Google exposes 'Poodle' flaw in Web encryption standard - Polidicks

[b]Google exposes 'Poodle' flaw in Web encryption standard[/b] //Source: [url=http://www.cnet.com/au/news/google-exposes-poodle-flaw-in-web-encryption/]C|Net[/url] ______________________________ [quote]Older Web technology continues to be dogged by revelations that show how insecure it is. Following news earlier this year of Heartbleed and Shellshock, a trio of Google security engineers has proved that the Web encryption standard Secure Socket Layer can be circumvented thanks to a new vulnerability they dubbed "POODLE." POODLE is a new security hole in Secure Socket Layer (SSL) 3.0 that makes the 15-year-old protocol nearly impossible to use safely, Google security engineers Bodo Möller, Krzysztof Kotowicz and Thai Duong said in a new report published on Tuesday. The vulnerability allows encrypted, ostensibly secret information to be exposed by an attacker with network access. POODLE, which stands for Padding Oracle On Downgraded Legacy Encryption, is a problem because it's used by both websites and Web browsers. Both must be reconfigured to prevent using SSL 3.0. While SSL 3.0 is no longer the most advanced form of Web encryption in use, Möller explained browsers and secure HTTP servers still need it in case they encounter errors in Transport Layer Security (TLS), SSL's more modern, less vulnerable younger sibling. If either a browser or server runs into problems connecting with TLS, sites and browsers will often fall back to SSL. The problem is that attackers can force a connection failure, which would force a site to use SSL 3.0, which would then expose it to hackers. Because disabling SSL 3.0 outright causes compatibility problems for sites and servers, Möller recommended that administrators for both add support for TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV, a TLS protocol that blocks attackers from conning browsers into downgrading to not only SSL 3.0, but TLS 1.0 and 1.1 as well. It "may help prevent future attacks," he wrote. Robert Hansen, a browser specialist at the security firm White Hat Security, compared POODLE to another widespread vulnerability -- Firesheep. Firesheep was a browser add-on that could grab unencrypted communications over the Web. While Firesheep could be defeated by using encryption, POODLE is a problem because the flaw lies with the encryption itself. "[POODLE] is pretty bad," Hansen told CNET, "But you have to keep in mind that it only affects a man-in-the-middle situation," an attack where the hacker surreptitiously intercepts network traffic. Hansen noted that there haven't been any publicly known attacks using POODLE yet, but he said it's only a matter of time until there's a tool to help hackers exploit POODLE. "Once somebody creates a tool like Firesheep, then this gets more serious," he said. "We possibly could see one by the end of the week." [i]Developing...[/i][/quote] This looks pretty bad.

not to sound stupid, exactly how bad is this and how big is this? [QUOTE]Because disabling SSL 3.0 outright causes compatibility problems for sites and servers, Möller recommended that administrators for both add support for TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV, a TLS protocol that blocks attackers from conning browsers into downgrading to not only SSL 3.0, but TLS 1.0 and 1.1 as well. It "[U]may [/U]help prevent future attacks," he wrote.[/QUOTE] "May" is a word I don't like

Yeah I think I won't do any online banking for the next week or so. [editline]15th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;46236910]not to sound stupid, exactly how bad is this and how big is this?[/QUOTE] This is very bad. It allows you to circumvent any security on websites like online banking or paypal. But it requires quite some effort to pull off, so you're probably safe, unless you are known to have big sums of money on your bank account.

[QUOTE=DrDevil;46236915]Yeah I think I won't do any online banking for the next week or so. [editline]15th October 2014[/editline] This is very bad. It allows you to circumvent any security on websites like online banking or paypal. But it requires quite some effort to pull off, so you're probably safe, unless you are known to have big sums of money on your bank account.[/QUOTE] Good thing I'm just a cashier with a bad video game spending habit and no one knows then :v: so basically they can steal your session/password and just totally jack your account. are things like 2 step verification and steam guard, for example, effected? of course "Requires effort" still can be overridden with "Group of people working together"

[QUOTE=J!NX;46236937]Good thing I'm just a cashier with a bad video game spending habit and no one knows then :v: so basically they can steal your session/password and just totally jack your account. are things like 2 step verification and steam guard, for example, effected? of course "Requires effort" still can be overridden with "Group of people working together"[/QUOTE] From what I gather it takes somebody physically getting between you and your connection partner, so it is quite an effort that is only worth doing if there is a serious gain to be had.

SSL3.0 is not in widespread use luckily enough (TLS is the replacing standard). If you still support it on your servers, you should disable it.

[QUOTE=DrDevil;46236949]From what I gather it takes somebody physically getting between you and your connection partner, so it is quite an effort that is only worth doing if there is a serious gain to be had.[/QUOTE] sounds like a super inconvenient way to cheat someone out of money but, cheating someone is still cheating someone

I think today is the day I change my bank password

[QUOTE=J!NX;46236910]not to sound stupid, exactly how bad is this and how big is this? "May" is a word I don't like[/QUOTE] SSL 3.0 is very rarely used today and has been almost completely superseded by TLS. If you're running IE6 then you're fucked. Otherwise it's not that bad.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;46237193]SSL 3.0 is very rarely used today and has been almost completely superseded by TLS. If you're running IE6 then you're fucked. Otherwise it's not that bad.[/QUOTE] to be fair, if you're running ie6 even without this exploit you're pretty screwed considering it's other vulnerabilities this just further validates everyone's suspicions that only old people and crazy people would use it

Oh wow, it's been a while since I've seen anyone talk about Firesheep. Still have the addon in my old Firefox backup folder.

Is it some sort of programmer joke to name vulnerabilities after defenseless animals?

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;46237193]SSL 3.0 is very rarely used today and has been almost completely superseded by TLS. If you're running IE6 then you're fucked. Otherwise it's not that bad.[/QUOTE] According to Mozilla, something like 0.4% of all encrypted connections in Firefox use SSL3, the problem is an attacker can force a browser to downgrade the protocol to SSL3 to allow them to perform this attack (So they're disabling it entirely, same as Google and Microsoft I think) Really, any version of IE on XP is insecure at this point, IE8 can use TLS 1.0 but only with insecure ciphers.

If the vulnerability is in SSL, does this affect SSL?

[QUOTE=Lick;46237630]Is it some sort of programmer joke to name vulnerabilities after defenseless animals?[/QUOTE] If you think poodles are defenseless, you've apparently never seen a full sized one.

[QUOTE=lazyguy;46237733]If the vulnerability is in SSL, does this affect SSL?[/QUOTE] Um yes???

Seriousness aside how long do you think it took them to come up with words that were still relevant and still spelled "poodle"

[QUOTE=gk99;46241546]Seriousness aside how long do you think it took them to come up with words that were still relevant and still spelled "poodle"[/QUOTE] Probably not long, it actually works out really well (The attack is a padding attack on the oracle after downgrading the connection to a legacy encryption method, and just by writing that I've already re-created the acronym)