TLS and SSL v3 vulnerabilities

Thierry ZOLLER
Principal Security Consultant
Draft contact@g-sec.lu
http://www.g-sec.lu

G-SEC™ is a vendor independent Luxemburgish led
security consulting group that offers IT Security
consulting services on an organizational and
technical level. Our work has been featured in New
York Times, eWeek, ct', SAT1, Washington Post and
at conferences ranging from Hack.lu to Cansecwest.

Draft: TLS & SSLv3 renegotiation vulnerability 2009

Table of Contents
Synopsis ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Generic TLS renegotiation prefix injection vulnerability ............................................................................... 5
Details ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
HTTPS............................................................................................................................................................. 7
1 Attack method - Injecting commands into an HTTPS session (using X-:n) ........................................... 8
Details ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
2 Attack method - HTTPS to HTTP downgrade attack ............................................................................. 10
Details ...................................................................................................................................................... 11
3 Attack method - Injecting custom responses through the use of TRACE............................................. 13
Details ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
SMTPS .......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Protocol vulnerability matrix ................................................................................................................... 15
The attacker does NOT have an account on the SMTP server ............................................................ 15
The Attacker has an account on the SMTP server .............................................................................. 15
Attack scenario - SMTP STARTTLS (110) .................................................................................................. 16
Details ...................................................................................................................................................... 17
Client side attack detection ..................................................................................................................... 18
Important Note........................................................................................................................................ 18
FTPS ............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Client certificate based authentication (Control Channel)...................................................................... 20
Renegotiations due to NAT support (Data Channel) ............................................................................... 20
Resetting the TCP connection and injecting in mid transfer ................................................................... 20
The Impact on other protocols using TLS .................................................................................................... 21
Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 21
EAP-TLS .................................................................................................................................................... 22
Solutions ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
Proposed IETF solution ............................................................................................................................ 23
Patching TLS............................................................................................................................................. 23
Client.................................................................................................................................................... 23
Server................................................................................................................................................... 23
Patching SSLv3 ......................................................................................................................................... 23
2


Testing for a renegotiation vulnerability ..................................................................................................... 24
Vulnerability requirements ..................................................................................................................... 24
Generic Example...................................................................................................................................... 24
Patched server with disabled renegotiation ........................................................................................... 24
Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................. 25
Servers ..................................................................................................................................................... 25
Clients ...................................................................................................................................................... 25
Sources ........................................................................................................................................................ 25
Thanks ......................................................................................................................................................... 25
Disclaimer .................................................................................................................................................... 25

Synopsis
Around the 09/11/2009 Marsh Ray, Steve Dispensa and Martin Rex published details1 about a
vulnerability affecting the TLS and the SSLv3 protocol. The vulnerability is being tracked under
CVE-2009-35552 | VU#1205413 and affects a multitude of platforms and protocols, the impact
of this vulnerability varies from protocol to protocol and from application to application. There
is extensive research required in order to assess

When speaking of a “Man in the Middle” attack, it is often assumed that data can be altered or
changed. Indeed an attacker that sits in the middle of a connection (hence it’s name) is often
able to do so. In this particular case however the attacker piggybacks an existing authenticated
and encrypted TLS sessions in order to (prefix) inject arbitrary text of its choice. The attacker
may not read/alter the other TLS session between the “client” and the “server”. See Chapter 3 -
“Example of an attack scenario...” for more details

This paper explains the vulnerability for a broader audience and summarizes the information
that is currently available. The document is prone to updates and is believed to be accurate by
the time of writing.

Important: This vulnerability is not limited to HTTPS, this vulnerability potentially affects every
application/protocol that implements TLS or SSLv3.

