This is at its heart a malleability attack on OpenPGP's cipher feedback mode. These attacks aren't new. The IETF OpenPGP Working Group first knew about them in 1999. By September 2000, GnuPG had a defense. 2/
-
Show this thread
-
The defense is called a Modification Detection Code, or MDC. Originally MDCs were optional. Today they're the default. The Efail attack requires an MDC either be missing or be invalid. 3/
1 reply 6 retweets 31 likesShow this thread -
You *can* manipulate a message with MDC into being one without MDC. The Efail authors are right there. So let's see what happens when GnuPG sees a message without an MDC.pic.twitter.com/BP0q4JZLQG
3 replies 8 retweets 41 likesShow this thread -
As you can see in the last line, you get a very clear message. "WARNING: Message was not integrity protected." After that, it's up to your email client to do the right thing. 5/
2 replies 10 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
Your email client should refuse to render the message. If it ignores the warning or does the wrong thing in response to it, then yes, the Efail attack is very real. So it's really more fair to say this is an attack on poorly-written clients, not OpenPGP. 6/
3 replies 21 retweets 62 likesShow this thread -
The OpenPGP spec does technically allow for non-MDCed messages. It has to for backwards compatibility reasons. But no modern OpenPGP client should silently ignore missing/malformed MDCs. No modern email client should ignore the OpenPGP client's warnings. 7/
1 reply 9 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
GnuPG has given warnings on missing/malformed MDCs for years. And although the Efail authors did find some problems in Enigmail -- for which we're deeply sorry, and plead that we're only human -- we fixed them months ago. 8/
1 reply 13 retweets 58 likesShow this thread -
If you're using a recent GnuPG and Enigmail 2.0 or later, you should be fine. If you're not, consider this an object lesson in the importance of upgrading your security-critical software. 9/
2 replies 48 retweets 79 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @robertjhansen
Is 2.0.0 the threshold version for the fix? I see a bunch of security fixes went into 1.9.9, but I'm not sure if it's one of those or this was fixed later (Gentoo has 1.9.9 as stable and I'm trying to figure out if I need to file a security stablereq). https://bugs.gentoo.org/643490
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marcan42
Honestly, I don't know. I didn't know anything about this Efail paper until Saturday. We've been a little busy kicking the tires and making sure all the lugnuts are tightened. Now that we know we're OK, we'll start looking at exactly which versions aren't OK.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
So they didn't even contact Enigmail about this (nor GnuPG apparently)? Amazing.
-
-
Replying to @marcan42
They contacted Patrick about six months ago. At that time there were some issues with Enigmail, but Patrick got them fixed for 2.0 (and *probably* 1.9.9; I'm 95% sure the bug report you linked to lists the Efail bug). 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @robertjhansen @marcan42
The Efail authors confirmed to Patrick that Enigmail 2.0 and later handles MDCs correctly. So we're a little confused as to why Enigmail's listed in the paper as being vulnerable. 2/
1 reply 25 retweets 30 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.