QNX Crypt Cracked 167
The Crypt algorithm for the QNX operating system was just cracked. QNX runs on banks computers, ATM's, Medical Equipment, and the almighty i-opener. Source code is there if you're interested.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
QNX Crypt Cracked
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.
hm. could they have used the unix passwd()? (Score:1)
as in, while still remaining closed source and propriatery?
legally anyways
Yikes (Score:2)
Man--given how heated DeCSS has gotten, I cringe at the thought of how, uh, unhappy some huge organizations are going to be with this one.
Bah, on second though, we're only talking about ATM machines, no big deal.
--
Good work... (Score:1)
wow? (Score:1)
I can't wait for all the legal follow up articles to this.
xavii aka bob
Implications? (Score:1)
What are the implications of this?
They could use one from the BSD variant. (Score:2)
But, if the QNX people were really lazy, they could have just grabbed crypt function from one of the BSD source trees and used it. (remember, the BSD license doesn't not dissallow the use of their code in a closed-source system like the GPL does.)
Was this ethical? (Score:2)
For those who are interested... (Score:5)
Not Fair to Punish... (Score:1)
Whoops! (Score:3)
Why not blowfish or some other BSD licensed stuff???
*never* encrypt passwords! (Score:4)
That having been said, I don't know enough to write a secure crypto algorithm without following in someone else's footsteps. (I know the basics of public-key cryptography, I could probably code that) But you know what? I wouldn't try to reinvent the wheel here, not unless I proved it mathematically first.
...and if that decryption algorithm works, this'll be really embarrassing for them. (because it's *so* computationally simple, it should run in no time at all. I just don't have any random QNX "encrypted" data lying around to try it with...)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
mmm...clustering (Score:5)
The possibilities are truly endless.
*Ducks the wave of "open source" posts* (Score:1)
There are tons of good algorithms they could have used. For example, they could have simply hashed all passwords with "Competing open source realtime operating systems are for weenies!!"
Question (Score:1)
-----------------------
Use of Proprietary Encryption - Bad once again (Score:4)
Hidden message... (Score:5)
seineew era sreenigne XNQ
---
guillaume
ATMs (Score:4)
Okay, with that out of the way, even if you stole an ATM and decrypted everything in it, here's what you'd find: Nothing.
The network is specifically designed to avoid silly things like that - the ATM stores no persistent information beyond who used it, some accounting information, and when it was used. *that* information *may* be compromised, but a) it wouldn't do you any good and b) it's unlikely they're using anything less than 3DES. Give these people some credit, ok?
Now, if somebody was able to do realtime decoding of the ATM network itself... that would do several things a) panic people who normally don't panic, b) increase the local population drastically after the influx of federal agents, c) make international headlines and d) would not be submitted by an anonymous coward.
Guys.. I know people who work/have worked for financial institutions. I'd estimate the security to be B2 or above (if it was government certified). Unlike the DoD's "NIPR" net which was /supposed/ to be physically disconnected from any/every other network, the financial institutions just plain don't transfer important info over networks. The data is too valuable.
For example, credit bureaus will not accept an update to anybody's credit report electronically - it is done by hand with tape drives. Makes the movie "Hackers" seem more than alittle unrealistic. =) In short, DON'T PANIC. This crack means nothing to the financial industry. Now, if you want to be worried... you should note some of them run Windows 95..................
Not serious (Score:3)
This isn't as serious as you might think. Sure the "encryption" of crypt on QNX was cracked. But good security assumes that the crypt function returns the plain text anyway. All crypt is used for is to encrypt the passwords in /etc/passwd This was all fine and dandy 20 years ago when it took lots of time to decrypt passwords. But these days you can break through the passwords with brute force in a week or less. Good systems use shadow passwords. So the real passwords go in /etc/shadow, which is unreadable by anyone but root and anyone but root can't even look at the encrypted passwords.
No one to blame but QNX (Score:1)
I'd like to thank the morons at QNX for writing their own crypt function, and thus making this program possible.