1
http://www.extendedsubset.com/
2
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-3555
3
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/120541
3


Revisions

Version Date Annotations
0.8 09.11.2009 Initial draft
0.81 10.11.2009 Adding general and specific example
0.9 12.11.2009 Added vulnerability requirements, protocol overview
0.91 12.11.2009 Initial public draft release at http://www.g-sec.lu/
0.92 13.11.2009 Corrected few errors
0.93 17.11.2009 Added test cases and SMTP over TLS details
0.95 24.11.2009 Added FTPS details, fixed syntax and formatting
errors, added IIS7 clarifications
0.96 25.11.2009 New test cases
0.97 27.11.2009 Added HTTPS TRACE and HTTPS to HTTP downgrade
attack
0.98 29.11.2009 Added 2 POC files for the TRACE and HTTPS to HTTP
downgrade attack

4


Generic TLS renegotiation prefix injection vulnerability

Client Attacker Server (HTTPS)

2
1
TLS Handshake session #1
(client <> server) Attacker holds
the packets

1.1
(attacker <> server)
Legend

Straight line : Clear text communication
Dotted line : Encrypted communication 1.2
Green : Client communication Attacker sends application layer
Red : Attacker data commands of his choice

2 Renegotiation is triggered

3
TLS Handshake sesson #1 continued (client-server)
within the encrypted session #2 (attacker-server)

4

Client data is encrypted within session #1 (Green) (The attacker cannot read/
manipulate this data), previous data (1.2) prefixed to newly sent client-data

5


Details

1 “Client” starts the TLS handshake – Attacker does not forward these immediately
(Note step 1+2 together are not mandatory, the attacker may as well simply open a TLS session
beforehand without actively withholding client packets for a small timeframe)
1.1 The attacker negotiates a new session performs a full TLS exchange

1.2 The attacker sends application level commands over the previously established TLS
session (#2)

2 Renegotiation is triggered either
1. because of Certificate based auth (server sees get /dir and decides it needs
an certificate for „directory“)
2. due to different cipher requriements on different ressources (Server
initiated)
3. by the client

3 The TLS handshake started at 1 and hold back by the attacker, is now being let to
the server which performs a new TLS Handshake over the previously established
encrypted TLS session #2 (Attacker<>Server)

4 The TLS endpoint, due to the renegotiation has to take into the account the
previously sent data (per spec), the endpoint believes the previous data (1.2) to
have been send from the same client. As such this request is prefixed to the one
issued by the client in 4 (See HTTPS example for a more explicit example)

6


HTTPS
There are multiple ways to abuse HTTPS in order to inject traffic into an authenticated stream.
An additional attack vector was uncovered by Frank Heidt (Leviathan Security) but not published
and rediscovered by Thierry Zoller (G-SEC) for this paper, this vector allows downgrading an
existing SSL session to plain text.

This paper will present 2 new methods to leverage the TLS renegotiation vulnerability

1. Injecting plaintext and abusing using X-Ignore:/n (Marsh Ray) or using unfinished POST
to a web application reflecting content (Anil Kurmus)

Summary: The attacker injects (prepends) GET/POST HTTP commands and does not
terminate the last command (i.e no CRLF) that way when both http requests (Attacker,
Victim) merge, part of the victim requests are ignored)

2. Downgrading from HTTPS to HTTP and performing active Man-in-the-Middle –
according to an online article this was discovered by Frank Heidt but choosen not to
disclose4 the details; details have been rediscovered for this paper by Thierry Zoller (G-
SEC)

Summary: The attacker injects (prepend) a HTTP request to a resource reachable over
SSL but redirecting the client to HTTP when requested. Such behavior is a common
occurrence.

3. “When TRACE comes back to bite you” – After ideas to use TRACE method to leverage
this flaw appeared in twitter (olle@toolcrypt.org and sirdarckcat) this method was
researched and turned into a POC by Thierry Zoller.

