Author

Topic: Today's Man-In-The-Middle (Read 4563 times)

administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
August 28, 2014, 06:57:51 PM
#24
I have a SHA1 thumbprint for a 7/7/2014 certificate verified by Rapid SSL of the following:
7b:cf:43:ce:3b:6a:9e:78:62:81:76:6f:9a:71:7a:da:e2:7c:37:c6

Is this correct? I see references to a different cert in this thread. Sorry for the necro, I just thought it might be good to reference why I was posting rather than doing a new thread about it.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/new-https-keys-568146

Does the thumbprint change if cert is renewed??

No.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
August 26, 2014, 09:29:58 PM
#23
I have a SHA1 thumbprint for a 7/7/2014 certificate verified by Rapid SSL of the following:
7b:cf:43:ce:3b:6a:9e:78:62:81:76:6f:9a:71:7a:da:e2:7c:37:c6

Is this correct? I see references to a different cert in this thread. Sorry for the necro, I just thought it might be good to reference why I was posting rather than doing a new thread about it.
Yep, that's what I have. Issued on July 7th. Connecting directly to server IP address provides same. Does the thumbprint change if cert is renewed??
donator
Activity: 1419
Merit: 1015
August 26, 2014, 10:51:53 AM
#22
I have a SHA1 thumbprint for a 7/7/2014 certificate verified by Rapid SSL of the following:
7b:cf:43:ce:3b:6a:9e:78:62:81:76:6f:9a:71:7a:da:e2:7c:37:c6

Is this correct? I see references to a different cert in this thread. Sorry for the necro, I just thought it might be good to reference why I was posting rather than doing a new thread about it.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1004
December 02, 2013, 07:53:12 PM
#21
I wonder which resource on the page is not secure...
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1280
May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage
December 02, 2013, 07:18:27 PM
#20
Click on the padlock, then try to find it

The little lock in the address bar indicating it uses https (SSL)
Yeah sorry I should have clarified that
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
December 02, 2013, 07:16:40 PM
#19
Click on the padlock, then try to find it

The little lock in the address bar indicating it uses https (SSL)
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1280
May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage
December 02, 2013, 07:10:31 PM
#18
Click on the padlock, then try to find it
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
December 02, 2013, 07:09:20 PM
#17
Yeah. You can double-check the SSL certificate if you want. SHA1 fingerprint should be 29 0e cc 82 2b 3c ce 0a 73 94 35 a0 26 15 ec d3 eb 1f 46 6b

All letters in my SHA1 fingerprint are full Caps.
29 0E CC 82 2B 3C CE 0A 73 94 35 A0 26 15 EC D3
EB 1F 46 6B

Let's pretend for a sec that I don't have a clue as to where to look for the above. Remember, we're only pretending, but any help would be appreciated by those who don't know how to pretend.

~TMIBTCITW
sr. member
Activity: 672
Merit: 254
December 02, 2013, 07:38:46 AM
#16
All letters in my SHA1 fingerprint are full Caps.

Caps is not relevant for the hash value when it's displayed as hex (i.e. it can be shown using either upper or lower case letters but is still the same hash value regardless).


Thanx.



legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1089
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
December 02, 2013, 07:21:09 AM
#15
All letters in my SHA1 fingerprint are full Caps.

Caps is not relevant for the hash value when it's displayed as hex (i.e. it can be shown using either upper or lower case letters but is still the same hash value regardless).
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
December 02, 2013, 07:12:02 AM
#14
I logged on just now via the ip 109.201.133.195 then everything should be peachy right?
Yeah. You can double-check the SSL certificate if you want. SHA1 fingerprint should be 29 0e cc 82 2b 3c ce 0a 73 94 35 a0 26 15 ec d3 eb 1f 46 6b

Thanks, it checks out Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 672
Merit: 254
December 02, 2013, 07:06:04 AM
#13
Yeah. You can double-check the SSL certificate if you want. SHA1 fingerprint should be 29 0e cc 82 2b 3c ce 0a 73 94 35 a0 26 15 ec d3 eb 1f 46 6b

