An t-airteagal ag iarraidh a shoiléiriú agus a mhíniú níos fearr ar an toradh ag infosecurityguard.com regaring meastóireacht a táirge criptithe guth.
An t-airteagal ag iarraidh a insint duit pointe éagsúla de, seachas infosecurityguard.com agus ag míniú a bhfuil na réasúnach leis an explaination fairsinge ó thaobh slándála de.
Sa lá atá inniu i léamh nuacht ag rá: "PhoneCrypt: Leochaileacht Bunúsach Aimsíodh i 12 as 15 Táirgí Criptiú Guth agus chuaigh a léamh ar an láithreán gréasáin infosecurityguard .
Ar dtús ba chosúil le mo cosúil le gníomhaíocht taighde iontach ach ansin thosaigh mé ag léamh go mór an léamh faoi it.I fuarthas amach go nach bhfuil sé i gceart taighde slándála ach tá go bhfuil eilimintí nithiúla go feachtas margaíochta a dhéanamh go maith d'fhonn a mhealladh na meáin poiblí agus a phoibliú táirge.
Imho bhí siad in ann iriseoirí agus úsáideoirí cheat toisc go raibh an feachtas margaíochta nach bhfuil déanta go hiomlán go maith le teacht ar an 1ú léamh iarracht. Mheas mé go pearsanta sé cosúil le ceann bailí ar 1 réidh (cheated siad dom ar dtús!).
Ach má théann tú go domhain ... beidh tú a thuiscint go:
- Tá sé ina tionscnamh margaíochta duaithníocht eagraithe ag SecurStar GmbH agus ní ar thaighde slándála neamhspleách
- A mheasann siad comhthéacs slándála amháin i gcás ina bhfuil gléas áitiúil i mbaol (Is féidir aon bogearraí a dhaingniú sa chás sin, cosúil le rá gur féidir SSL a chur i mbaol má tá tú trojan!)
- Nach bhfuil siad ag smaoineamh ar aon urrús bunúsach agus critéir slándála cryptographic
Mar sin féin a lán de na suíomh gréasáin tábhachtach a tuairiscíodh é:
Tá an tAirteagal seo fada go leor, má léigh tú é go mbeidh tú a thuiscint níos fearr ar cad atá ar siúl thart ar thaighde infosecurityguard.com agus toradh taighde.
Ba mhaith liom a insint duit cén fáth agus conas (imho) tá siad mícheart.
Chaill an taighde a mheas Slándála, Cripteagrafaíochta agus Trédhearcacht!
Bhuel, seo go léir fuaime taighde i bhfad cosúil le bheith dírithe ar an sprioc margaíochta a rá go bhfuil a gcuid táirgí PhoneCrypt an "Super" táirge is fearr ar fad na cinn eile.
Aon saineolaí slándála a mbeadh mar dhualgas ar an "meastóireacht bogearraí" d'fhonn a chosaint ar an rúndacht na glaonna teileafóin a bheidh a mheas tréithe éagsúla eile an táirge agus an teicneolaíocht.
Sea, tá sé fíor go bhfuil an chuid is mó den táirge ag cur síos SecurStar in a láithreán gréasáin margaíochta gan ainm ar a dtugtar http://infosecurityguard.com roinnt laige.
Ach tá an laige ábhartha eile agus PhoneCrypt ar an drochuair, mar chuid is mó de na táirgí a bhfuil cur síos ag fulaingt ó seo.
A ligean ar athbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar a bhfuil tréithe atá de dhíth cripteagrafaíochta bunúsacha agus ceanglas slándála (an cleachtas is fearr, an bunús agus an Basics!)
a - Ní Slándáil Umar doiléire oibre
Tá riail bunúsach i cripteagrafaíochta cames ó 1883 Auguste Kerckhoffs:
I gcóras cripteagrafach dea-dheartha, ach na riachtanais eochair a bheith rúnda; cheart go mbeadh aon rúndacht sa algartam.
Cryptographers nua-aimseartha a bheith glactha an bprionsabal sin, aon rud eile ag glaoch "slándáil trí doiléire."
Léigh cad Bruce Schneir, saineolaithe agus cryptographer aitheanta ar fud an domhain a rá faoi seo Beidh aon saineolaí slándála a insint duit go bhfuil fíor. Beidh Fiú mac léinn ollscoile novice a insint duit go bhfuil fíor. Níl ort ach mar gheall ar go bhfuil an t-aon bhealach cripteagrafaíochta a dhéanamh.
Beagnach gach táirge a bhfuil cur síos san athbhreithniú a rinne SecurStar GmbH, tá PhoneCrypt, ní mionsonraí beachta faoina gcuid teicneolaíochtaí chripteagrafach.
