Tor Used To Collect Embassy Email Passwords 99
Several readers wrote in to inform us that Swedish security researcher Dan Egerstad has revealed how he collected 100 passwords from embassies and governments worldwide, without hacking into anything: he sniffed Tor exit routers. Both Ars and heise have writeups on Egerstad's blog post, but neither adds much to the original. It's not news that unencrypted traffic exits the Tor network unencrypted, but Egerstad correctly perceived, and called attention to, the lack of appreciation for this fact in organizations worldwide.
Raising the question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
I doubt it. Decades ago it would have been the RCMP, but today that falls under the domain of the Communications Security Establishment, not the RCMP.
The CSE is Canada's version of the NSA. Betcha didn't know that! We're like a grown-up country after all!
Legitimizes Tor (Score:4, Insightful)
And let us not forget that Onion routing was first officially developed, and published, by the U.S. Navy back in the 90's.
Now if only Slashdot would allow me to post via lynx through Tor. "Anonymous" my butt.
Re: (Score:1)
So block the exit nodes. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
25, 194, 465, 587, 994, 6657, 6660-6670, 6697, 7000-7005, 7070, 8000-8004, 9000, 9001, 9998, 9999
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of any good reason to use TOR from an embassy unless you are keeping secrets from your own country. In which case, maybe you ought to consider not committing treason.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But sure, there's the small chance they do want to hide sensitive correspondence. And actually, I hope they are trying to, for a number of reasons, so it's
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Assuming, of course, you had access to openssh.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This reminds me... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't put too much faith in SSL. Yep, even with SSL, someone can play a man in the middle attack on you.
Use PGP if it is email. But the envelope still must disclose the destination mailbox. But it could be a simple gmail account as the destination as not to give out the recipient.
IPSec is a better choice for remote services. The only thing you give up there is 2 end points and a byte count.
If it is anonymous you want, lots of subtle ways to hide messages in the Internet. More than I could count.
How? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps there are other aspect
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just tell me how do you expect to launch a MiM attack against a site I got the public key already on hand. Yeah, well, not a valid case for a USA high school where -it's commonplace, students usually reside up to ten thousand miles away from the premises.
"IPSec is a better choice for remote services."
Yessir, specially when you only can make one side agree. Surely forcing an IPSec tunnel to any single
SSL Is Insecure unless... (Score:2)
Try this site for the issue: http://www.css-security.com/downloads/papers/real_life_man-in-the-middle-attack.pdf [css-security.com]
It does help a little to sign your own certs and inspect them ALL the time on every use. That is, if you DON'T get the pop-up, then you got someone in the middle. Remember this when you are at work, SSL can be decoded in the middle and re-encoded.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you please explain what this has to be (a faked root authority) with my question? Remember: I *already* have the site's public key; I don't need to be confident in *any* other third party.
Even in the case from you article, remember that if your "MiM attack" strategy includes owning my box or the server, that's not a MiM attack anymore.
"It does help a little to sign your own certs and inspect them ALL the time on every use."
Wouldn't you find a little suspicious that while vi
Heh (Score:3, Funny)
One thing that doesn't make sense to me: why does Tor operate MOSTLY over primary networks with non-tor functions? Doesn't it make sense that people who rely on Tor-offered anonymity would only operate the network bound to a specific NIC, a specific router and a specific network connection, separate from their main non-anonymous one? If anonymity is that important, why even bother trying to maintain an anonymous network connection concurrent with your non-anonymous one, with both utilizing the same single-point of exit/entry?
Doesn't make sense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Heh (Score:5, Informative)
Quite simply, TOR is a system to anonymize, so that the website you are going to can't tell who you are. (e.g. can't correlate between repeated visits, can't use your IP to track you down, etc.) As long as you a surfing in a non-identifiable way, even the exit node doesn't know anything about you, and can't determine which requests came from you, as opposed to someone else in the TOR network.
However, if you use TOR in an identifiable way, such as sending a plaintext email (which has plaintext "To" and "From" fields), then you're not using TOR properly. You are inherently exposing yourself, and the exit node can now learn quite a bit about you. If you are connecting to resources without encryption, then the exit node can sniff the data.
Normally, though, you wouldn't use TOR in combination with a secure site you are logging into, anyway. (What's the point in anonymizing your IP address if you log in with your easily-identifiable username, anyways? The site is obviously going to identify you!) So, really, you should not just turn TOR on and then forget about it, because you shouldn't be sending your email through TOR, nor logging into sites using TOR.
The lesson to learn from his blog post, which he doesn't state plainly enough, is that you should split your web-usage into categories:
1. When browsing in a non-identifiable way, use TOR if you want anonymity.
2. When accessing/logging-in to a trusted resource, don't use TOR. (This includes email, etc.)
3. If you need to access a specific resource while maintaining anonymity, use TOR but make sure you use strong end-to-end encryption for the entire session (and not merely encryption for the login phase).
This is, at least, my understanding. Corrections and clarifications are welcome.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Informative)
There's a balance to be struck with anonymity and security and where you strike it depends on what aspects need to be anonymous and what other aspects need to be secure.
Re: (Score:2)
But I agree that he sounds very much like some petulant teenager. His tone doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod you overrated, but knowing slashdot you'd be modded back up in a couple of minutes.
First of all, you didn't bother reading the article (yeah, I know, slashdot and all that). The sniffing happened at the exit nodes, which are the last nodes in the chain, which must communicate with whatever the client is trying to communicate. If the server you're trying to reach doesn't speak something encypted, tor doesn't magically make this encrypted.
Second, unless you're a complete dimwit, you know that traf
Unencrypted traffic is always unencrypted (Score:5, Funny)
eknagy
Why would gov'ts be using Tor? (Score:1)
Encryption is difficult for laypersons. (Score:4, Interesting)
Tor uses the concept of 'onion routing' to obscure the source and destination of content passed through it. What this means is that, like an onion, content is wrapped in multiple layers of destinations and buried in the ground (or routed) until, after a delay, shoots come up (the headers are interpreted and the onion is passed to another destination) and ultimately the onion is ready to be dug out of the ground (the content reaches its destination).
Unfortunately, it's possible to tell it's still an onion by the time it reaches your house. And that's what this article is referring to. If you wrapped an apple in an onion (used secure public key encryption) then you have an additional layer of security. That's a whole nother layer of complication, however.
apples and onions (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Encryption is difficult for laypersons. (Score:5, Funny)
You know, not everybody likes onions. Cake! Everybody loves cakes! Cakes have layers!
You know what else everybody likes? Parfaits. Have you ever met a person, you say, "Let's get some parfait," they say, "Hell no, I don't like no parfait"? Parfaits are delicious.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
For someone calling himself hax0r_this, you are awfully uninformed.
Of course the webserver (apache or whatever) must have SSL installed, enabled and configured for any (virtual) domains you are trying to reach via SSL. I haven't used too many different Linux distros but I believe it would be safe to say that SSL is not enabled by def
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, it's close to worthless without some kind of digitally signed certificate proving that your encrypted connection is talking to the website you want to be talking to...
Otherwise, that dodgy last layer of the Tor cake closest to the website could be talking SSL to your browser, and SSL to the website - but acting as a man-in-the-middle, eavesdropping on everything being said. Imaginatively, this
A very brief overview of HTTPS. (Score:2)
Sites can use the HTTPS spec to transport data with end-to-end encryption. In short, the server sends you a certificate (a public key, meaning you can use it to encrypt things that only they can decrypt), which you use to encrypt a session key to send back to them, and you've got an encrypted link which is secure between you and the server.
However, you don't know who the server is; any black hat could be sitting between you and your
Re: (Score:2)
And a little warning in bold letters "Careful ! Tor provides you with anonymity, not secret of the transmission. You should still use encryption to protect your sensitive transfers."
Is it still called a man-in-the middle attack (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lo dudo (Score:5, Insightful)
-AC
Re: (Score:2)
"These governments told their users to use ToR, a software that sends all your traffic through not one but three other servers that you know absolutely nothing about"
Also the article says the compromised organizations were warned about the risks of using Tor without encryption, and the warnings were blown off. That doesn't sound to me like any hackers were behind the Tor usage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldnt. Using Tor would be a very good way to protect various government activities where they dont want anyone to trace sources and destinations. Think infiltrations of web communities, avoiding host-country snooping on various activities, avoiding geographic tracing for field personell, etc.
As TFA noted, it _is_ policy for various governments specific personell. And it probably works very well against the specific thre
Re: (Score:2)
Why not a VPN using SSH back to the home country and then out from there?
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what he did. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly what he did. The entire point of him doing so was (he claims) to demonstrate that people using TOR are not protected from anyone reading traffic that comes out the exit nodes if they don't bother to encrypt the traffic they send into TOR.
Re: (Score:2)
In other exciting news:
* influenza vaccina doesn't protect you against AIDS.
* you can get warm water by putting together hot and cold water.
No encryption?! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least in China.
This proves securty. (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder about the intelligence of sniffing Tor ex
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, it might be pretty scary seeing what's coming in/ going out a Tor exit node. Think of who might use Tor besides clueless diplomats?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
and? (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, I'm more afraid of some script kiddie stealing my ID than the man listening to my thoughts
The summaries don't add much? (Score:2)
What? No! Can't be! Impossible! (Score:5, Insightful)
Which reminds me,
Seriously, people. OF COURSE that works! Man in the middle, anyone? Where's the big deal? I'm kinda glad someone finally points it out and that it affects some high profile target like an embassy so some people (read: politicians and other, similar entities) will actually realize that this is possible and being done, but the answers here scare me almost more.
I mean, here, we're supposedly a hint more educated than Joe Schmoe Average Browser, right? News for Nerds is hardly Weekly World News, I'd say. And still, we got people posting tinfoil crap like "Developed by $three_letter_agency" or "of course it has to have holes, it's from the EFF". WTF? Folks? Get a grip. From the exit node to the server it's as unencrypted as it would be from you to the server if you didn't use TOR. That's neither a flaw, nor an implementation error, nor some CIA/NSA/WTF conspiracy. It's simply the way the net works, if you don't use some kind of SSL encryption between the communication partners!
Sometimes I really wonder...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, people. OF COURSE that works! Man in the middle, anyone? Where's the big deal?
I don't think the guy was billing it as some major technical achievement. The news is the sensitivity of the traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It does, 'hestavius tempus malarum lipsum' is a Latin phrase meaning 'irony'. If you check the page source you can find the tag and
-
Re: (Score:2)
don't blame Tor (Score:2)
So, don't blame Tor, blame service providers that use unencrypted authentication, and blame people using these kinds of services.
Agencies would recomend using TOR for... (Score:2)