 bytes
02 # r INTEGER
20 # length 0x20 bytes
# value
02 # s INTEGER
20 # length 0x20 bytes
# value
# opaque SerializedSCT&lt;1..2^16-1&gt;
# length 0x77 bytes
# Version sct_version v1(0)
# LogID id (aka opaque key_id[32])
# uint64 timestamp (milliseconds since the epoch)
# CtExtensions extensions (zero-length array)
# digitally-signed struct – RFC 5426
# SignatureAndHashAlgorithm (ecdsa-sha256)
# opaque signature&lt;0..2^16-1&gt;;
# length 0x0048
# DER-encoded Ecdsa-Sig-Value – RFC 4492
46 # length 0x46 bytes
02 # r INTEGER
21 # length 0x21 bytes
# value
02 # s INTEGER
21 # length 0x21 bytes
# value

<p>One surprising thing you might notice: In the first SCT, <code>r</code> and <code>s</code> are twenty
bytes long. In the second SCT, they are both twenty-one bytes long, and have a
leading zero. Integers in DER are two&rsquo;s complement, so if the leftmost bit is
set, they are interpreted as negative. Since <code>r</code> and <code>s</code> are positive, if the
leftmost bit would be a 1, an extra byte has to be added so that the leftmost
bit can be 0.</p>

<p>This is a little taste of what goes into encoding a certificate. I hope it was
informative! If you&rsquo;d like to learn more, I recommend &ldquo;<a href="http://luca.ntop.org/Teaching/Appunti/asn1.html">A Layman&rsquo;s Guide to a
Subset of ASN.1, BER, and DER</a>.&rdquo;</p>

<p><a name="poison"></a>Footnote 1: A &ldquo;poison extension&rdquo; is defined by <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6962#section-3.1">RFC 6962
section 3.1</a>:</p>

<pre><code>The Precertificate is constructed from the certificate to be issued by adding a special
critical poison extension (OID ``, whose
extnValue OCTET STRING contains ASN.1 NULL data (0x05 0x00))

<p>In other words, it&rsquo;s an empty extension whose only purpose is to ensure that
certificate processors will not accept precertificates as valid certificates. The
specification ensures this by setting the &ldquo;critical&rdquo; bit on the extension, which
ensures that code that doesn&rsquo;t recognize the extension will reject the whole
certificate. Code that does recognize the extension specifically as poison
will also reject the certificate.</p>

<p><a name="variable-length"></a>Footnote 2: Lengths from 0-127 are represented by
a single byte (short form). To express longer lengths, more bytes are used (long form).
The high bit (0x80) on the first byte is set to distinguish long form from short
form. The remaining bits are used to express how many more bytes to read for the
length. For instance, 0x81F5 means &ldquo;this is long form because the length is
greater than 127, but there&rsquo;s still only one byte of length (0xF5) to decode.&rdquo;</p>

Why the crypto-backdoor side is morally corrupt

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original https://blog.erratasec.com/2018/04/why-crypto-backdoor-side-is-morally.html

Crypto-backdoors for law enforcement is a reasonable position, but the side that argues for it adds things that are either outright lies or morally corrupt. Every year, the amount of digital evidence law enforcement has to solve crimes increases, yet they outrageously lie, claiming they are “going dark”, losing access to evidence. A weirder claim is that  those who oppose crypto-backdoors are nonetheless ethically required to make them work. This is morally corrupt.

That’s the point of this Lawfare post, which claims:

What I am saying is that those arguing that we should reject third-party access out of hand haven’t carried their research burden. … There are two reasons why I think there hasn’t been enough research to establish the no-third-party access position. First, research in this area is “taboo” among security researchers. … the second reason why I believe more research needs to be done: the fact that prominent non-government experts are publicly willing to try to build secure third-party-access solutions should make the information-security community question the consensus view. 

This is nonsense. It’s like claiming we haven’t cured the common cold because researchers haven’t spent enough effort at it. When researchers claim they’ve tried 10,000 ways to make something work, it’s like insisting they haven’t done enough because they haven’t tried 10,001 times.
Certainly, half the community doesn’t want to make such things work. Any solution for the “legitimate” law enforcement of the United States means a solution for illegitimate states like China and Russia which would use the feature to oppress their own people. Even if I believe it’s a net benefit to the United States, I would never attempt such research because of China and Russia.
But computer scientists notoriously ignore ethics in pursuit of developing technology. That describes the other half of the crypto community who would gladly work on the problem. The reason they haven’t come up with solutions is because the problem is hard, really hard.
The second reason the above argument is wrong: it says we should believe a solution is possible because some outsiders are willing to try. But as Yoda says, do or do not, there is no try. Our opinions on the difficulty of the problem don’t change simply because people are trying. Our opinions change when people are succeeding. People are always trying the impossible, that’s not evidence it’s possible.
The paper cherry picks things, like Intel CPU features, to make it seem like they are making forward progress. No. Intel’s SGX extensions are there for other reasons. Sure, it’s a new development, and new developments may change our opinion on the feasibility of law enforcement backdoors. But nowhere in talking about this new development have they actually proposes a solution to the backdoor problem. New developments happen all the time, and the pro-backdoor side is going to seize upon each and every one to claim that this, finally, solves the backdoor problem, without showing exactly how it solves the problem.