Tá sonraí beachta:
- Sonraíocht mionsonraithe algartam cryptographic (is nach bhfuil ach ag rá "a úsáidimid AES ")
- Sonraíocht mionsonraithe prótacal cryptographic (is nach bhfuil ach ag rá "úsáidimid Diffie Hellman ")
- Sonraíocht mionsonraithe a thomhas neart cryptographic (is nach bhfuil ach ag rá "ní mór dúinn 10000000 giotán méid príomh- ")
Ciallaíonn sholáthar mionsonraí beachta a bhfuil doiciméadú forleathan a bhfuil impleachtaí teoiriciúil agus praiticiúil a dhoiciméadú AON bhealach amháin ar conas a oibríonn an algartam, conas a oibríonn an prótacal leis an tsonraíocht beacht a mhacasamhlú é le haghaidh tástála comh-inoibritheacht.
Ciallaíonn sé gur chóir go mbeadh pobal eolaíochta in ann a imirt leis an teicneolaíocht, a iniúchadh air, hack é.
Más rud é nach bhfuil a fhios againn rud ar bith faoi chóras cripteagrafacha i bhfoirm sonraí, conas is féidir linn a fhios ag a bhfuil an laige agus neart pointí?
Mike Fratto, eagarthóir Láithreán Líonra Ríomhaireachta, rinne sé alt iontach ar "Ag rá NÍL chórais cryptographic dílseánaigh" .
Cerias Ollscoil Purdue insint seo .
b - piar NEAMH athbhreithnithe agus ní NEAMH Cripteagrafaíochta heolaíoch ceadaithe ag obair
In aon chás, agus in aon choinníoll a dhéanann tú cripteagrafaíochta ní mór duit a bheith cinnte go mbeidh duine éigin eile a sheiceáil, a athbhreithniú, a anailísiú, distruct agus reconstract ó scratch do theicneolaíocht agus iad siúd eolas saor in aisce don phobal le plé oscailte a chur ar fáil.
Sin é go díreach an chaoi a rugadh AES agus cosúil US Institiúid Náisiúnta Caighdeán a dhéanann criptithe (le comórtas poiblí athbhreithniú piaraí poiblí nach mbeidh ach an bua is fearr a mheas).
Tá plé poiblí le comórtas poiblí i gcás an a lán de athbhreithnithe is cryptographer cáiliúla agus saineolaithe ar fud an domhain, hackers (lena n-ainm, sloinne agus aghaidh, ní cosúil Notrax) a chuireann siad ar fáil, a insint cad a cheapann siad.
Sin ar a dtugtar "athbhreithniú piaraí".
Má tá an teicneolaíocht cripteagrafach athbhreithniú piaraí leathnaithe agus tábhachtach, a dháileadh ar fud an domhain ag teacht ó ollscoileanna, cuideachtaí slándála príobháideacha, institiúidí míleata, hackers agus gach a thagann ó chuid éagsúla den domhan (ó Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá go dtí an Eoraip go dtí an Rúis go Meiriceá Theas go dtí Meán soir go dtí an tSín) agus aontaíonn gach duine acu go bhfuil an teicneolaíocht ar leith go bhfuil sé slán ...
Bhuel, sa chás sin is féidir linn a mheas an teicneolaíocht slán toisc go bhfuil athbhreithniú ar a lán na n-eintiteas a bhfuil dea-cháil agus an t-údarás ag teacht ó a lán de na áit eile ar fud an domhain go poiblí, anailís agus dheimhnigh sé go teicneolaíocht bhfuil sé slán.
Conas is féidir le cuideachta phríobháideach a cheapann fiú a chumadh ar sé féin prótacal cumarsáide slán nuair atá sé ráite go heolaíoch nach bhfuil sé indéanta a dhéanamh ar "bhealach dílseánaigh agus dúnta"?
IBM insint duit go bhfuil athbhreithniú piaraí sé ag teastáil le haghaidh cripteagrafaíochta .
Bruce Schneier insint duit go bhfuil "Tá a fhios cryptographers Dea go gcuirfidh aon rud le haghaidh athbhreithniú piaraí forleathan agus sna blianta anailíse."
Beidh Philip Zimmermann insint duit go beware de Snake Ola áit a bhfuil an scéal: ". fancies gach innealtóir bogearraí féin cryptographer, a ba chúis le iomadú na bogearraí criptithe go dona"
c - ní foinse Dúnta cripteagrafaíochta oibre
Mar is eol duit de chineál ar bith "tromchúiseach" agus leis go bhfuil "dea-cháil" teicneolaíocht cryptographic i bhfeidhm i opensource.
