Access member only content, take part in discussions with comments on blogs, news and reviews and receive all the latest security industry news directly to your inbox. Join now for free.
Processing registration... Please wait.
This process can take up to a minute to complete.
A confirmation email has been sent to your email address - SUPPLIED EMAIL HERE. Please click on the link in the email to verify your email address. You need to verify your email before you can start posting.
If you do not receive your confirmation email within the next few minutes, it may be because the email has been captured by a junk mail filter. Please ensure you add the domain @scmagazine.com.au to your white-listed senders.
What appears to be a decrypted private key has been extracted from a Cyberoam UTM certificate and published online in a move that could place businesses and users at risk of traffic interception.
The disclosure comes after the security company denied the breach was possible.
The key was posted on the TorProject blog by users who said they extracted it from the generic digital certificate that was previously available for download on the Cyberoam website.
SC contacted Cyberoam for comment but the company had not responded by the time of publication.
While the authenticity of the key could not yet be verified, Sandvik notes it could be imported into any deep packet inspection device and used to intercept traffic from users operating the Cyberoam certificates.
"It is therefore possible to intercept traffic from any victim of a Cyberoam device with any other Cyberoam device - or to extract the key from the device and import it into other DPI devices, and use those for interception," Sandvik wrote on the blog.
Users and businesses could be protected by applying a hotfix issued yesterday by Cyberoam that replaced the generic certificates with unique ones.
The UTM devices would typically be used in small businesses or branch offices of enterprises.
TorProject security researcher Runa Sandvik told SC a pre-sales staffer claimed that the key was potentially extracted from firmware via an old vulnerability.
She rejected that argument.
Witham Laboratories cryptography boffin Peter Filimore noted UTM devices typically did a poor job at key management.
"The majority of these devices I've seen are a PC that has some expansion hardware added and have not been designed with proper key management in mind," Fillmore told SC.
"The lack of Common Criteria or FIPS 140-2 testing of a device like this would indicate to me that it would quickly fail any physical attack."
The key disclosure followed an email from the same staffer to Sandvik and uploaded to pastebin that stated: “After continuous brainstorming, [Cyberoam] concluded that there exists a theoretical possibility -- however remote -- of extracting the private key. Given the physical access to the appliance and unlimited time, any static encryption algorithm can be cracked.”
The alleged key was extracted and decrypted within two days of the initial vulnerability disclosure on 3 July, made by Sandvik and OpenSSL's Ben Laurie.
Cyberoam has remained steadfast in its denial that the key could be extracted and downplayed the risk brought by using generic certificates across the units.
It dubbed the latter risk “nullified” before issuing the certificate hotfix.
The UTM devices did not inspect encrypted traffic by default and could be disabled when users visited sensitive websites like online banking, Cyberoam said.
The company told Sandvik in its email: “We appreciate the work you are doing and your contribution to enhance security awareness. We are impressed by your dedication and passion towards network security and share a similar passion to our work.”
Copyright © SC Magazine, Australia
To begin commenting right away, you can log in below or register an account if you don't yet have one. Please read our guidelines on commenting. Offending posts will be removed and your access may be suspended. Abusive or obscene language will not be tolerated. The comments below do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of SC Magazine, Haymarket Media or its employees.