The Lawfare post does make one good argument, that there is no such thing as “absolute security”, and thus the argument is stupid that “crypto-backdoors would be less than absolute security”. Too often in the cybersecurity community we reject solutions that don’t provide “absolute security” while failing to acknowledge that “absolute security” is impossible.
But that’s not really what’s going on here. Cryptographers aren’t certain we’ve achieved even “adequate security” with current crypto regimes like SSL/TLS/HTTPS. Every few years we find horrible flaws in the old versions and have to develop new versions. If you steal somebody’s iPhone today, it’s so secure you can’t decrypt anything on it. But then if you hold it for 5 years, somebody will eventually figure out a hole and then you’ll be able to decrypt it — a hole that won’t affect Apple’s newer phones.
The reason we think we can’t get crypto-backdoors correct is simply because we can’t get crypto completely correct. It’s implausible that we can get the backdoors working securely when we still have so much trouble getting encryption working correctly in the first place.
Thus, we aren’t talking about “insignificantly less security”, we are talking about going from “barely adequate security” to “inadequate security”. Negotiating keys between you and a website is hard enough without simultaneously having to juggle keys with law enforcement organizations.

And finally, even if cryptographers do everything correctly law enforcement themselves haven’t proven themselves reliable. The NSA exposed its exploits (like the infamous ETERNALBLUE), and OPM lost all its security clearance records. If they can’t keep those secrets, it’s unreasonable to believe they can hold onto backdoor secrets. One of the problems cryptographers are expected to solve is partly this, to make it work in a such way that makes it unlikely law enforcement will lose its secrets.


This argument by the pro-backdoor side, that we in the crypto-community should do more to solve backdoors, it simply wrong. We’ve spent a lot of effort at this already. Many continue to work on this problem — the reason you haven’t heard much from them is because they haven’t had much success. It’s like blaming doctors for not doing more to work on interrogation drugs (truth serums). Sure, a lot of doctors won’t work on this because it’s distasteful, but at the same time, there are many drug companies who would love to profit by them. The reason they don’t exist is not because they aren’t spending enough money researching them, it’s because there is no plausible solution in sight.
Crypto-backdoors designed for law-enforcement will significantly harm your security. This may change in the future, but that’s the state of crypto today. You should trust the crypto experts on this, not lawyers.

AWS Key Management Service now offers FIPS 140-2 validated cryptographic modules enabling easier adoption of the service for regulated workloads

Post Syndicated from Sreekumar Pisharody original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/aws-key-management-service-now-offers-fips-140-2-validated-cryptographic-modules-enabling-easier-adoption-of-the-service-for-regulated-workloads/

AWS Key Management Service (KMS) now uses FIPS 140-2 validated hardware security modules (HSM) and supports FIPS 140-2 validated endpoints, which provide independent assurances about the confidentiality and integrity of your keys. Having additional third-party assurances about the keys you manage in AWS KMS can make it easier to use the service for regulated workloads.

The process of gaining FIPS 140-2 validation is rigorous. First, AWS KMS HSMs were tested by an independent lab; those results were further reviewed by the Cryptographic Module Validation Program run by NIST. You can view the FIPS 140-2 certificate of the AWS Key Management Service HSM to get more details.

AWS KMS HSMs are designed so that no one, not even AWS employees, can retrieve your plaintext keys. The service uses the FIPS 140-2 validated HSMs to protect your keys when you request the service to create keys on your behalf or when you import them. Your plaintext keys are never written to disk and are only used in volatile memory of the HSMs while performing your requested cryptographic operation. Furthermore, AWS KMS keys are never transmitted outside the AWS Regions they were created. And HSM firmware updates are controlled by multi-party access that is audited and reviewed by an independent group within AWS.

AWS KMS HSMs are validated at level 2 overall and at level 3 in the following areas:

  • Cryptographic Module Specification
  • Roles, Services, and Authentication
  • Physical Security
  • Design Assurance

You can also make AWS KMS requests to API endpoints that terminate TLS sessions using a FIPS 140-2 validated cryptographic software module. To do so, connect to the unique FIPS 140-2 validated HTTPS endpoints in the AWS KMS requests made from your applications. AWS KMS FIPS 140-2 validated HTTPS endpoints are powered by the OpenSSL FIPS Object Module. FIPS 140-2 validated API endpoints are available in all commercial regions where AWS KMS is available.

Security updates for Thursday

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/749423/rss

Security updates have been issued by Arch Linux (samba), CentOS (389-ds-base, kernel, libreoffice, mailman, and qemu-kvm), Debian (curl, libvirt, and mbedtls), Fedora (advancecomp, ceph, firefox, libldb, postgresql, python-django, and samba), Mageia (clamav, memcached, php, python-django, and zsh), openSUSE (adminer, firefox, java-1_7_0-openjdk, java-1_8_0-openjdk, and postgresql94), Oracle (kernel and libreoffice), Red Hat (erlang, firefox, flash-plugin, and java-1.7.1-ibm), Scientific Linux (389-ds-base, kernel, libreoffice, and qemu-kvm), SUSE (xen), and Ubuntu (curl, firefox, linux, linux-raspi2, and linux-hwe).