Hi, Given the recent revelations regarding the state of the net's (in)security, and as a longtime user of TLS with SRTP in FS, I think it would be prudent to update the TLS version and ciphers that FS can negotiate. Currently FS only supports TLS 1.0 (correct me if I'm wrong), which has some worrying security issues <http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/05/weakness-in-tsl-protocol> . Is it possible to upgrade to TLS 1.1 (or even better, 1.2)? I'd like to use AES in the 256 key length instead of the standard 128. Anyone know if this is on the agenda and/or where I can have a closer look at the cipher order presented by FS? Thanks -- View this message in context: http://freeswitch-users.2379917.n2.nabble.com/Updating-TLS-tp7594774.html Sent from the freeswitch-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Anyone have any thoughts or hints on this? Am I the only one interested in upgrading the security aspects of FS? Don't mean to be a pain, but I'm surprised at the apparent lack of interest. On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 8:09 PM, privs <privus007@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Given the recent revelations regarding the state of the net's (in)security, and as a longtime user of TLS with SRTP in FS, I think it would be prudent to update the TLS version and ciphers that FS can negotiate.
Currently FS only supports TLS 1.0 (correct me if I'm wrong), which has some worrying security issues <http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/05/weakness-in-tsl-protocol> . Is it possible to upgrade to TLS 1.1 (or even better, 1.2)? I'd like to use AES in the 256 key length instead of the standard 128.
Anyone know if this is on the agenda and/or where I can have a closer look at the cipher order presented by FS?
Thanks
-- View this message in context: http://freeswitch-users.2379917.n2.nabble.com/Updating-TLS-tp7594774.html Sent from the freeswitch-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Agreed ! TLS/SSL seems to be not so important unless FS is capable of providing security implementation in some form atleast. This is great, when you JUST have to secure your communication. but, NOT , when security is the only concern. I have been trying to mature the TLS handshake on SUITE-B standard, but yet unsuccessful acquiring so. I believe that FS use openSSL for dealing with encryption methods and therefore, I have taken it to the version 1.0.1e, which supports TLS1.1 , 1.2 . But , FS doesnt verfiy those Cipher [TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256]. I have already a jira ticket opened here: http://jira.freeswitch.org/browse/FS-5719 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Privus 007 <privus007@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyone have any thoughts or hints on this? Am I the only one interested in upgrading the security aspects of FS?
Don't mean to be a pain, but I'm surprised at the apparent lack of interest.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 8:09 PM, privs <privus007@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Given the recent revelations regarding the state of the net's (in)security, and as a longtime user of TLS with SRTP in FS, I think it would be prudent to update the TLS version and ciphers that FS can negotiate.
Currently FS only supports TLS 1.0 (correct me if I'm wrong), which has some worrying security issues <http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/05/weakness-in-tsl-protocol> . Is it possible to upgrade to TLS 1.1 (or even better, 1.2)? I'd like to use AES in the 256 key length instead of the standard 128.
Anyone know if this is on the agenda and/or where I can have a closer look at the cipher order presented by FS?
Thanks
-- View this message in context: http://freeswitch-users.2379917.n2.nabble.com/Updating-TLS-tp7594774.html Sent from the freeswitch-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
On 09/13/2013 01:29 PM, Mehroz Ashraf wrote:
Agreed ! TLS/SSL seems to be not so important unless FS is capable of providing security implementation in some form atleast. This is great, when you JUST have to secure your communication.
but, NOT , when security is the only concern. I have been trying to mature the TLS handshake on SUITE-B standard, but yet unsuccessful acquiring so.
I believe that FS use openSSL for dealing with encryption methods and therefore, I have taken it to the version 1.0.1e, which supports TLS1.1 , 1.2 . But , FS doesnt verfiy those Cipher [TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256].