Summary: The attacker injects a TRACE command, by doing so the attacker can control
the content that is send from the server to the victim over HTTPS

4
http://www.pcworld.com/article/182720/security_pro_says_new_ssl_attack_can_hit_many_sites.html
7


1 Attack method - Injecting commands into an HTTPS session (using X-:n)

Client Attacker Server (HTTPS)

2
1
the packets

1.1

1.2
GET /ebanking/ 
paymemoney.cgi?acc=LU00000000000000?amount=1000
Ignore-what-comes-now:


3

4
Client has an authenticated session at the application layer (in this case a Cookie)
GET /ebanking/
Cookie:AS21389:6812HSADI:3991238

5

Endpoint believes both requests (2.2 & 5) to originate from the same client
HTTP daemon receives :
GET /ebanking/ paymemoney.cgi?acc=LU00000000000000?amount=1000
Ignore-what-comes-now: GET /ebanking
Cookie: AS21389:6812HSADI:3991238

8


Details
This is one example of how this vulnerability might be used to affect HTTPS. We are aware that
in this case a simple XSRF5 attack could have achieved the same effect, however this is a easy to
understand example. This attack can be used to abuse specific features of the affected web
application, for example a POC has been demonstrated on how to steal Twitter credentials using
this flaw6.


The attacker sends a GET request to a fictional weak e-banking application. Note that
1.2
the attacker can add multiple requests due to HTTP1.1 pipelining but that only the last
request usurps the cookie.


The TLS handshake started at 1 and hold back by the attacker, is now being let to
3

The TLS endpoint, due to the renegotiation has to take into the account the
4
4
have been send from the same client

The requests
1.2 : Attacker -> server
And
4: Client->server
GET /ebanking
Cookie: AS21389:6812HSADI:3991238

The request is prefixed to the request issued by the client in (4) and is merged into
5
5
Ignore-what-comes-now: GET /ebanking
Cookie: AS21389:6812HSADI:3991238

Interpreted by the HTTP daemon as :
Cookie: AS21389:6812HSADI:3991238
5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-Site_Request_Forgery
6
http://www.securegoose.org/2009/11/tls-renegotiation-vulnerability-cve.html
9


2 Attack method - HTTPS to HTTP downgrade attack

Client Attacker BankX (HTTPS)

2
1
the packets

1.1

1.2
GET /url_that_will_302_to_HTTP
Host:bankx.com


3

4
The victim tries to get to his banking page over HTTPS
GET /ebanking/
Cookie:AS21389:6812HSADI:3991238

5
Server answers :
302 redirect
http://www.bank.com/
6 7

The http client automaticaly follows As the commands are now in clear
the redirect and issues text (HTTP) the attacker now rewrites
GET / HTTP/1.0 the traffc to his SSLstrip relay
host:bank.com
Note this request is now on port 80 and not encrypted

8
Classical SSLstrip attack Attacker stripped of SSL and
HTTP requests in clear text handles SSL traffic between
between victim and attacker bank and himself.
(note victim does not notice
attacker but sees HTTP instead
of HTTPS
10


Details
SSLstrip7 is a tool presented by Marlin Spikes at Blackhat 2009 - it allows to perform an active
MITM attack by stripping of SSL from the connection of the victim. The attack had one particular
drawback: it was not possible to downgrade an existing SSL session, and only worked if the user
accesses his bank over HTTP first then trying to submit his credentials to HTTPS.

Abusing the TLS renegotiation vulnerability however it is now possible to even apply SSLstrip to
established SSL connections.

The Proof of concept for this attack can be found at : http://www.g-sec.lu/tls-ssl-proof-of-
concept.html

1.2 The attacker sends a GET request he knows will redirect the HTTP client to a non HTTPS
page on the server.


The TLS handshake started at 1 and hold back by the attacker, is now being let to
3

4
4
previously sent data (per spec), The request is prefixed to the request issued by
the client in (4) and is merged into one request. The attacker effectively replaced
the GET request.
5
5 The server replies with a 302 redirecting the victim to an HTTP page

6
The HTTP browser of the victim automatically follows the redirect the server has
6
sent and requests the HTTP page.

The attacker is now seeing the clear text requests and can rewrite the HTTP
7
7
request from the victim to his liking – from this point on the attacker continues
the attack with SSLtrip

