Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. I reported an insecure DKIM key to Deutsche Telekom / T-Systems.

I reported an insecure DKIM key to Deutsche Telekom / T-Systems.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
62 Posts 43 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • badrihippo@fosstodon.orgB badrihippo@fosstodon.org

    @Diziet 😮 never even thought this could be a thing!

    So you're basically making it impossible to prove through DKIM signatures that a given email was actually sent from your server?

    @badkeys

    diziet@mastodon.me.ukD This user is from outside of this forum
    diziet@mastodon.me.ukD This user is from outside of this forum
    diziet@mastodon.me.uk
    wrote last edited by
    #50

    @badrihippo @badkeys Yes.

    Everyone should be doing the same (rotating DKIM keys and publishing the old private keys). Here's my blog post on the subject:

    https://diziet.dreamwidth.org/16025.html

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • badkeys@infosec.exchangeB badkeys@infosec.exchange

      I reported an insecure DKIM key to Deutsche Telekom / T-Systems. They first asked me to further explain things (not sure why 'Here's your DKIM private key' needs more explanation, but whatever...). Then they told me it's out of scope for their bugbounty.

      I guess then there's really no reason not to tell you: They have a 384 bit RSA DKIM key configured at: dkim._domainkey.t-systems.nl

      384 bit RSA is... how shall I put it? I think 512 bit is the lowest RSA key size that was ever really used. 384 bit RSA is crackable in a few hours on a modern PC (using cado-nfs). The private key is:
      -----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
      MIHxAgEAAjEAtTliQYV2Xvx1OGkDyOL799BTFEuobY2dn2AgtiKCQgrh78NVK1JK
      j0yRXgNnPpGBAgMBAAECMF0t+TBZUCi8xATSMij7VLTxv5Xi5OIXesNiXOKtYIRP
      LkpYfR5PggaMScfbmqSssQIZAMwOhm9d7Y7Qi7I2j1AlYbiqdtqO54T7FQIZAONa
      9dJFkC6lM3EPXR+0SZ4dqwwpiM0nvQIYYgz8thi5JK264ohq9sTvnu9yKvUN9I09
      AhgfgMYZKcxtujRjkSZtMzUUNLYzzDmJe90CGDKwqcBI0v9ChaR8WHht+/chMdxj
      7ez94w==
      -----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----

      x0r@mamot.frX This user is from outside of this forum
      x0r@mamot.frX This user is from outside of this forum
      x0r@mamot.fr
      wrote last edited by
      #51

      @badkeys Modern DKIM implementations should not accept signatures made with RSA keys smaller than 1024 bits, nowadays, so it seems unlikely to me that you could do anything nefarious with a key this weak. The verifier would be equally faulty if it accepts weak keys.

      See also: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8301#section-3.2

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • badkeys@infosec.exchangeB badkeys@infosec.exchange

        I reported an insecure DKIM key to Deutsche Telekom / T-Systems. They first asked me to further explain things (not sure why 'Here's your DKIM private key' needs more explanation, but whatever...). Then they told me it's out of scope for their bugbounty.

        I guess then there's really no reason not to tell you: They have a 384 bit RSA DKIM key configured at: dkim._domainkey.t-systems.nl

        384 bit RSA is... how shall I put it? I think 512 bit is the lowest RSA key size that was ever really used. 384 bit RSA is crackable in a few hours on a modern PC (using cado-nfs). The private key is:
        -----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
        MIHxAgEAAjEAtTliQYV2Xvx1OGkDyOL799BTFEuobY2dn2AgtiKCQgrh78NVK1JK
        j0yRXgNnPpGBAgMBAAECMF0t+TBZUCi8xATSMij7VLTxv5Xi5OIXesNiXOKtYIRP
        LkpYfR5PggaMScfbmqSssQIZAMwOhm9d7Y7Qi7I2j1AlYbiqdtqO54T7FQIZAONa
        9dJFkC6lM3EPXR+0SZ4dqwwpiM0nvQIYYgz8thi5JK264ohq9sTvnu9yKvUN9I09
        AhgfgMYZKcxtujRjkSZtMzUUNLYzzDmJe90CGDKwqcBI0v9ChaR8WHht+/chMdxj
        7ez94w==
        -----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----

        woffs@fe.disroot.orgW This user is from outside of this forum
        woffs@fe.disroot.orgW This user is from outside of this forum
        woffs@fe.disroot.org
        wrote last edited by
        #52
        @badkeys hot take: dkim does not matter anyway
        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • badkeys@infosec.exchangeB badkeys@infosec.exchange

          I reported an insecure DKIM key to Deutsche Telekom / T-Systems. They first asked me to further explain things (not sure why 'Here's your DKIM private key' needs more explanation, but whatever...). Then they told me it's out of scope for their bugbounty.

          I guess then there's really no reason not to tell you: They have a 384 bit RSA DKIM key configured at: dkim._domainkey.t-systems.nl

          384 bit RSA is... how shall I put it? I think 512 bit is the lowest RSA key size that was ever really used. 384 bit RSA is crackable in a few hours on a modern PC (using cado-nfs). The private key is:
          -----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
          MIHxAgEAAjEAtTliQYV2Xvx1OGkDyOL799BTFEuobY2dn2AgtiKCQgrh78NVK1JK
          j0yRXgNnPpGBAgMBAAECMF0t+TBZUCi8xATSMij7VLTxv5Xi5OIXesNiXOKtYIRP
          LkpYfR5PggaMScfbmqSssQIZAMwOhm9d7Y7Qi7I2j1AlYbiqdtqO54T7FQIZAONa
          9dJFkC6lM3EPXR+0SZ4dqwwpiM0nvQIYYgz8thi5JK264ohq9sTvnu9yKvUN9I09
          AhgfgMYZKcxtujRjkSZtMzUUNLYzzDmJe90CGDKwqcBI0v9ChaR8WHht+/chMdxj
          7ez94w==
          -----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----

          wpalant@infosec.exchangeW This user is from outside of this forum
          wpalant@infosec.exchangeW This user is from outside of this forum
          wpalant@infosec.exchange
          wrote last edited by
          #53

          @badkeys Way to go Telekom! Last time I found a 320 bit RSA key it was “protecting” people’s private information (https://palant.info/2023/01/25/ipinside-koreas-mandatory-spyware/#how-is-this-data-protected) and I even had a little difficulty finding a cryptography library that wouldn’t refuse working with a key so short.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • 16af93@wetdry.world1 16af93@wetdry.world

            @q @badkeys BSI at it again?

            T This user is from outside of this forum
            T This user is from outside of this forum
            trpalesz@mastodon.social
            wrote last edited by
            #54

            @16af93 @q @badkeys iirc BSA recommends at least 3000bits

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • yama@tech.lgbtY yama@tech.lgbt

              @badkeys RSA ?
              You can literally get an API key for your python script to access a literal quantum computer. And someone already made shors alg. implementation exclusively for RSA cracking

              If it were over 4096 bits its still Not Secure and crackable within seconds.
              Literally Any modern post quantum algorirthm is orders of magnitude better...

              varx@infosec.exchangeV This user is from outside of this forum
              varx@infosec.exchangeV This user is from outside of this forum
              varx@infosec.exchange
              wrote last edited by
              #55

              @yama @badkeys Out of curiosity, what year are you posting from?

              yama@tech.lgbtY 1 Reply Last reply
              1
              0
              • varx@infosec.exchangeV varx@infosec.exchange

                @yama @badkeys Out of curiosity, what year are you posting from?

                yama@tech.lgbtY This user is from outside of this forum
                yama@tech.lgbtY This user is from outside of this forum
                yama@tech.lgbt
                wrote last edited by
                #56

                @varx @badkeys Im not arguing with internet strangers. Go dive off a bridge mate 👍

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • momo@social.linux.pizzaM momo@social.linux.pizza

                  @bekopharm
                  Ich konnte sie auf ein Kontaktformular runterhandeln, musste aber versichern, dass der Transport dann nicht per eMail erfolgt. Ich habe ne ntfy-Instanz auf einem meiner Server laufen, das Webformular generiert jetzt eine Notification auf mein Smartphone.

                  Eigentlich wollte ich den Zugriff per Firewall auf die Admin-Netzwerke der Telekom zumachen, aber das war für sie absolut inakzeptabel.