Is gnách go mbíonn cur i bhfeidhm iolraí de an algartam cryptographic céanna agus prótacal chripteagrafach a bheith in ann athbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar fad ar an mbealach oibríonn sé agus an idir-inoibritheacht a dheimhniú.
Cheapadh chun úsáid a bhaint as caighdeán le sonraí beachta agus a leathnú ar "conas a oibríonn sé", a bhí "athbhreithnithe ag piaraí" ag an bpobal eolaíoch ACH go bhfuil a ath-chur i bhfeidhm ó mhúinteoir aitheanta ag Ríomhchláraitheoir nach cliste sin agus cur i bhfeidhm tá sé neart bugs .
Well, if the implementation is “opensource” this means that it can be reviewed, improved, tested, audited and the end user will certaintly have in it's own had a piece of technology “that works safely” .
Google release opensource crypto toolkit
Mozilla release opensource crypto toolkit
Bruce Schneier tell you that Cryptography must be opensource .
Another cryptographic point of view
I don't want to convince anyone but just provide facts related to science, related to cryptography and security in order to reduce the effect of misinformation done by security companies whose only goes is to sell you something and not to do something that make the world a better.
When you do secure products, if they are not done following the proper approach people could die.
It's absolutely something irresponsible not to use best practice to do crypto stuff.
To summarize let's review the infosecurityguard.com review from a security best pratice point of view.
Product name | Security Trough Obscurity | Public peer review | Open Source | Compromise locally? |
Caspertec | Obscurity | No public review | Closed | Is ea |
CellCrypt | Obscurity | No public review | Closed | Is ea |
Cryptophone | Transparency | Limited public review | Public | Is ea |
Gold-Lock | Obscurity | No public review | Closed | Is ea |
Illix | Obscurity | No public review | Closed | Is ea |
No1.BC | Obscurity | No public review | Closed | Is ea |
PhoneCrypt | Obscurity | No public review | Closed | Is ea |
Rode&Swarz | Obscurity | No public review | Closed | Is ea |
Secure-Voice | Obscurity | No public review | Closed | Is ea |
SecuSmart | Obscurity | No public review | Closed | Is ea |
SecVoice | Obscurity | No public review | Closed | Is ea |
SegureGSM | Obscurity | No public review | Closed | Is ea |
SnapCell | Obscurity | No public review | Closed | Is ea |
Tripleton | Obscurity | No public review | Closed | Is ea |
Zfone | Transparency | Public review | Open | Is ea |
ZRTP | Transparency | Public review | Open | Is ea |
*Green means that it match basic requirement for a cryptographic secure system
* Red / Broken means that it does not match basic requirement for a cryptographic secure system
That's my analysis using a evaluation method based on cryptographic and security parameters not including the local compromise context that i consider useless.
However, to be clear, those are only basic parameters to be used when considering a voice encryption product (just to avoid being in a situation that appears like i am promoting other products). So it may absolutely possible that a product with good crypto ( transparency, peer reviewed and opensource) is absolutely a not secure product because of whatever reason (badly written, not usable causing user not to use it and use cleartext calls, politically compromised, etc, etc).
I think i will prepare a broader criteria for voice crypto technologies and voice crypto products, so it would be much easier and much practical to have a full transparent set of criterias to evaluate it.
But those are really the basis of security to be matched for a good voice encryption system!
Read some useful past slides on security protocols used in voice encryption systems (2nd part).
Now read below some more practical doubt about their research.
The security concept of the review is misleading: any hacked device can be always intercepted!
I think that the guys completely missed the point: ANY KIND OF SOFTWARE RUNNING ON A COMPROMISED OPERATING SYSTEM CAN BE INTERCEPTED
Now they are pointing out that also Zfone from Philip Zimmermann is broken (a pc software), just because they install a trojan on a PC like in a mobile phone?
Any security software rely on the fact that the underlying operating system is somehow trusted and preserve the integrity of the environment where the software run.
- If you have a disk encryption system but your PC if infected by a trojan, the computer is already compromised.
- If you have a voice encryption system but your PC is infected by a trojan, the computer is already compromised.
- If you have a voice encryption system but your mobile phone is infected by a trojan, the mobile phone is already compromised.
No matter which software you are running, in such case the security of your operating environment is compromised and in one way or another way all the information integrity and confidentiality is compromised.
Like i explained above how to intercept PhoneCrypt.
The only things that can protect you from this threat is running in a closed operating system with Trust Computing capability, implementing it properly.
For sure on any “Open” operating system such us Windows, Windows Mobile, Linux, iPhone or Android there's no chance to really protect a software.
