Soul Submissive

BYOPPP - Build Your Own Privacy Protection Proxy

Posted on 10:36 PM by Tina

I have read a blog post, where you can build your own privacy proxy server built on Raspberry PI. The post got me thinking about how I can use this to protect my privacy on my Android phone, and also get rid of those annoying ads.

Since I own a Samsung Galaxy S3 LTE with Android 4.3 (with a HW based Knox counter), rooting the phone now means you break Knox, and loose warranty. Past the point of no return ...

This means I have to solve this without root. Luckily newer Androids support VPN without rooting, but setting a mandatory system-wide proxy is still not possible without root.

But thanks to some iptables magic and Privoxy, this is not a problem anymore :)

The ingredients to build your own privacy protection proxy:

One (or more) cheap VPS server(s)
a decent VPN program
Privoxy
iptables

VPS server

To get the cheap VPS server, I recommend using Amazon EC2, but choose whatever you like. The micro instance is very cheap (or even free), and has totally enough resources for this task. I'm using the Ubuntu free tier now and it works like a charm. And last but not least Amazon has two-factor authentication! You can set up an Ubuntu server under 10 minutes. Use the AWS region nearest to you, e.g. I choose EU - Ireland.

VPN

For the VPN program, I recommend the free version of the OpenVPN AS (EDIT: be sure to use OpenVPN AS 2.0.6 or later, both on the server and the client). Easy to set-up quick start guide is here, GUI based configuration, and one-click client installer for Android, iOS, Windows, Linux, OSX. The Ubuntu installer packages are here.

The most important settings:

I prefer to use the TCP 443 and UDP 53 ports for my OpenVPN setup, and let the user guess why.
For good performance, UDP is preferred over TCP.
VPN mode is Layer 3 (routing/NAT).
Don't forget to allow the configured VPN ports in the AWS firewall (security groups).

Other VPN settings:

Should VPN clients have access to private subnets (non-public networks on the server side)? - Yes
Should client Internet traffic be routed through the VPN? - Yes

Privoxy

The next component we have to install and configure is Privoxy. As usual, "apt-get install privoxy" just works. The next step is to configure privoxy via /etc/privoxy/config file, there are two options to change:

listen-address your.ip.add.ress:8118
accept-intercepted-requests 1

Beware not to allow everyone accessing your Privoxy server in the AWS EC2 security groups, be sure it is reachable only to VPN users!

After everything is set, start privoxy with "service privoxy start", and add it to the autostart "update-rc.d privoxy defaults".

Iptables

And the final step is to configure your iptables chain to forward every web traffic from the VPN clients to the Privoxy server:

iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -s 5.5.0.0/16 -p tcp -m multiport --dports 80,8080,81 -j DNAT --to-destination your.ip.add.ress:8118

Optionally you can block access to all other ports as well, and what does not go through your Privoxy won't be reachable.

Based on your Linux distribution and preference, you might make this rule persistent.

Final test

Now you can connect to the VPN server from your Android device.

After logging in from a client, you get the following nice packages to install on your device:

After connecting, the final results can be seen in the following screenshots. And yes, there is a reason I chose Angry Birds as an example.

Angry Birds without Privoxy

Angry Birds with Privoxy

Stupid flashlight app with ad

Stupid flashlight app with Privoxy

Spoiler alert

If you are afraid of NSA tracking you, this post is not for you. If you want to achieve IP layer anonymity, this post is not for you. As long as you are the only one using that service, it should be trivial to see what could possibly go wrong with that.

Known issues

Whenever the Internet connection (Wifi, 3G) drops, the VPN connection drops as well, and your privacy is gone ...

Sites breaking your privacy through SSL can still do that as long as the domain is not in the Privoxy blacklist.

Additional recommendation

If you are using OSX or Windows, I can recommend Aviator to be used as your default browser. It is just great, give it a try!

PS: There are also some adblock apps removed from the official store which can block some ads, but you have to configure a proxy for every WiFi connection you use, and it is not working over 3G.

Read more

0 comments

Stop Using MD-5, Now!

Posted on 2:08 PM by Tina

TL;DR: Don't use MD-5 to identify malware samples. Believe me, it is a bad idea. Use SHA-256 or a stronger hash function.

This post is dedicated to all malware researchers, still using MD-5 to identify malware samples.

Before deep-diving into the details, let me explain my view on this topic. Whenever you want to identify a malware, it is only OK to publish the MD-5 hash of the malware if you post at least the SHA-256 hash of the malware as well. Publishing only the MD-5 hash is unprofessional. If you want to understand why, please continue reading. If you know about the problem, but want to help me spread the word, please link to my site www.stopusingmd5now.com.

By writing articles/posts/etc. and publishing the MD-5 hash only, it is the lesser problem that you show people your incompetency about hash functions, but you also teach other people to use MD-5. And it spreads like a disease... Last but not least, if I find a sample on your blog post, and you use MD-5 only, I can't be sure we have the same sample.

Here is a list to name a few bad examples (order is in Google search rank order):

Kaspersky
Bromium
Fireeye
Webroot
Mcafee
Fox-IT
Cisco
SANS
ESET
Symantec
Watchguard
And unfortunately, even the best books on malware analysis promote the use of MD-5 - see "Practical malware analysis" Chapter 1 Page 10

Introduction to (cryptographic) hash functions

A long time ago (according to some sources since 1970) people started designing hash functions, for an awful lot of different reasons. It can be used for file integrity verification, password verification, pseudo-random generation, etc. But one of the most important properties of a cryptographic hash function is that it can "uniquely" identify a block of data with a small, fixed bit string. E.g., malware can be identified by using only the hash itself, so everybody who has the same malware sample will have the same hash; thus they can refer to the malware by the hash itself.