There are plenty of good crypt implementations available. I can imagine wanting to write your own, but I don't understand why they wanted/chose/allowed a reversable encryption method?
When the source is out there, reversable is doomed: anyone can find the algorithm and apply it backwards, which is the reason why fetchmail uses plain text password storage (encrypting them would not at all improve security).
But even without source reversable encryption is doomed: there are very neat decompilers that explain the complete bit and byte shifting stuff that's going on. And probably there are plenty more methods of cracking the code, hence this article.
Re:Was this ethical? (Score:2)
Note an important thing about the code: it doesn't do any "try this, then see if it worked" type tests like an irreversable hash would. It's not a encryption, it's just a reversible transformation.
Maybe next time they should higher a cryptographer.
--Kevin
Is this wise? (Score:1)
The crack was posted 4 days ago and I doubt any hospitals that might be running QNX will have updated their systems.
A webserver security hole might be something we can all laugh about, and write ponderous essays if we feel that way inclined, but to post an exploit that potentially threatens lives is irresponsible to say the least.
Re:Use of Proprietary Encryption - Bad once again (Score:1)
Instead of hiring competent people who KNOW that there are free algorithms & free sourcecode at sites, they hire these schmucks and everyone "marvels" at their security expertise, which is shot down to the ground when Joe Hacker, 3 years old breaks it using the calculator on his wrist watch!
SECURITY IS AN ARTFORM.
HIRE COMPETENT PEOPLE, PEOPLE!
This begs the question.... (Score:1)
Sander
Re:Was this ethical? (Score:2)
And don't even bother giving me crap about "Well, what if they didn't know??" - that doesn't matter, because there are straightforward ways of knowing - hello, if you don't have the expertise on staff, hire an expert, make sure they're a certified engineer so that if they're either an idiot or lie to you about the security of the algorithm, you can sue them for malpractice.
And what makes you sooooooo sure that QNX WOULD have told their customers about the breach??
Besides. They know about it *now*....and if someone has a business that depends on the security of a particular piece of encryption, they're STU-STU-STOOPID if they don't monitor cryptography journals/newletters/news/bug sites for up-to-the-nanosecond info on it.
Oy.
WinCE (Score:3)
QNX Conference soon (Score:1)
Yes, this is offtopic (Score:1)
The word you want is "lieu". The phrase "in lieu of" means "instead of". People use the former to make them sound smarter.
I think the phrase you really wanted might be "in light of". As it stands, your post says the opposite of what I think you meant.
Ok, I have no life.
--
Patrick Doyle
Does this mean (Score:1)
Cool.
Hack is QNX version specific. (Score:2)
Re:Is this wise? (Score:1)
last time i checked there werent any major conspiracies to "hack the life support"
and last time i ran around a hospital and wreaked havoc i didnt really have to root any machines to say oh... turn them off or any thing....
then again... i havent done much looting, rampaging and killing lately... hmm...
anybody else with recent experience? (sarcasm)
fire that moderator! Re:reverse.c (Score:1)
i hate moderators who don't read the details
QUICKLY! MIRROR! NOW! (Score:1)
--
Exactly... (Score:1)
reverse.c source listing (Score:2)
function,
and thus making this program possible.