On difficult operating system such as Symbian OS or RimOS maybe the running software can be protected (at least partially)
That's the reason for which the security concept that guys are leveraging to carry on their marketing campaign has no clue.
It's just because they control the environment, they know Flexispy software and so they adjusted their software not to be interceptable when Flexispy is installed.
If you develop a trojan with the other techniques i described above you will 100% intercept PhoneCrypt.
On that subject also Dustin Tamme l, Security researcher of BreakPoint Systems , pointed on on VoIP Security Alliance mailing lists that the security analysis is based on wrong concepts .
The PhoneCrypt can be intercepted: it's just that they don't wanted to tell you!
PhoneCrypt can be intercepted with “on device spyware”.
Why?
Because Windows Mobile is an unsecure operating environment and PhoneCrypt runs on Windows Mobile.
Windows Mobile does not use Trusted Computing and so any software can do anything.
The platform choice for a secure telephony system is important.
How?
I quickly discussed with some knowledgeable windows mobile hackers about 2 different way to intercept PhoneCrypt with an on-device spyware (given the unsecure Windows Mobile Platform).
a) Inject a malicious DLL into the software and intercept from within the Phonecrypt itself.
In Windows Mobile any software can be subject to DLL code injection.
What an attacker can do is to inject into the PhoneCrypt software (or any software running on the phone), hooking the Audio related functions acting as a “function proxy” between the PhoneCrypt and the real API to record/play audio.
It's a matter of “hooking” only 2 functions, the one that record and the one that play audio.
That's simple, any programmer will tell you to do so.
They simply decided that's better not to make any notice about this.
b) Create a new audio driver that simply act as a proxy to the real one and intercept PhoneCrypt
In Windows Mobile you can create new Audio Drivers and new Audio Filters.
What an attacker can do is to load a new audio driver that does not do anything else than passing the real audio driver function TO/FROM the realone. In the meantime intercept everything recorded and everything played :-)
They simply decided that's better not to make any notice to that way of intercepting phone call on PhoneCrypt .
Those are just 2 quick ideas, more can be probably done.
Sounds much like a marketing activity – Not a security research.
I have to tell you. I analyzed the issue very carefully and on most aspects. All this things about the voice encryption analisys sounds to me like a marketing campaign of SecurStar GmbH to sell PhoneCrypt and gain reputation. A well articulated and well prepared campaign to attract the media saying, in an indirect way cheating the media, that PhoneCrypt is the only one secure. You see the press releases of SecurStar and of the “Security researcher Notrax telling that PhoneCrypt is the only secure product” . SecurStar PhoneCrypt is the only product the anonymous hacker “Notrax” consider secure of the “software solutions”.
The only “software version” in competition with:
–
SnapCell – No one can buy it. A security company that does not even had anymore a webpage. The company does not almost exist anymore.
Does it sounds strange that only those other products are considered secure along with PhoneCrypt .
Also… let's check the kind of multimedia content in the different reviews available of Gold-Lock, Cellcrypt and Phonecrypt in order to understand how much the marketing guys pressed to make the PhoneCrypt review the most attractive:
Application | Screenshots of application | Video with demonstration of interception | Network demonstration |
PhoneCrypt | 5 | 0 | 1 | |
CellCrypt | 0 | 2 | 0 |
GoldLock | 1 | 2 | 0 |
It's clear that PhoneCrypt is reviewed showing more features explicitly shown and major security features product description than the other.
Too much difference between them, should we suspect it's a marketing tips?
But again other strange things analyzing the way it was done…
If it was “an impartial and neutral review” we should see good and bad things on all the products right?
Ok, see the table below regarding the opinion indicated in each paragraph of the different reviews available of Gold-Lock, CellCrypt and Phonecrypt (are the only available) to see if are positive or negative.