It is easy to conclude that there will always be collisions, where a different block of data has the same result hashes. The domain (block of data) is infinite, while the codomain (possible hash values) is finite. The question is how easy it is to find two different blocks of data, having the same hash. Mathematicians call this property "collision resistance." Proper cryptographic hash functions are collision-resistant, meaning it is impractical or impossible to find two different blocks of data, which have the same hash.

In 1989 Ronald Rivest (the first letter in the abbreviation of the RSA algorithm) designed the MD-2 hashing algorithm. Since 1997 there are publications about that this hashing algorithm is far from perfect.

In 1990 Ronald Rivest designed the MD-4 algorithm, which is considered as broken at least from 1991. But MD-4 is still in use from Windows XP until Windows 8 in the password protocol (NTLM). Unfortunately, there are more significant problems with NTLM besides using MD-4, but this can be the topic of a different blog post.

In 1991 (you might guess who) designed yet another hashing algorithm called MD-5, to replace MD-4 (because of the known weaknesses). But again, in from 1993 it has been shown many times that MD-5 is broken as well. According to Wikipedia, "On 18 March 2006, Klima published an algorithm [17] that can find a collision within one minute on a single notebook computer, using a method he calls tunneling". This means, that with the 8 years old computing power of a single notebook one can create two different files having the same MD-5 hash. But the algorithms to generate collisions have been improved since, and "a 2013 attack by Xie Tao, Fanbao Liu, and Dengguo Feng breaks MD-5 collision resistance in 2^18 time. This attack runs in less than a second on a regular computer." The key takeaway here is that it is pretty damn hard to design a secure cryptographic hash function, which is fast, but still safe. I bet that if I would develop a hash function, Ron would be able to hack it in minutes.

Now, dear malware researcher, consider the following scenario. You as, a malware analyst, find a new binary sample. You calculate the MD-5 hash of the malware, and Google for that hash. You see this hash value on other malware researchers or on a sandbox/vendor's site. This site concludes that this sample does this or that, and is either malicious or not. Either because the site is also relying solely on MD-5 or because you have only checked the MD-5 and the researcher or sandbox has a good reputation, you move on and forget this binary. But in reality, it is possible that your binary is totally different than the one analyzed by others. The results of this mistake can scale from nothing to catastrophic.

If you don't believe me, just check the hello.exe and erase.exe on this site from Peter Sellinger. Same MD-5, different binaries; a harmless and a (fake) malicious one... And you can do the same easily at home. No supercomputers, no NSA magic needed.

On a side-note, it is important to mention that even today it can be hard to find a block of data (in generic), if only the MD-5 hash is known ("pre image resistance"). I have heard people arguing this when I told them using MD-5 as a password hash function is a bad idea. The main problem with MD-5 as a password hash is not the weaknesses in MD-5 itself, but the lack of salt, lack of iterations, and lack of memory hardness. But still, I don't see any reason why you should use MD-5 as a building block for anything, which has anything to do with security. Would you use a car to drive your children to the school, which car has not been maintained in the last 23 year? If your answer is yes, you should neither have children nor a job in IT SEC.

Conclusion

If you are a malware researcher, and used MD-5 only to identify malware samples in the past, I suggest to write it down 1000 times: "I promise I won't use MD-5 to identify malware in the future."

I even made a website dedicated to this problem, www.stopusingmd5now.com . The next time you see a post/article/whatever where malware is identified by the MD-5 hash only, please link to this blog post or website, and the world will be a better and more professional place.

PS: If you are a forensics investigator, or software developer developing software used in forensics, the same applies to you.
PS 2: If you find this post too provocative and harsh, there is a reason for this ...

Update: I have modified two malware (Citadel, Atrax) with the help of HashClash, and now those have the same MD-5. Many thanks for Marc Stevens for his research, publishing his code, and help given during the collision finding.More info

0 comments

Reversing Some C++ Io Operations

Posted on 5:38 AM by Tina

In general decompilers are not friendly with c++ let's analyse a simple program to get familiar with it.
Let's implement a simple code that loads a file into a vector and then save the vector with following functions:

err
load
save
main

Lets identify the typical way in C++ to print to stdout with the operator "<<"

The basic_ostream is initialized writing the word "error" to the cout, and then the operator<< again to add the endl.

The Main function simply calls "vec = load(filename)" but the compiler modified it and passed the vector pointer as a parámeter. Then it bulds and prints "loaded " << size << " users".
And finally saves the vector to /tmp/pwd and print "saved".
Most of the mess is basically the operator "<<" to concat and print values.
Also note that the vectors and strings are automatically deallocated when exit the function.

And here is the code:

Let's take a look to the load function, which iterates the ifs.getline() and push to the vector.
First of all there is a mess on the function definition, __return_storage_ptr is the vector.
the ifstream object ifs is initialized as a basic_ifstream and then operator! checks if it wasn't possible to open the file and in that case calls err()
We see the memset and a loop, getline read a cstr like line from the file, and then is converted to a string before pushing it to the vector. lVar1 is the stack canary value.

In this situations dont obfuscate with the vector pointer vec initialization at the begining, in this case the logic is quite clear.

The function save is a bit more tricky, but it's no more than a vector iteration and ofs writing.
Looping a simple "for (auto s : *vec)" in the decompiler is quite dense, but we can see clearly two write, the second write DAT_0010400b is a "\n"

As we see, save implememtation is quite straightforward.

Continue reading

0 comments

Soul Submissive

About Soul Submissive

Labels

Blog Archive

My Blog List

Followers

BYOPPP - Build Your Own Privacy Protection Proxy

VPS server

VPN

Privoxy

Iptables

Final test

Stop Using MD-5, Now!

Introduction to (cryptographic) hash functions

Conclusion

Reversing Some C++ Io Operations