[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: client-side signature checking of Debian archives (Re: When should we https our mirrors?)



Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote...

> There are some relevant issues, here.
> 
> 1. It does protect against passive snooping *from non-skilled
> attackers*.

Well, yes, no. The tools become better so thinking a few years into
the future sophisticated programs for that purpose might be available to
everyone. Imagine there was a time before wireshark/ethereal, and how
much work pcap analysis was back then.

> 2. It is unknown how much it can protect against passive snooping from
> skilled attackers capable of passive TCP metadata slooping and basic
> traffic analysis *FOR* something like the Debian archive and APT doing
> an update run against the Debian archive

The logical answer is pretty obvious: Not at all. It's a question of
efforts required and my gut feelings tell me it's not very much.

> Do not dismiss (2). TLS is not really designed to be able to fully
> protect object retrieval from a *fully known* *static* object store
> against traffic metadata analysis.   And an apt update run would be even
> worse to protect, as the attacker can [after a small time window from
> the mirror pulse] fully profile the more probable object combinations
> that would be retrieved depending on what version of Debian the user
> has.

Things are worse: There's a small set of clients, and their request
behaviour is quite deterministic. Another snooping aid is usage of
pdiff.

In total, I was not surprised if just given the frame metadata
(direction, high-res timestamp, payload size) it was possible to restore
the actual data transmitted with high accurancy. Even a dget/apt-get
source should have a pretty unique pattern; and I feel tempted to create
a proof of concept for all this (I can resist, though). The apt programs
could obfuscate their request behaviour, the TLS layer could add random
padding of data and time, but I doubt this would help much.

Another "wasn't surprised", applicances might already have that. If not,
the vendors could implement this easily.

> Now, hopefully I got all of that wrong and someone will set me straight.
>  It would make me sleep better at night...

Sorry Dorothy.

    Christoph

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: