Message-ID: <e06b0f4b642740cacce25a7e5be41ac5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:47:36 -0500
From: Larry Seltzer <larry@...ryseltzer.com>
To: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@...rr.com>, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC

Instead of an overt back-door, is it possible that Theo's old friend (;))
is referring to exploitable vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities may or
may not have been found in the interim and fixed, but not recognized as
backdoors.

As you said, it's impossible to prove a negative (prove to me that you
haven't read Moby Dick), but the scenario above sounds kind of reasonable
to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul
Schmehl
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 3:50 PM
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC

There are several problems with this story that seem to have been
overlooked.

First, if someone was able to alter the crypto source code 10 years ago,
you have to assume that in the following 10 years not one person reviewing
or editing that code would have noticed a thing.  So, the person who did
the altering has to be smarter than every other crypto guy who worked on
the code.  Smart enough that nobody would even notice what he did and
smart enough that nothing would be noticed operationally.  Not one entity,
with all the security personnel those entities employed, would have ever
noticed or even inadvertently stumbled across any traffic going to an
unexpected place.

Second, no one editing the crypto code after the alteration would have
ever made a single change to the code that would affect the alteration in
an adverse way, either rendering it inoperable or causing it to generate
traffic that would be unexpected and noticed by watchful eyes.

Now we're talking a genius on the level of Einstein, at least.  Of all the
code in use, crypto is probably the most scrutinized and is scrutinized by
the smartest guys.  All of whom were apparently too dumb to notice
*anything* unusual in the code at all, if this story is to be believed.
And he was able to alter it in a way that made it completely resistant to
any future changes in the code.

Finally, the guy who sent Theo the email obviously lied, or else there's a
third Scott Lowe that hasn't yet been unearthed.

It's impossible to prove a negative.  So, if you want to hurt or get back
at Theo for some reason, the easiest way to do it is claim there's a
supersekrit backdoor in the code that no one has noticed for ten years.
Now Theo gets to go on a wild goose chase that has no resolution, because
you cannot prove there is no backdoor.  The best you can do is claim to
have thoroughly audited the code and not found one.

Conspiracy theorists thrive on claims that can never be disproven.  A
hundred years from now, people will still be whispering that there's a
backdoor in the crypto supplied by OpenBSD.  Just like they claim that
Oswald didn't act alone and the government blew up the twin towers.
Common sense and the preponderance of the evidence tell you otherwise, but
all that is ignored in favor of the grand theory that big brother is
watching.

Rational people don't fall for this stuff.

Should the code be audited?  Of course!  Auditing is always useful and
often productive.  Should we assume the worst?  Not without better
evidence than what we have before us now.

--
Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of
my employer.
*******************************************
"It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason
as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson "There are some
ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them."
George Orwell

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists