Direkt zum Hauptbereich

How Secure is TextSecure?

Instant Messaging has attracted a lot of attention by users for both private and business communication and has especially gained popularity as low-cost short message replacement on mobile devices. However, most popular mobile messaging apps do not provide end-to-end security. Press releases about mass surveillance performed by intelligence services such as NSA and GCHQ lead many people looking for means that allow them to preserve the security and privacy of their communication on the Internet. Additionally fueled by Facebook's acquisition of the hugely popular messaging app WhatsApp, alternatives that claim to provide secure communication experienced a significant increase of new users.


A messaging app that has attracted a lot of attention lately is TextSecure an app that claims to provide secure instant messaging and has a large number of installations via Google's Play Store. It's protocol is part of Android's most popular aftermarket firmware CyanogenMod. In a paper we have recently uploaded on eprint, we present the first complete description of TextSecure's complex cryptographic protocol and are the first to provide a thorough security analysis of TextSecure. Among other findings, we present an Unknown Key-Share Attack on the protocol, along with a mitigation strategy. Furthermore, we formally prove that---if our mitigation is applied---TextSecure's push messaging can indeed achieve the goals of authenticity and confidentiality.

After the first upload the paper received much attention. A discussion started, e.g., on the ModernCrypto Mailing List, at Reddit and at Hacker News. We posted a response on the former discussion on Medium.

The paper gets also mentioned in many non-technical articles, most of which appreciate our research, e.g., heisec.de, TheRegister and Softpedia and is taken into considerations by the Electronic Frontier Foundation for their Secure Messaging Scorecard.

Beliebte Posts aus diesem Blog

How To Spoof PDF Signatures

One year ago, we received a contract as a PDF file. It was digitally signed. We looked at the document - ignoring the "certificate is not trusted" warning shown by the viewer - and asked ourselfs:

"How do PDF signatures exactly work?"

We are quite familiar with the security of message formats like XML and JSON. But nobody had an idea, how PDFs really work. So we started our research journey.

Today, we are happy to announce our results. In this blog post, we give an overview how PDF signatures work and on top, we reveal three novel attack classes for spoofing a digitally signed PDF document. We present our evaluation of 22 different PDF viewers and show 21 of them to be vulnerable. We additionally evaluated 8 online validation services and found 6 to be vulnerable.

In cooperation with the BSI-CERT, we contacted all vendors, provided proof-of-concept exploits, and helped them to fix the issues and three generic CVEs for each attack class were issued: CVE-2018-16042

Printer Security

Printers belong arguably to the most common devices we use. They are available in every household, office, company, governmental, medical, or education institution.
From a security point of view, these machines are quite interesting since they are located in internal networks and have direct access to sensitive information like confidential reports, contracts or patient recipes.

TL;DR: In this blog post we give an overview of attack scenarios based on network printers, and show the possibilities of an attacker who has access to a vulnerable printer. We present our evaluation of 20 different printer models and show that each of these is vulnerable to multiple attacks. We release an open-source tool that supported our analysis: PRinter Exploitation Toolkit (PRET) https://github.com/RUB-NDS/PRET Full results are available in the master thesis of Jens Müller and our paper. Furthermore, we have set up a wiki (http://hacking-printers.net/) to share knowledge on printer (in)security.
The hi…

DTD Cheat Sheet

When evaluating the security of XML based services, one should always consider DTD based attack vectors, such as XML External Entities (XXE) as,for example, our previous post XXE in SAML Interfaces demonstrates.

In this post we provide a comprehensive list of different DTD attacks.

The attacks are categorized as follows:
Denial-of-Service AttacksClassic XXEAdvanced XXEServer-Side Requst Forgery (SSRF)XIncludeXSLT