-sean
See LICENSE for licensing information...yes..its gpl
*/
#include
#include
static ascii2bin(short x)
{
if (x>='0' && x='A' && x='Z')
return (x-'A')+9;
return (x-'a')+26+9;
}
char bits[77];
char *quncrypt(char *pw)
{
static char newpw[14];
int i;
int j,rot;
int bit,ofs;
char salt[2];
int temp;
salt[0]=*pw++;
salt[1]=*pw++;
for (i=0;i72;i++)
bits[i]=0;
for (i=0;i12;i++)
newpw[i]=ascii2bin(pw[i]);
newpw[13]=0;
rot=(salt[1]*4-salt[0])%128;
for (i=0;i12;i++)
{
for (j=0;j6;j++)
{
bit=newpw[i]&(1j);
bits[i*6+j]=bit?1:0;
}
}
bits[66]=1;
bits[67]=0;
while (rot--)
{
bits[66]=bits[0];
for (i=0;i=65;i++)
bits[i]=bits[i+1];
}
for (i=0;i8;i++)
{
newpw[i]=0;
for (j=0;j7;j++)
{
bit=bits[i+j*8];
newpw[i]|=(bitj);
}
}
newpw[8]=0;
return newpw;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
char *cr;
if (argc!=2)
{
printf("QNX Crypt Defeater.. by Sean\n");
printf("reverse [hashcode]\n");
exit(0);
}
printf("Uncrypting...booya!\n");
cr=quncrypt(argv[1]);
printf("Cleartext:%s\n",cr);
}
ATM charged, and found guilty.. (Score:1)
The transaction actually costs the banks roughly UK0.30 to process, which leaves 1.20 unaccounted for.
The question is, when are the banks going to start charging more because 'our encryption algorithm is better than their encryption algorythm'. (It wouldn't suprise me at all to find that my bank account security is worth about 30p)
Re:Whoops! (Score:2)
I still don't quite get what it does, though, and I accidentally hit "refresh" after the site was
Is decoding password hashes really a big deal? I never thought they were supposed to be that airtight.
Re:Is this wise? (Score:1)
What, do you think EVERYONE wants to know the concentration of uric acid in your blood?
I do hope you are joking
Said device should not even be accessible by anyone who would root it. In fact, they probably don't even run QNX. Probably 160k of code on some EEPROM inside the thing.
Re:Less Hacker, More Cracker (Score:1)
If this one person was able to crack the QNX crypt function, publicizing the information is unfortunately probably the right thing to do. It would only be honorable to alert the QNX people before releasing the information, but if one person cracked it, who's to say it hasn't been cracked yet.
Humans have a tendency to ignore things they don't want to deal with, companies much more so; it sometimes takes a bit of unpleasant shock to wake us up to our faults. I suppose I consider these things somewhat like chemotherapy: sure it's very, very bad for you, but the alternative (leaving the bad code alone) could cause significantly more damage.
So, in my humble opinion, I personally believe that these exploits should be announced, but with the stipulation that common courtesy requires you to tell the company and let them fix the bug and announce the bad news themselves before you release it independantly.
Re:ATMs (Score:2)
Lawsuit Scmawsuit (Score:1)
Source code and binary available (Score:1)
Lawmakers are idiots, not QNX engineers (Score:2)
The reason, I suspect, that they didn't use DES is that they were afraid of legal issues - I'm sure that QNX is sold all over the world, and they didn't want to make a diferent non-DES release for idiotic contries (France, US) with restrictive crypto laws. Even if an expensive legal effort would determine what's exportable where, laws change all the time. This way, there is no "export controlled" code that they need to worry about.
Re:Slashdot Effect [Humor] (Score:4)
<DJ-Pyro> JESUS CHRIST
<DJ-Pyro> im getting dos'd
<DJ-Pyro> ddos'd
<DJ-Pyro> like from all over the world
<lfilipoz> DJ-Pyro: wow... you can still IRC, tho?
<DJ-Pyro> not me
<DJ-Pyro> my server
<DJ-Pyro> colo at digitalNATION
<lfilipoz> is it just your box or all of digitalNation?
<DJ-Pyro> my box
<lfilipoz> and what's the url, so i can try to ping
<DJ-Pyro> we just shutdown apache
<DJ-Pyro> and now all of the clients are doing a CLOSE on tcp
<DJ-Pyro> netstat > netstat made a 30k log file
<DJ-Pyro> DAMN
<DJ-Pyro> they are back!
* jeff looks at DJ-Pyro
<DJ-Pyro> this is bigger than last time
<jeff> DJ-Pyro, you don't by chance host i-opener-linux.net, do you?
<lfilipoz> last time?