7
http://www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslstrip/
11


12


3 Attack method - Injecting custom responses through the use of TRACE

Client Attacker BankX (HTTPS)

2
1
the packets

1.1

1.2
TRACE / HTTP/1.0
X:This content will be reflected in the response
to the client
X-ignore:


3

4
The victim request a page on the The command (1.2) is prepended to the
server over the SSL channel request :
GET / HTTP/1.1 TRACE / HTTP/1.0
Host:server.com X:This content will be reflected in
the response to the client
<html><script>alert('hello')</script></html>:
X-ignore: GET / HTTP/1.1
Host:server.com

5
The server responds with :
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
[trimmed]
Content-Type: message/http

TRACE /sadas.pdf HTTP/1.1
<html><script>alert('hello')</script></html>:
Host: www.server.com

13


Details
TRACE allows the attacker to control the response from the server to the client, contrary to the
original attack that only allowed to control the request to the server, using trace gives control
over the response within certain limits.

At the moment is believed that TRACE is unlikely to be used to execute client-side javascript
code, this is due to the “content-type:message/http” header the servers adds to the response
and prompts the browser to initiate a download. Binary content injection through TRACE also
appears not to be possible as the filename the browser saves the data into is not controlled by
the attacker. There are several third-party browsers that use own sockets to send/receive http
data and use the TRIDENT engine (mshtml.dll) to render the WebPages. These
implementations are vulnerable to JavaScript injection. The reason is that the IE component
does not see the HTTP header and renders that data as if it would be HTML.

The TRACE method can also be abused for example in situations where custom code is used that
ignores the content-type and just parses for specific data. Once can imagine that several
automatic updates, server to server, that regularly pulls data from another server in a specific
format

Summary: The attacker injects a TRACE command, by doing so the attacker can control the
content that is send from the server to the victim over HTTPS

The Proof of concept for this attack can be found at : http://www.g-sec.lu/tls-ssl-proof-of-
concept.html

14


SMTPS
There are 2 major ways to use TLS with SMTP – STARTTLS and TLS from the beginning. With
STARTTLS you connect to the SMTP port using plain text and then request a TLS connection
using the command “STARTTLS”.

T. ZOLLER (G-SEC) as well as W.VENEMA (Postfix) have researched this protocol independently,
the following represents a summary of what is currently known. VENEMA has published a PDF
that summarizes his views8.

Discussions with M. VENEMA resulted in the following information based attacks in-line with
protocol requirements. A successful attack requires an SMTP server that uses a TLS engine that
reads the data as soon as it arrives, vendors are required to assess the products in order to
determine if their product is vulnerable. Currently there are no independant research results for
SMTP. As an example of software that uses TLS engine in a way required for these attacks to
work, VENEMA cited STUNNEL.

Protocol vulnerability matrix
The following information is believed to be correct by the time of writing

The attacker does NOT have an account on the SMTP server

Attack theoretically possible if TLS private cert authentication without SASL
SMTP over TLS without SASL

The Attacker has an account on the SMTP server

Attack theoretically possible if TLS private cert authentication without SASL
TLS private cert authentication with SASL
SMTP over TLS with SASL
SMTP over TLS without SASL

8
http://www.porcupine.org/postfix-mirror/smtp-renegotiate.pdf
15


Attack scenario - SMTP STARTTLS (110)

Server (SMTP
Victim Attacker over TLS)

1
220 Welcome
250 EHLO 250 Options
220 STARTTLS

1.1

1.2
EHLO whatever
AUTH PLAIN whatever
MAIL FROM:<attacker-chosen-sender>
RCPT TO:<attacker-chosen-recipient>
attacker:DATA


3
TLS Handshake sesson #1 (client-server) within the encrypted session #2 (attacker-
server) Data at 1.2 is prepended to the client data and believed to have been issued from the
client