Application | Number of paragraphs | Positive paragraphs | Negative paragraphs | Neutral paragraphs |
PhoneCrypt | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 |
CellCrypt | 12 | 0 | 10 | 2 |
GoldLock | 9 | 0 | 8 | 1 |
Detailed paragraphs opinion analysis of Phonecrypt Paragraph of review | Opinion expressed |
From their website | Positive Marketing feedback |
Apple iPhone | Positive Marketing feedback |
Disk Encryption or voice Encryption | Positive Marketing feedback |
PBX Compatibility? Really | Positive Marketing feedback |
Cracking <10. Not. | Positive Marketing feedback |
Good thinking! | Positive Marketing feedback |
A little network action | Positive Marketing feedback |
UI | Positive Marketing feedback |
Good Taste | Positive Marketing feedback |
Paragraph of review | Opinion expressed |
From their website | Negative Marketing feedback |
Licensed by The israeli Ministry of Denfese | Negative Marketing feedback |
Real Company or Part Time hobby | Negative Marketing feedback |
16.000 bit authentication | Negative Marketing feedback |
DH 256 | Negative Marketing feedback |
Downad & Installation! | Neutral Marketing feedback |
Cracking it <10 | Negative Marketing feedback |
Marketing BS101 | Negative Marketing feedback |
Cool video stuff | Negative Marketing feedback |
Detailed paragraphs opinion analysis of
CellCrypt Paragraph of review | Opinion expressed |
From their website | Neutral Marketing feedback |
A little background about cellcrypt | Negative Marketing feedback |
Master of Marketing | Negative Marketing feedback |
Secure Voice calling | Negative Marketing feedback |
Who's buying their wares | Negative Marketing feedback |
Downad & Installation! | Neutral Marketing feedback |
My Demo environment | Negative Marketing feedback |
Did they forget some code | Negative Marketing feedback |
Cracking it <5 | Negative Marketing feedback |
Room Monitoring w/ FlexiSpy | Negative Marketing feedback |
Cellcrypt unique features.. | Negative Marketing feedback |
Plain old interception | Negative Marketing feedback |
The Haters out there | Negative Marketing feedback |
Now it's clear that from their point of view on PhoneCrypt there is no single bad point while the other are always described in a negative way.
No single good point. Strange?
All those considerations along with the next ones really let me think that's very probably a marketing review and not an independent review.
Other similar marketing attempt from SecurStar
SecurStar GmbH is known to have used in past marketing activity leveraging this kind of “technical speculations”, abusing of partial information and fake unconfirmed hacking stuff to make marketing/media coverage.
Imho a rare mix of unfairness in leveraging the difficult for people to really understand the complexity of security and cryptography.
They already used in past Marketing activities like the one about creating a trojan for Windows Mobile and saying that their software is secure from the trojan that they wrote.
Read about their marketing tricks of 2007
They developed a Trojan (RexSpy) for Windows Mobile, made a demonstration capability of the trojan and later on told that they included “Anti-Trojan” capability to their PhoneCrypt software.They never released informations on that trojan, not even proved that it exists.
The researcher Collin Mulliner told at that time that it sounds like a marketing tips (also because he was not able to get from SecurStar CEO Hafner any information about that trojan):
“This makes you wonder if this is just a marketing thing.”
Now, let's try to make some logical reassignment.
It's part of the way they do marketing, an very unfriendly and unpolite approach with customers, journalist and users trying to provide wrong security concepts for a market advantage. Being sure that who read don't have all the skills to do in depth security evaluation and find the truth behind their marketing trips.
Who is the hacker notrax?
It sounds like a camouflage of a fake identity required to have an “independent hacker” that make an “independent review” that is more strong on reputation building.
Read about his bio:
¾ Human, ¼ Android (Well that would be cool at least.) I am just an enthusiast of pretty much anything that talks binary and if it has a RS232 port even better. During the day I masquerade as an engineer working on some pretty cool projects at times, but mostly I do the fun stuff at night. I have been thinking of starting an official blog for about 4.5 years to share some of the things I come across, can't figure out, or just cross my mind. Due to my day job and my nighttime meddling, I will update this when I can. I hope some find it useful, if you don't, well you don't.
There are no information about this guy on google.
Almost any hacker that get public have articles online, post in mailing archive and/or forum or some result of their activity.
For notrax, nothing is available.
Additionally let's look at the domain…
The domain infosecurityguard.com is privacy protected by domainsbyproxy to prevent understanding who is the owner.
The domain has been created 2 months ago on 01-Dec-09 on godaddy.com registrar.
What's also very interesting to notice that this “unknown hacker with no trace on google about him that appeared on December 2009 on the net” is referred on SecurStar GmbH Press Release as a “An IT security expert”.
Maybe they “know personally” who's this anonymous notrax? :)
Am i following my own conspiracy thinking or maybe there's some reasonable doubt that everything was arrange in that funny way just for a marketing activity?
Social consideration
If you are a security company you job have also a social aspects, you should also work to make the world a better place (sure to make business but “not being evil”). You cannot cheat the skills of the end users in evaluating security making fake misleading information.
You should do awareness on end users, to make them more conscious of security issues, giving them the tools to understand and decide themselves.
Hope you had fun reading this article and you made your own consideration about this.
Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)
ps Those are my personal professional opinion, let's speak about technology and security, not marketing.
pps i am not that smart in web writing, so sorry for how the text is formatted and how the flow of the article is unstructured!