<DJ-Pyro> yes
<DJ-Pyro> why?
<lfilipoz> slashdot post
<DJ-Pyro> SHIT!
* lfilipoz already posted to that story and got the source code
<lfilipoz> bwahahaha
* jeff laughs
<jeff> source is here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/04/16/1324
<DJ-Pyro> oh jesus fscking christ!
Re:ATMs (Score:1)
Granted, it's still totally illegal and immoral in more ways than one to do so.
Also, I have no idea how to even get to a login prompt on an ATM in the first place (or if it's even possible without physically opening the machine.)
Re:Use of Proprietary Encryption - Bad once again (Score:1)
I'm a bit surprised that they weren't using something out of the BSD codebase, but they'll probably be changing that, shortly.
Re:ATMs (Score:2)
Re:Good work... (Score:1)
Re:Was this ethical? (Score:2)
Re:Padanic Spelling Nazzi! (Score:1)
qnx crypt source (Score:1)
If I'd written a piss poor encryption scheme, I wouldn't post the source http://www.qnx.com/ cgi-bin/dir_find.cgi?/usr/free/qnx4/os/libs/ [qnx.com]
security through obscurity would do me nicely.
Re:ATM charged, and found guilty.. (Score:1)
Very frustrating.
Re:fire that moderator! Re:reverse.c (Score:1)
Re:ATM charged, and found guilty.. (Score:1)
Re:ATM charged, and found guilty.. (Score:1)
let's say you have a savings acount at bank foo, and you use bank bar's atm machine. bar will charge you anywhere from $.50 to $3.00 for letting you use their atm, kindof like they do to you, appearantly. then, your _own_ bank foo will charge you _again_, making a total of up to six bucks every time you use an atm. aren't they sweet?
Re:ATMs (Score:1)
Having worked for one of the largest credit reporting agencies (the middleman between the bureaus and banks/brokers) in the US I have to say that the above statement is no longer true and has not been for some time.
In most cases every month data from all financial institutions is sent electronically to the credit bureaus. They track you account balances late history, credit limit and maximum spent."
They use this and other info to establish credit scores.
At one time these scores where only used for quick credit checks - such as credit cards and in store loans. Now they are the basis for everything up to home and car loans.
These scores are dynamically updated every time you do just about anything (job change, move, new credit card etc.)
Every time you fill out a credit card application for the free crap they give you your score is knocked down a few points.
Of course by law you are allowed a free credit report each year from the big three bureaus.
However, the score will not be on there. They do not have to show the score to you and if the find out any affiliate agency is they will cut them off.
I know that is a little bit off topic but it is a pet peeve.
One last note- the security to get a direct connection to one of the big three may be difficult, but to get to one of the outside agencies would be extremely easy.
That is all.
The obvious question (Score:2)
Re:WinCE (Score:3)
As far as the ATM/bank computer encryption goes... I figured they'd be running 2048 Bit RSA. You're right some people will just never learn.
Re:Was this ethical? (Score:1)
Re:Yes, this is offtopic [OT] (Score:1)
If it were, it wouldn't mean what it would have to mean to make sense in that sentence.
Why is hashing better than encrypting? (Score:2)
Don't encrypt passwords, hash them! Make sure there's enough information to identify a correct password, but not enough to reproduce it!
Why are hashes inherently more secure?
A hash is a non-injective function, so it is by definition not invertible, but a weak hash function can still be cracked. The reverse algorithm may not return the original password, but isn't one that yields the same hash just as powerful as the original?
Is it simply that when you lift the requirement of injectivity (and thus invertibility) it becomes easier to write a more crack resistant algorithm?
Re:Not serious (Score:2)
Shadow passwords are only a small advance in security. A better hash function would work better. See The Srp Project [stanford.edu] for more details on this important consideration.
Still, QNX looks pretty pathetic by todays standards.