All letters in my SHA1 fingerprint are full Caps.
29 0E CC 82 2B 3C CE 0A 73 94 35 A0 26 15 EC D3
EB 1F 46 6B
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
December 02, 2013, 06:54:59 AM
#12
I logged on just now via the ip 109.201.133.195 then everything should be peachy right?
Yeah. You can double-check the SSL certificate if you want. SHA1 fingerprint should be 29 0e cc 82 2b 3c ce 0a 73 94 35 a0 26 15 ec d3 eb 1f 46 6b
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
December 02, 2013, 06:51:01 AM
#11
I logged on just now via the ip 109.201.133.195 then everything should be peachy right?
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 500
December 02, 2013, 05:28:12 AM
#10
I just changed my password and other settings
Anything else that I need to do to be safe?
Thanks for any input
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 500
December 02, 2013, 04:54:26 AM
#9
you are right, hadn't noticed that the end date is in the future

Very interesting
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
December 02, 2013, 12:23:23 AM
#8
full member
Activity: 141
Merit: 100
December 02, 2013, 12:21:43 AM
#7
Was the Hacker Named Robert DROP TABLES?
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 251
COINECT
December 02, 2013, 12:07:43 AM
#6
Was this attack only a MitM to steal passwords or was malicious content served? I've read reports of suspicious Java applets.

There was only one report of that, and I think that he was probably thinking of JavaScript. CloudFlare has an error page that asks you to enable JS so it can more accurately fingerprint you.

Well I had a random browser crash after being served an odd page when accessing the site (though I don't have Java or JS enabled) but it must have been a coincidence.
administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
December 01, 2013, 11:53:14 PM
#5
Was this attack only a MitM to steal passwords or was malicious content served? I've read reports of suspicious Java applets.

There was only one report of that, and I think that he was probably thinking of JavaScript. CloudFlare has an error page that asks you to enable JS so it can more accurately fingerprint you.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 251
COINECT
December 01, 2013, 11:51:29 PM
#4
Was this attack only a MitM to steal passwords or was malicious content served? I've read reports of suspicious Java applets.
administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
December 01, 2013, 09:12:09 PM
#3
it seems to be in the future. Or is that a precaution regarding DNS propagation?

Right.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1005
December 01, 2013, 08:57:09 PM
#2
yes, the date is tomorrow.  that is interesting
sr. member
Activity: 493
Merit: 262
December 01, 2013, 08:26:41 PM
#1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Here's what we think happened:

8-14 hours ago, an attacker used a flaw in the forum's AnonymousSpeech registrar to change the forum's DNS to point to 108.162.197.161 (exact details unknown). Sirius noticed this 8 hours ago and immediately transferred bitcointalk.org to a different registrar. However, such changes take about 24 hours to propagate.

Because the HTTPS protocol is pretty terrible, this alone could have allowed the attacker to intercept and modify encrypted forum transmissions, allowing them to see passwords sent during login, authentication cookies, PMs, etc. Your password only could have been intercepted if you actually entered it while the forum was affected. I invalidated all security codes, so you're not at risk of having your account stolen if you logged in using the "remember me" feature without actually entering your password.

For the next ~20 hours, you should only log into the forum if you're quite sure that you're talking to the correct server. This can be done by adding '109.201.133.195 bitcointalk.org' to your hosts file (remember to remove it later!), or by using some browser plugin to ensure that you're talking to the server with TLS certificate SHA1 fingerprint of:
29:0E:CC:82:2B:3C:CE:0A:73:94:35:A0:26:15:EC:D3:EB:1F:46:6B

Simultaniously, the forum has been the target of a massive DDoS attack. These two events are probably related, though I'm not yet sure why an attacker would do both of these things at once.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF4EAREIAAYFAlKb2nkACgkQxlVWk9q1kefhTwD+Ni5k7CUrHjvzG29wO3Gx4Am+
MV5tdw8zE1AAWvbstt8BAIrndOXCYmawoXN+VeSZkLXHnCyQbR8IOftQnpl2aXYs
=465T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


I think the end date in the news is wrong, it seems to be in the future. Or is that a precaution regarding DNS propagation?
Jump to: