Questions tagged [beast]
BEAST is an attack against SSL/TLS versions up to TLS 1.0.
38
questions
1
vote
2
answers
882
views
Are disabling TLS 1.0, enabling RC4 or using TLS1.0 with AES only, the only ways to mitigate BEAST server-side?
I understand that BEAST is very hard to exploit and mostly fixed by modern browsers already.
Also, enabling RC4 will introduce other risks.
So, if you still want to mitigate the almost impossible ...
- 6,661
0
votes
1
answer
318
views
BEAST attack on TSL1.2?
It is my understanding that BEAST only works on TLS1.0 and I got confused when I saw a demonstration of BEAST attack on paypal.com, locally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTqAIDVUvrU
Paypal uses ...
- 739
2
votes
1
answer
9k
views
Detecting POODLE and BEAST using nmap
Need your expert advice for the following -
POODLE - We can deduce if a server is vulnerable to poodle if it
supports sslv3 protocol and uses CBC Ciphers.
BEAST - Any server supporting sslv3 OR TLS ...
- 173
18
votes
3
answers
12k
views
Is gzipping content via TLS allowed?
So I have these few compression directives at http level in nginx:
gzip on;
gzip_http_version 1.1;
gzip_vary on;
I read that this should be avoided because of CRIME/BREACH attack, is this correct?
- 1,073
1
vote
3
answers
277
views
CRIME attack - If Javascript can be injected on the attacked machine, why not directly sending the cookie to a remove server?
I read about the CRIME - How to beat the BEAST successor? question and answer, but I don't understand that: If Javascript can be injected and run on the attacked machine, why not directly sending the ...
- 11
1
vote
0
answers
424
views
How to explain BEAST attack to non-tech people
I'm looking for the best way to describe the Browser Exploit Against SSL/TLS (BEAST) attack to non-technical people, without being too general.
So I am not looking for: "did you ever noticed the lock ...
- 31
1
vote
1
answer
121
views
Is there a vulnerability when TLS is decrypted, then encrypted with OpenSSL that is vulnerable to BEAST or CRIME?
Assume that the following TLS proxy exists
User <-----> Load Balancer that decrypts, encrypts <------> WebServer
Where the web server is running a vulnerable version of OpenSSL.
Can ...
- 50.7k
0
votes
1
answer
974
views
Beast attack and Qualys SSL test
If a server supports
| SSLv3: No supported ciphers found
| TLSv1.0:
| ciphers:
| TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA - strong
| TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - strong
| ...
- 197
2
votes
1
answer
457
views
BEAST some misunderstandings
I was reading the Here Come The ⊕ Ninjas document about the BEAST attack discovered by Thai Duong & Juliano Rizzo. There are two points I cannot understand.
At the section 5 - Application: ...
- 290
3
votes
1
answer
3k
views
Is RDP susceptible to the BEAST attack?
I have Windows 2008 R2 servers which are failing a PCI vulnerability scan because they have RDP enabled (needs to be disabled).
I have applied the PCI settings of IISCrypto tool, but I have to leave ...
- 131
6
votes
1
answer
10k
views
Prevent BEAST attack without RC4 cipher suites
It is common practice to prevent the BEAST attack using the following ciphers in Apache SSL configuration:
SSLCipherSuite RC4-SHA:HIGH:!ADH
Unfortunately, RC4 has been found to be flawed and it is ...
- 1,479
1
vote
1
answer
5k
views
RC4-MD5 vs DES-CBC3-SHA [closed]
We moved to RC4-MD5 as a mitigation to BEAST attack. But our other teams are saying to use DES-CBC3-SHA
I want to know if DES-CBC3-SHA is also equivalent secure and mitigates BEAST as well ?
Also ...
- 2,098
4
votes
1
answer
2k
views
Do the BEAST and CRIME attacks apply to an IMAP service?
While setting up the Dovecot IMAP service, I noticed that the default parameters are not optimal, it allows SSLv3 for example. Using Thomas Pournin's TestSSLServer.java program, I saw the following:
....
- 6,078
2
votes
3
answers
797
views
Does it make sense to keep RC4?
I know that the RC4 cipher when used with SSL is vulnerable to certain attacks, which in the worst case scenario could result in authentication tokens being stolen. But RC4 is also recommended as a ...
- 3,536
2
votes
1
answer
3k
views
"Must have" and "Preferred Cipher" suites terminology
I have received the following advise to set cipher suites to suitably mitigate Beast attack on a newly setup Apache HTTPD server.
Preferred ciphers: RC4-SHA, RC4-MD5
Must Have Ciphers: ...
- 223
1
vote
2
answers
2k
views
Clients breaking after avoiding RC4-MD5
As per http://projects.webappsec.org/w/page/13246945/Insufficient%20Transport%20Layer%20Protection , we have been recommended to stop using RC4-MD5.
The clients supported by our Application are IE ...
- 2,098
6
votes
1
answer
494
views
Any not totally insecure browser vulnerable to BEAST?
People still worry about BEAST quite a lot when configuring web servers to the point of preferring RC4 over AES-CBC. But most browsers mitigate BEAST even while using TLS 1.0.
Is there a browser that:...
- 12k
2
votes
1
answer
2k
views
OpenSSL: Enable cipher suites per protocol version
Is there a way to explicitly configure OpenSSL to allow AES (or in general, block ciphers) only for clients that use a TLS version >= 1.1?
This would protect against the BEAST attack, while still ...
- 4,213
3
votes
2
answers
5k
views
how to experiment with BEAST attacks
from basic research my understanding is: it is vulnerable in TLS 1.0 in SSL 3
Attacker can inject javascript and pass some known text to some server where attacker will get the encrypted version of ...
- 197
0
votes
3
answers
3k
views
Hardened SSL ciphers for Nginx as AWS/Cloudfront Custom Origin
Based on recommendations, we recently attempted to harden our Nginx SSL configuration against BEAST/CRIME/BREACH attacks with the following stanza:
ssl_prefer_server_ciphers on;
ssl_ciphers ECDHE-RSA-...
- 101
3
votes
2
answers
1k
views
BEAST mitigation on a Cisco ACE 4710 load balancer
We are looking to mitigate BEAST (and similar) on our Cisco ACE appliance (running version A4(2.0)), which is the 'endpoint' for a handful of load-balanced services. Some of these service still run ...
- 418
25
votes
4
answers
43k
views
Why don't major browsers currently support TLS above version 1.0?
TLS 1.0 seem to be vulnerable to Beast, Lucky13 and maybe other attacks and is simply outdated. Common workaround used e.g. by Google was to use RC4 which was also recently broken, but none of the ...
- 1,761
40
votes
1
answer
10k
views
TLS: RC4 or not RC4?
I was reading another interesting article by Matthew Green today, saying that
if you're using RC4 as your primary ciphersuite in SSL/TLS, now would be a great time to stop
As far as I'm aware RC4 ...
- 5,349
18
votes
2
answers
12k
views
Is AES-GCM recommended for SSL?
I'm looking at turning on site-wide SSL for a website I manage, and I'm wondering what the best practices for SSL configuration. I'm not too worried about compatibility with old browsers and more ...
- 135k
4
votes
3
answers
12k
views
BEAST: IIS6: Failing PCI scan - are these ciphers OK?
Our PCI compliance scanner, TrustWave, have failed our Win 2003/IIS6 site on BEAST because of the following cyphers:
Cipher Suite: SSLv3 : DES-CBC3-SHA
Cipher Suite: SSLv3 : RC4-SHA
Cipher Suite: ...
- 143
5
votes
1
answer
2k
views
IIS 6.0 - mitigating BEAST
Recently, my PCI assessor informed me that my servers are vulnerable to BEAST and failed me. I did my homework and I want to change our webservers to prefer RC4 ciphers over CBC. I followed every ...
- 153
6
votes
2
answers
10k
views
Configure SSL to prefer RC4 ciphers over block-based ciphers - BEAST
Our PCI scanners just informed us that we have BEAST (Browser Exploit Against SSL/TLS) Vulnerability
Apparently, the remediation is as follows:
Affected users should disable all block-based cipher ...
- 163
19
votes
1
answer
21k
views
Tools to test for BEAST/CRIME that AREN'T Internet-based?
We have increasing pressure to identify and remediate any HTTPS server configurations that are vulnerable to BEAST (CBC) and CRIME (compression). We need to fix servers that are accessible to the ...
- 72.7k
13
votes
2
answers
9k
views
Is BEAST really fixed in all modern browsers?
BEAST is said to be fixed in all modern browsers:
Chrome and Firefox
IE in Jan 2012
Opera in Dec 2011.
It's also fixed in OpenSSL since 2002.
Do these fixes mean that it's safe to use ciphers in ...
- 5,357
27
votes
3
answers
20k
views
Is there a way to mitigate BEAST without disabling AES completely?
It seems that the easiest way to protect users against the BEAST attack on TLS <= 1.0 is to prefer RC4 or even disable all other (CBC) cipher suites altogether, e.g. by specifying something like
...
- 4,213
31
votes
5
answers
61k
views
How to fix SSL 2.0 and BEAST on IIS
As you can see on this post TeamMentor.net vulnerable to BEAST and SSL 2.0, now what? the app I'm currently development got flagged for SSL 2.0 and BEAST by SSL Labs.
I'm using IIS 7.0 with the ...
- 629
16
votes
3
answers
20k
views
How to test for the BEAST attack if server isn't Internet-connected?
I'd like to test a server specifically for vulnerabilities related to BEAST. What command line switches should I use?
What should I see (or not see) in the output?
Update
The intent is to scan a ...
- 50.7k
4
votes
2
answers
4k
views
Next Microsoft Patch Tuesday include BEAST SSL fix
http://thehackernews.com/2012/01/next-microsoft-patch-tuesday-include.html
I thought the vulnerability that BEAST uses is already fixed on "Microsoft" side, no? Can someone please clarify ...
- 6,259
26
votes
3
answers
2k
views
Why was the BEAST attack previously considered implausible?
Can someone explain why the BEAST attack wasn't considered plausible? I saw an article quoting the creator as saying 'It is worth noting that the vulnerability that BEAST exploits has been presented ...
- 363
5
votes
5
answers
3k
views
Should I ignore the BEAST SSL exploit and continue to prefer AES?
Because of the BEAST exploit it seems everyone is saying you should stop using AES and instead use RC4.
I am wondering if it wouldn't be better to continue using AES instead for the following reasons:...
- 1,161
15
votes
4
answers
3k
views
TLS 1.0 JavaScript injection vulnerability (BEAST): what to do client-side?
With the alleged SSL/TLS vulnerabilities used by the BEAST exploit, there seems to be a security gap between TLS versions; TLS 1.0 being the problematic one but still the only option for many sites.
...
- 2,813
1
vote
2
answers
1k
views
SSL Breach - Does the latest BEAST vulnerability mean SSL Issuers now have to worry about integrity? [closed]
Although many SSL certificates have been boasting extravagant guarantees -- typically around $10k minimum to $250k per breach -- to ensure their certificates are valid, to this date, I've heard that ...
- 223
16
votes
5
answers
2k
views
What can I do about TLS 1.0 javascript injection vulnerability on my server?
The recent article featured on slashdot http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/19/beast_exploits_paypal_ssl/ says that connections secured with TLS 1.0 are susceptible to man-in-the-middle decryption (...
- 1,007