Maybe not the big names (Score:1)
I've worked at a bank. It was medium size (for it's market area, which I'm not going to reveal). They didn't know diddly about security. They fired the network admin assistant who was attempting to prove that anyone that could sniff the WAN (including all employees) could collect a LOT of passwords (including the main Admin password). We had a policy (largely unenforced and widely unknown, not to mention disregarded) about not sending customer/financial information via (internet) email.
In response to the inevitable rebuttals: Yes, I know, I'm not talking about a CitiBank. But I am talking about an institution that is very representative of the many many banks it's size. Banks the size of the one I worked at (and smaller) form the a large percentage of the actual monetary system. It's like millionaires: Sure, they each have a lot of money. But the "middle class" together has a larger buying power.
--
Re:ATMs (Score:1)
A guy from there has found a really serious security bug in the terminal which reads the card. He has done it in his spare time (he WAS a head developer for some financial company), and he went to the company responsible for this device.
What did they do with him? They try to sue him! They made the police grep his house and take everything computer-looking with them, and they kept it!
He had NO profit from this action. He could easily get THOUSANDS of FF.
Bottom line: Don't trust the banks. They're ugly, fat and damn dumb.
Re:ATMs (Score:1)
Wow. (Score:2)
Oh.. btw....
it would do really well for a lot of people to remember that just because people are using QNX as a kernel does not at all mean they are using these functions for anything. The embedded OS merely servers as a base for development. It's like they took the linux kernel ONLY and started development (okay.. maybe with libc too)
New code (Score:1)
~Andy Brezinsky
The freaked out DJ-Pyro watching his server suffer the effects of a good sunday afternoon slashdotting.
Re:Yikes (Score:2)
QNX released the source to the crypt, so.. I can't see what they could charge anyone with...
--
David Taylor
davidt-sd@xfiles.nildram.spam.co.uk
[To e-mail me: s/\.spam//]
Re:Why is hashing better than encrypting? (Score:3)
Yeah, I said it was not a great example and it has some other flaws (for instance, it doesn't matter which x you choose since they both work), but it should get the point across.
Re:Problem with the Hackers (Score:1)
Say my landlord put bars on my window, and I relied on them to keep me safe. One day, some passer-by notices that they are bolted into a rotting window casing, ripped the bars from the window using 2 fingers of his non-dominant hand, and said "Look, you're window casing is rotted", I would thank him.
Re:Problem with the Hackers (Score:2)
This isn't like that. Nobody broke into your QNX system and decrypted your passwords to demonstrate the insecurity to you. This is more like a staged demonstration at a home security conference where they show how easy it is to pick a lock.
Re:Less Hacker, More Cracker (Score:1)
Cracker or Hacker?? (A bit of history) (Score:1)
Re:Problem with the Hackers (Score:1)
Re:Problem with the Hackers (Score:1)
At some point, someone told you that your door locks can be picked. Well, that's useful information, just like the information that bicycle locks can be frozen or crowbarred. Knowing that helps you make better decisions about how to use the products you have and how much to trust them.
Information like that isn't for the company, it's for the customer, and I'm grateful that people bother working on this. Without this kind of information, people would still erroneously believe that IIS and NT are "very secure" on the strength of Microsoft's reputation and marketing.
why QNX is special (Score:3)
----------------------------
From a QNX person... (Score:5)
Crypt is *not* a form of secure encryption.
QNX Neutrino 2.0 has the option of using a more modern crypt, not the version which has been cracked.
QNX customers DO NOT use this as a form of strong encryption. Implying that QNX customers are suddenly at risk is irresponsible journalism, at best.
There were a few comments about export restrictions. Yes, QNX does have secure technology which falls under these restrictions, no it's not crypt.
...oh yes, if you're interested in attending QNX200 please email us, there will be *major* announcements which you won't want to miss (linux users in particular).
ATM fees (Score:1)
Really, really useful for those of us who travel a lot or who don't want to go with one of the gigantibanks.
----------------------------
Re:ATMs (Score:1)
Bah ... (Score:1)
thank god.
dv
regular text i say (Score:1)
func710n,
4nd 7hu5 m4k1ng th15 pr0gr4m p0551bl3.