4
server:250 (EHLO reply)
The server answers to the attacker data server:250 (AUTH reply)
the was prepended server:250 (MAIL reply)
server:250 (RCPT reply)
server:354 (DATA reply)

5
victim:EHLO
victim:AUTH PLAIN whatever
victim:MAIL FROM
victim:whatever
victiim:DATA<crlf>

16


Details
This is a complex example of how this vulnerability could be used to exploit SMTP over TLS
(STARTSSL) if the attacker has an account

1 Attacker connects to the SMTP server and initiates a TLS session (STARTTLS)


1.2 The attacker sends SMTP commands to the server but does not end the SMTP session,
in this example the attacker controls the source and destination e-mail addresses.


Attacker initiates a TLS session (TLS HELLO) and the victim performs a new TLS
3
Handshake over the previously established encrypted TLS session #2
(Attacker<>Server)

4
4
have been send from the same client

As such the client now receives the answers from the attacker injected commands
(note this is a way to detect this attack on the client-side).

5
5 The victim SMTP client now issues his commands to send mail – Those commands
end up in the BODY of the mail previously started by the attacker.

The SMTP server receives:
EHLO whatever
AUTH PLAIN whatever
MAIL FROM:<attacker-chosen-sender>
RCPT TO:<attacker-chosen-recipient>
attacker:DATA
victim:EHLO
victim:AUTH PLAIN whatever
victim:MAIL FROM
victim:whatever
victiim:DATA<crlf>

As such the :<attacker-chosen-recipient> receives a mail containing the
authentication data aswell as the other data.
17


Client side attack detection
Contrary to HTTPS protocol the client has a way to detect that he was attacked at the
application layer as the server replies arrive before the victim even sent the commands.

Important Note
To our knowledge POSTFIX is not affected by this vulnerability.

18


FTPS
FTPS is a SSL/TLS based implementation of FTP, it is not to be confused with SFTP (FTP over
SSH). Alun Jones9 author of WFTP has done an impact analysis on FTPS implementations and the
potential vulnerabilities that might be present, the analysis contains an interesting note about
degrading encryption for sake of NAT compatibility which has impact beyond the TLS/SSL
renegotiation vulnerability. This amongst other things has been the reason why it is
recommended to use SFTP over FTPS.

FTPS is particularly interesting because it has two channels, the CONTROL channel and the DATA
channel which can be requested to be encrypted separately. Please refer to the description at
http://www.allaboutjake.com/network/linksys/ftp/ for more insight into FTP connections.

The following information is believed to be correct by the time of writing; the bespoken possible
vulnerabilities are depended on specific FTP client and FTP server implementations. Vendors
need to look into these particular implementations and fix them accordingly.

9
http://msmvps.com/blogs/alunj/default.aspx
19


Client certificate based authentication (Control Channel)
In HTTPS client certificate based authentication is vulnerable due to a particular circumstance.
HTTPS requires receiving a request to a particular directory prior to choosing whether a
certificate is required or not, the HTTP server then needs to renegotiate. This is not the case
with FTPS, either the connection is encrypted from the very start; it is unlikely the server
supports renegotiation at that point.

Renegotiations due to NAT support (Data Channel)
NAT devices need to keep track of connections and have support to rewrite FTP connections on
the fly in order to allow FTP to work over NAT. The problem that appeared with FTPS is that the
NAT devices could not peek into the PASV or PORT commands any longer and as such would not
be able to NAT FTP.

Because of this and to be able to offer FTPS over NAT, several vendors added support for the
CCC 10command (Clear Command Channel). The FTP server will drop the secure connection in
order for the NAT device to be able to rewrite PASV and PORT commands. This allows the
attacker to see the control channel in clear text. This allows the attacker to know WHEN and
WHAT files are currently being transferred, if the server accepts TLS renegotiations the attacker
might then, timed to the clear text control channel, inject data into files being uploaded, by
renegotiating at the beginning of a new file transfer.

Abuse case : Client uploads a binary file, attacker injects binary code of his choice.

Resetting the TCP connection and injecting in mid transfer

According to Alun Jones11, a lot of FTP clients do not properly terminate the TLS Session.
Instead of sending a TLSshutdown messsage, the clients terminate the TCP session beneath
(RST,FIN), for this reason a lot of FTP servers have support for these border cases and do not
report these conneciton terminations as errors.

This however allows for a clever attack to be done. The Attacker can close the TCP connection
between the victim and the server by sending the specific TCP packet. The FTP client will the n
try to resume the upload using REST12 as the attacker (due to CCC) has access to this data he
exactly knows what part of the file the victim will resume and by renegotiation TLS he can
prepend parts of the transfer. Additional the attacker may modify the REST command so that
the server resumes at the byte location he wants.

10
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r4/index.jsp?topic=/rzaiq/rzaiqserversubcommandccc.htm
11
http://msmvps.com/blogs/alunj/default.aspx
12
http://www.math.ntnu.no/mirror/www.qmail.org/koobera/www/ftp/retr.html
20


The Impact on other protocols using TLS
The impact of this vulnerability is different from one protocol to another. Several stateless
protocols like HTTP for instance, merge both sessions into one, making it possible for the
attacker to inject arbitrary plain text into the stream that is processed by the end stream as
coming from the same destination

This breaks a principal assumption made by application developers and has impacts on
innumerable number of custom implementations.

Summary
Protocol Impact analysis available Current status
HTTPS Yes 1. Vulnerable to a certain degree,
impact depends on application level
logic and structure of the HTTP
requests.
2. If server supports TRACE command,
attacker can control the response
3. Attacker can downgrade to HTTP
(sslstrip)
EAP-TLS Online discussions Believed to not be vulnerable
IMAPS No Unknown
POP3S No Unknown
LDAPS No Unknown
SMTPS Yes Vulnerable only if certain requirements are
met
FTPS Yes Vulnerable - Further research required

Application Impact analysis available Current status
OpenVPN Partially (vendor) Not vulnerable, does not rely on openssl
session capabilities – session handling was
hardened after disclosure reports13
Tomcat Partially (vendor) Vulnerable14 - mitigations exist
Apache Available Vulnerable – short term patch available15
IIS 7 <=7.5 Available Vulnerable – not vulnerable to client initiated
renegotiation requests.
GNUtls Available Vulnerable – patch status unknown, IETF
proposal currently being implemented
OpenSSL Available Vulnerable – short term patches available

13
http://www.pubbs.net/openvpn/200911/19535/
14
http://www.mail-archive.com/users@tomcat.apache.org/msg69335.html
15
http://marc.info/?l=apache-httpd-announce&m=125755783724966&w=2
21


Please refer to VU#120541 and BID36935 for an updated list of applications

EAP-TLS
EAP-TLS is not believed to be vulnerable if implemented as per specification16.

There is no application layer protocol involved when EAP-TLS is executed
Only the TLS key material is used, the tunnel is not used.
EAP re-authentication not the same as TLS renegotiation which is executed in the
previous TLS tunnel

16
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg04109.html
22


Solutions

Proposed IETF solution
The IETF draft proposed by E. Rescorla, M. Ray, S. Dispensa, N. Oskov offers an elegant way to
solve the problem.

The Draft proposes a new TLS extension that cryptographically binds TLS sessions to clients and
further allows informing clients about renegotiations. Furthermore the proposed solution allows
working with a defined rule set that allows either - Never to renegotiate - Only renegotiate if TLS
negotiation extension is being used or Renegotiate anyways

As to our information all major vendors are currently implementing above proposed solution.