I have already a jira ticket opened here:
I'm no crypto expert but given that the NSA seems to have cooked the EC constants and that Bruce Schneier has publicly stated that he no longer trusts EC, using EC for supposedly increased security may not be the smartest thing to do. Also keep in mind that at least RHEL5/CentOS5 & RHEL6/CentOS6 have EC disabled in openssl. I'm not sure about Debian (comments welcome). The only thing that seems to keep security afloat is using lots of bits when generating keys and common sense like don't use RC4, export ciphers, etc. Regards, Patrick
I'm also no crypto expert, but I think the FS community needs to be more concerned with security these days, given what we now know. I agree that using EC may not be the smartest thing to do, and I have also been following the ongoing discussion. The problem is that we really don't know exactly which forms of EC present in latest openssl have been cooked, if any at all besides the one we already know about. Right now there's just too much speculation and little fact. I've taken notice of Schneier's concerns, but he offers little more than a gut feeling at the moment to distrust EC in general. I can obviously understand distrusting some specific EC implementations where we now know some agency-which-we'll-not-name-here has cooked the constants (Dual_EC_DRBG<http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/356751,leaked-nsa-docs-suggest-dualecdrbg-backdoor.aspx>), but that's a far cry from disabling all EC completely. Regardless of what we eventually discover, it seems to me that updating TLS to 1.2 in FS is smart security. At least then we have the option of disabling certain ciphers and EC implementations, but we're in control. Right now I don't know how to disable certain ciphers in FS and force the use of others to enforce PFS for example. Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but I can't find that documented anywhere As it stands right now, FS is limited to TLS 1.0 and AES 128 bit (correct me if I'm wrong), which is known to be vulnerable to a few attacks, even if BEAST and the like are highly unlikely attack vectors in a FS session. I do hope that FS developers take notice. It's great to have WebRTC and all the other cool and new protocols being rolled into FS, but for many people security is becoming of paramount importance. As a long time user and fan of FS, I do hope that security becomes just as much a priority. On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Patrick Lists < freeswitch-list@puzzled.xs4all.nl> wrote:
On 09/13/2013 01:29 PM, Mehroz Ashraf wrote:
Agreed ! TLS/SSL seems to be not so important unless FS is capable of providing security implementation in some form atleast. This is great, when you JUST have to secure your communication.
but, NOT , when security is the only concern. I have been trying to mature the TLS handshake on SUITE-B standard, but yet unsuccessful acquiring so.
I believe that FS use openSSL for dealing with encryption methods and therefore, I have taken it to the version 1.0.1e, which supports TLS1.1 , 1.2 . But , FS doesnt verfiy those Cipher [TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256].
I have already a jira ticket opened here:
I'm no crypto expert but given that the NSA seems to have cooked the EC constants and that Bruce Schneier has publicly stated that he no longer trusts EC, using EC for supposedly increased security may not be the smartest thing to do. Also keep in mind that at least RHEL5/CentOS5 & RHEL6/CentOS6 have EC disabled in openssl. I'm not sure about Debian (comments welcome).
The only thing that seems to keep security afloat is using lots of bits when generating keys and common sense like don't use RC4, export ciphers, etc.
Regards, Patrick
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
I'm voting (if I may) for a newer TLS version (1.2) and I share your concerns regarding security/privacy. I respect a 'secure by default' approach like for example the OpenBSD project. If you ask me, the whole security topic is today still nothing compared to what it will become in a few years... (It's annoying that so many devices still only support unencrypted sip/rtp these days.) -- EL
Voting isn't going to do much here… the question is, is someone motivated to do the work and create a patch. I see no reason we would reject a good working tested patch for this. Mike On Sep 13, 2013, at 2:18 PM, EL <fs.user@fordior.net> wrote:
I'm voting (if I may) for a newer TLS version (1.2) and I share your concerns regarding security/privacy. I respect a 'secure by default' approach like for example the OpenBSD project. If you ask me, the whole security topic is today still nothing compared to what it will become in a few years... (It's annoying that so many devices still only support unencrypted sip/rtp these days.)
We are still in the early whistleblowing stages and that gives a huge disguist in any security minded professionals's gut. I mean why would i bother implementing a security mechanism or protocol that might be disclosed or compromised a few weeks now. Just building against the latest openssl is one thing, but reviewing the actual ciphers is another. Right now just about everyone is waiting for more light on the subject. Opensource projects aren't really moving onto tls 1.2 afraid not to look stupid some time ahead. On Sep 13, 2013 10:44 PM, "Michael Jerris" <mike@jerris.com> wrote:
Voting isn't going to do much here… the question is, is someone motivated to do the work and create a patch. I see no reason we would reject a good working tested patch for this.
Mike
On Sep 13, 2013, at 2:18 PM, EL <fs.user@fordior.net> wrote:
I'm voting (if I may) for a newer TLS version (1.2) and I share your concerns regarding security/privacy. I respect a 'secure by default' approach like for example the OpenBSD project. If you ask me, the whole security topic is today still nothing compared to what it will become in a few years... (It's annoying that so many devices still only support unencrypted sip/rtp these days.)
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
participants (7)
-
Daniel Ivanov
-
EL
-
Mehroz Ashraf
-
Michael Jerris
-
Patrick Lists
-
privs
-
Privus 007