-s34n
533 L1C3N53 f0r l1c3ns1ng 1nf0rm4t10n...y3s..1t5 gpl
*/
#1nclud3
#1nclud3
57a71c a5c112b1n(5h0rt x)
{
1f (x>='0' && x='4' && x='Z')
r37urn (x-'4')+9;
return (x-'4')+26+9;
}
ch4r b1t5[77];
ch4r *quncryp7(ch4r *pw)
{
st4t1c ch4r n3wpw[14];
1nt 1;
1nt j,r0t;
1nt b1t,0f5;
ch4r s4l7[2];
1nt t3mp;
s4l7[0]=*pw++;
s4l7[1]=*pw++;
f0r (1=0;i72;i++)
b1t5[i]=0;
f0r (i=0;i12;i++)
n3wpw[i]=4sc112bin(pw[i]);
n3wpw[13]=0;
r07=(s4l7[1]*4-s4l7[0])%128;
f0r (i=0;i12;i++)
{
f0r (j=0;j6;j++)
{
b17=n3wpw[i]&(1j);
b1t5[i*6+j]=b1t?1:0;
}
}
b1t5[66]=1;
b1t5[67]=0;
wh1l3 (r0t--)
{
b1t5[66]=b1t5[0];
f0r (i=0;i=65;i++)
b1t5[i]=b1t5[i+1];
}
f0r (i=0;i8;i++)
{
n3wpw[i]=0;
f0r (j=0;j7;j++)
{
b1t=b1t5[i+j*8];
n3wpw[i]|=(b1tj);
}
}
n3wpw[8]=0;
r37urn n3wpw;
}
1nt m41n(1nt 4rgc, ch4r *4rgv[])
{
ch4r *cr;
1f (4rgc!=2)
{
pr1n7f("QNX Cryp7 D3f3473r.. by S34n\n");
printf("r3v3r5e [h4shc0d3]\n");
ex1t(0);
}
pr1n7f("Uncryp71ng...b00y4!\n");
cr=quncryp7(4rgv[1]);
pr1n7f("Cl34r73x7:%s\n",cr);
}
/* 1'd l1|='0' && x='4' && x='Z')
r37urn (x-'4')+9;
return (x-'4')+26+9;
}
ch4r b1t5[77];
ch4r *quncryp7(ch4r *pw)
{
st4t1c ch4r n3wpw[14];
1nt 1;
1nt j,r0t;
1nt b1t,0f5;
ch4r s4l7[2];
1nt t3mp;
s4l7[0]=*pw++;
s4l7[1]=*pw++;
f0r (1=0;i72;i++)
b1t5[i]=0;
f0r (i=0;i12;i++)
n3wpw[i]=4sc112bin(pw[i]);
n3wpw[13]=0;
r07=(s4l7[1]*4-s4l7[0])%128;
f0r (i=0;i12;i++)
{
f0r (j=0;j6;j++)
{
b17=n3wpw[i]&(1j);
b1t5[i*6+j]=b1t?1:0;
}
}
b1t5[66]=1;
b1t5[67]=0;
wh1l3 (r0t--)
{
b1t5[66]=b1t5[0];
f0r (i=0;i=65;i++)
b1t5[i]=b1t5[i+1];
}
f0r (i=0;i8;i++)
{
n3wpw[i]=0;
f0r (j=0;j7;j++)
{
b1t=b1t5[i+j*8];
n3wpw[i]|=(b1tj);
}
}
n3wpw[8]=0;
r37urn n3wpw;
}
1nt m41n(1nt 4rgc, ch4r *4rgv[])
{
ch4r *cr;
1f (4rgc!=2)
{
pr1n7f("QNX Cryp7 D3f3473r.. by S34n\n");
printf("r3v3r5e [h4shc0d3]\n");
ex1t(0);
}
pr1n7f("Uncryp71ng...b00y4!\n");
cr=quncryp7(4rgv[1]);
pr1n7f("Cl34r73x7:%s\n",cr);
}
Re:ATMs (Score:1)
He was naive. I've found a couple bugs too in turn-key systems. They have all been reported anonymously.. and fixed. Who do you blame if you don't have a name?