Patching TLS
From the conditions that emerged in “Vulnerability conditions” the patching requirements
might be:

Client
Mid-term : Implement the IETF proposal for a TLS extension tracking and handling
renegotiation requests17 (draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiation-00.txt)

Server
Short-term : Remove renegotiation capabilities altogether
Mid-term : Implement the IETF proposal for a TLS extension tracking and handling
renegotiation requests18 (draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiation-00.txt)

Patching SSLv3
The only way to fix the renegotiation vulnerability for SSLv3 is to disable renegotiation on the
server side completely. SSLv3 does not support extensions and as such cannot use the
proposed extension mentioned above.

17
https://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/ekr/draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate.txt
18
https://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/ekr/draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate.txt
23


Testing for a renegotiation vulnerability
The toolset provided by Openssl19 offers the simplest way to test whether a server allows for
client-side renegotiation in the established tunnel. Note: This doesn’t necessarily mean that the
application beneath is vulnerable to attacks over this channel, but indicates the server allows
attacks to happen.

Vulnerability requirements
The preconditions for a TLS or SSLv3 connection to be vulnerable are

1. The server acknowledges and accepts full TLS renegotiations in the middle of a
connection and after the initial handshake
and
2. The server assumes that both TLS sessions were negotiated with the same client
and
3. The server treats both sessions as one and merges them at the application layer

As such this vulnerability might not been seen as a vulnerability in TLS but the as the bad choice
to merge two different requests together by the endpoint.

Generic Example
Openssl s_client –connect yourserver.com:443
GET / HTTP/1.0
Host:yourserver.com
R (Triggers renegotiation – if this works, the server accepts renegotiations
within an existing TLS session Req. #1)
CRLF
<server responds with content> (server merged both sessions Req. #2)

Patched server with disabled renegotiation
Openssl s_client –connect yourserver.com:443
R (Triggers renegotiation)
2860:error:1409444C:SSL routines:SSL3_READ_BYTES:tlsv1 alert no
renegotiation:./ ssl/s3_pkt.c:1053:SSL alert number 100

19
http://www.openssl.org/
24


Conclusions
The vulnerability lies within the core of TLS and SSLv3, and will rear its ugly head for years to
come; the custom applications that are potentially vulnerable are innumerable.

Servers
Servers that do allow mid-connection renegotiations are vulnerable
Applications that handle 2 TLS sessions as coming from the same client are vulnerable

Clients
Clients have no means (pre TLS extension) to check if a renegotiation is happening and
are vulnerable

Sources
1. http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/36935
2. https://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/ekr/draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate.txt
3. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526689
4. http://blog.ivanristic.com/2009/11/ssl-and-tls-authentication-gap-vulnerability-discovered.html
5. http://www.leviathansecurity.com/pdf/ssltlstest.zip
6. http://extendedsubset.com/renegotiating_tls_20091104_pub.zip
7. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533125
8. http://www.mail-archive.com/users@tomcat.apache.org/msg69335.html
9. http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.2.14/CVE-2009-3555-2.2.patch
10. http://sid.rstack.org/blog/index.php/373-tls-tout-le-monde-en-parle-pourquoi-pas-moi
11. https://www.mikestoolbox.net/
12. http://extendedsubset.com/
13. http://extendedsubset.com/Renegotiating_TLS.pdf
14. http://extendedsubset.com/Renegotiating_TLS_pd.pdf
15. http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-3555
16. http://www.chappellseminars.com/files/nutter-stevedispensa-sslgap.mp3
17. http://www.phonefactor.com/sslgap/ssl-tls-authentication-patches

Thanks
We would like to thank Marsh Ray, Alun Jones, Wietse Venema, Alexandre Dulaunoy, Noam
Rathaus, j.clausing and Simon Zuckerbraun.

Disclaimer
Information is believed to be accurate by the time of writing. As this vulnerability is complex
this document may be prone to revisions in the future.

25

TLS and SSL v3 vulnerabilities

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (7)

Similar to TLS and SSL v3 vulnerabilities

Similar to TLS and SSL v3 vulnerabilities (20)

More from Kim Jensen

More from Kim Jensen (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

TLS and SSL v3 vulnerabilities