Re:WinCE (Score:1)
That is, if you have the string that has been used as a XOR mask, else if you don't have access to that string at all and don't know what the original password is, you are screwed. XOR'ing CAN BE used for a really strong symetric encryption, that is if the string used to make the mask is as long as the original string, and if you use it only once.
The problem is then to transmit that masking string...
---
guillaume
Re:Why's hashing better than encryption here? (Score:2)
If you have a good hashing algorithm, you'd still have to brute-force search the keyspace to find a password that hashes to that value. And chances are, there aren't many other values that hash to it (hopefully none, use more bits for the hash if needed...)
If you had a *really* bad hashing algorithm, then there would be a lot of collisions, and it would be easy to find another password. But that's why we have peer review and whatnot...
And you can't reverse a hash to steal a password, that's the big advantage.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:ATMs (Score:2)
This will of course further strain the relationship between Netpliance and the i-opener hackers. I can see them possibly going after all the people involved and sue them for trade secret violation.
This also raises problems between geek culture and the rest of society ... geeks will be seen as being more dangerous and laws will be passed (or the DCMA used) to procecute more people furthering the increasing alienation of the geek culture that has created the internet & computer industry in general.
My wonder is when this will get to the poing an we will ban to gether and start an undergound to fight back against the company controled society & government.
SubSolar
Try again (Score:2)
And your notions of libel are equally off-base, at least by American legal principles. Since pyxd isn't a public figure, all he has to demonstrate is that his reputation suffered because of someone's false statements. Malicious intentions needn't be proved.
Reminds me of that ATM running Windows ... (Score:3)
Meanwhile the people wanting their cash waited, and waited, while the geeks giggled
Re:ATMs (Score:4)
And I have written code for small banks, and installed their networks. (I'd say designed, but in every case they overrode most of my security requirements and designed their own.)
You may very well be correct regarding large financial institutions, but little banks make do with the same resources as all other little companies; whatever they can scrounge from the cheap end of the local talent pool.
The largest bank in my home town transfers their data over an IPX LAN using Cisco routers configured and maintained by a company whose average "network engineer" is less than 21 years old.
The most competent network engineer currently at that company was once fired for running a warez site on a company PC, and it's not at all uncommon for them to snoop customer traffic including bank dialups, which I know for a fact sometimes use the same passwords as they use internally.
There is NOBODY at that bank who can check those routers to make sure they aren't doing other things, such as TCP/IP to all the dialup-connected PCs also on that LAN, or something else through the 56k leased line to Compuserve for credit verification, etc. I suspect, but can't prove, that there's nobody there who even knows the router passwords.
Said bank's employees frequently install software brought from home or downloaded off the net. Said bank has no firewall for those internet connections.
Said bank has physical security that includes a branch office with no cameras, a consumer-grade alarm, friends and family of college-age employees routinely coming and going, and an unfirewalled direct LAN connection to the main building.
Oh; and until recently, they had their System 34 and later System 36 in that branch office. Fortunately, their Unix systems and Novell servers have never been in that building.
The lock on the back door was a cheap consumer-grade door lock. Pickable with a screwdriver and a paper clip, I'd estimate. EASILY pickable with tools, and this has been demonstrated to them.
Re:Whoops! (Score:2)
I think they recommented the <a href="http://www.i-opener-linux.net/decrypt/rever
Re:So you can't *crack* a hash ? (Score:2)
kinda, sorta, not really,
it's called
differential cryptanalysis and it's based on a
known plaintext attack (which means you have some
plaintext and some cyphertext), but it's
really nasty to do and even harder past 6 round
DES.
*****************************************
Superstition is a word the ignorant use to describe their ignorance. -Sifu
Re:Not serious (Score:2)
Heard of OpenBSD? They hash their passwords with four blowfish rounds (eight for root). I do not think you can crack that in a week or less. I do not think even MD5 password encryption (now available on Linux), admittedly much weaker than blowfish, can be cracked in that time. (Not with reasonable means, of course.)
the slashdot mirror (Score:2)
by all means if you're a karma whore... but where it's actually useful is when it's something that could be slashdotted or taken down for "stealing IP"... like someone posting the crucial parts of decss...
Re:why QNX is special (Score:2)
Re:They could use one from the BSD variant. (Score:2)
This is silly. Of course they *COULD* have used DES, if they had no need for an export audience.
Hashes are built on encryption operations (Score:2)
Don't encrypt passwords, hash them!
Hash algorithms are intimately related to encryption algorithms; so much so, in fact, that you can take any iterative block cipher and turn it into a hash. Just run it in CBC mode with a fixed key and IV, and your last ciphertext block becomes a hash of the algorithm. The hashes which are produced with most block ciphers are weak, but that's because most block ciphers today use 64-bit blocks--64-bit hashes simply aren't big enough. Using an algorithm like Twofish or Rijndael (both AES candidates, which have 128-bit block sizes) allows you to create a modestly good hash algorithm.
That said, dedicated hash algorithms are likely going to be stronger than strong crypto converted into a hash algorithm. It's just as much of a fickle art to craft a good hash algorithm as it is to craft a good encryption algorithm. Ron Rivest is (rightly) hailed as a brilliant cryptographer, but he's still yet to make a uniformly strong hash algorithm. (MD5, while still in wide use, has some vulnerabilities; while it's secure enough for most purposes, it is not -uniformly- strong. Even the NSA has problems, as demonstrated by how quickly SHA-0 was abandoned for SHA-1.)
An interesting login scheme that I've heard of is ridiculously simple. Have a user send a timestamp to the server, signed with their asymmetric public key. The server attempts to check out the signature; if it passes, great, the user is authenticated. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination--it's vulnerable to all the attacks presently existing against asymmetric cryptography, and probably has another vulnerability or two in there somewhere--but it's an interesting and simple solution to the problem.
Re:Yikes (Score:2)
The way I seem to be reading all the threads on this topic is that many people seem to think that QNX is a standard desktop operating system. And all the script kiddies seem to be thinking that QNX has made a blunder.
They have not. QNX is not designed for servers. It is designed for embedded systems. Embedded system engineers (I happen to be one) tend to lock things out right at the front door.
Just about any use of QNX in the field would probably not include the standard login package. That is part of the POSIX emulation facility in QNX. That is certainly not something that you would deliver, say, a SONET mux or a Point-of-sale system (actually one place where QNX is very popular) with.
The fact that Netpliance chose QNX for the iOpener seems to me like they downloaded the single-disk demo from QNX that included TCP/IP, PPP, and a small GUI and web browser (The demo disk is probably what gave them the idea). This was a mistake on the part of Netpliance. They really should have hired some Engineers familiar with QNX to design a more robust shell around it's kernel and GUI.
Don't blame QNX. Those guys know what they are doing. QNX is the tool (and a very good one at that -- it's just not a desktop or server operating system where you expect security to come by default), Netpliance is the company that sliced their fingers off...
QNX doesn't care about security. (Score:2)
You Still Need root First (Score:2)
chris mckillop
Re:Good work... (Score:2)
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
The sad thing is... (Score:2)
The operations they use look like lots of amateur "crypto" I have seen - an obfuscation of meaningless operations. I guess an algorithm like DES looks equally meaningless and obfuscated to someone who doesn't understand the underlying principles.
BTW, the BSD md5_crypt includes some equally meaningless and obfuscated operations and was probably written by someone without serious crypto knowledge. However, since he had the good sense to use MD5 as the underlying building block it is still secure.
----
Re:Good work... (Score:2)
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!