                  Aber bei jeder Gelegenheit seine eigenen Kunden in Geiselhaft nehmen und rumprotzen, dass sie der größte Provider Deutschlands sind und damit eigene Regeln festlegen können, an die sich jeder zu halten hat.

                  j_r@social.jugendhacker.deJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  j_r@social.jugendhacker.deJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  j_r@social.jugendhacker.de
                  wrote last edited by
                  #57

                  @momo @bekopharm das dreisteste ist es hängt scheinbar stark davon ab welchen Support Mitarbeiter man erreicht. Hab Jahre lang damit gelebt einfach keine E-Mails an t-online senden zu können. Wurde irgendwann dann aber doch zu nervig und ich habe sie nochmal kontaktiert. Dann haben sie ohne große Nachfrage einfach meine IP freigeschaltet 🤷

                  momo@social.linux.pizzaM 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • j_r@social.jugendhacker.deJ j_r@social.jugendhacker.de

                    @momo @bekopharm das dreisteste ist es hängt scheinbar stark davon ab welchen Support Mitarbeiter man erreicht. Hab Jahre lang damit gelebt einfach keine E-Mails an t-online senden zu können. Wurde irgendwann dann aber doch zu nervig und ich habe sie nochmal kontaktiert. Dann haben sie ohne große Nachfrage einfach meine IP freigeschaltet 🤷

                    momo@social.linux.pizzaM This user is from outside of this forum
                    momo@social.linux.pizzaM This user is from outside of this forum
                    momo@social.linux.pizza
                    wrote last edited by
                    #58

                    @j_r
                    War bei mir ähnlich. Wer seinen Mailkram dann bei der Telekom hatte, hatte halt Pech. Zwischendrin hatte ich deren ASN im Spamfilter geblockt, weil ja, dann halt auch in beide Richtungen. Dann schlug aber der WAF Alarm und da blieb mir keine Wahl mehr... ich hab aber dann wohl beim Support-Lotto das falsche Ticket, gezogen.

                    (WAF= Wife Acceptance Factor)
                    @bekopharm

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • bebef@mastodon.socialB bebef@mastodon.social

                      @kkarhan @momo @badkeys @BNetzA @EUCommission Had the same issue just recently. I wonder how this can even be legal. 🤔

                      I wanted to ask a lawyer about this, but never came around doing so.

                      stellated@mastodon.sdf.orgS This user is from outside of this forum
                      stellated@mastodon.sdf.orgS This user is from outside of this forum
                      stellated@mastodon.sdf.org
                      wrote last edited by
                      #59

                      @Bebef @kkarhan @momo @badkeys
                      Do y'all have any docs on this you could link? Is it a blanket automated check a la DKIM and SPF or is it something that's reviewed when appealing an anti-spam listing? My search queries aren't turning up much.

                      bebef@mastodon.socialB 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • stellated@mastodon.sdf.orgS stellated@mastodon.sdf.org

                        @Bebef @kkarhan @momo @badkeys
                        Do y'all have any docs on this you could link? Is it a blanket automated check a la DKIM and SPF or is it something that's reviewed when appealing an anti-spam listing? My search queries aren't turning up much.

                        bebef@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                        bebef@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                        bebef@mastodon.social
                        wrote last edited by
                        #60

                        @stellated @kkarhan @momo @badkeys It works like this: send an email to a Telekom recipient. Mail bounces with

                        <xxxxx@t-online.de>: host mx03.t-online.de[194.25.134.73] refused to talk to

                        me: 554 IP=1.2.3.4 - None/bad reputation. Ask your postmaster for help

                        or to contact tobr@rx.t-online.de for reset. (NOWL)

                        Send an email to tobr@rx.t-online.de, hilarity ensues.

                        (They send a reply pointing you to https://postmaster.t-online.de/#t4.1)

                        bebef@mastodon.socialB 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • bebef@mastodon.socialB bebef@mastodon.social

                          @stellated @kkarhan @momo @badkeys It works like this: send an email to a Telekom recipient. Mail bounces with

                          <xxxxx@t-online.de>: host mx03.t-online.de[194.25.134.73] refused to talk to

                          me: 554 IP=1.2.3.4 - None/bad reputation. Ask your postmaster for help

                          or to contact tobr@rx.t-online.de for reset. (NOWL)

                          Send an email to tobr@rx.t-online.de, hilarity ensues.

                          (They send a reply pointing you to https://postmaster.t-online.de/#t4.1)

                          bebef@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                          bebef@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                          bebef@mastodon.social
                          wrote last edited by
                          #61

                          @stellated @kkarhan @momo @badkeys Bit more discussion in German to be found here: https://borncity.com/blog/2025/02/25/merkwuerdige-vorschriften-bei-der-telekom-fuer-e-mail-versand/

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • badkeys@infosec.exchangeB badkeys@infosec.exchange

                            I reported an insecure DKIM key to Deutsche Telekom / T-Systems. They first asked me to further explain things (not sure why 'Here's your DKIM private key' needs more explanation, but whatever...). Then they told me it's out of scope for their bugbounty.

                            I guess then there's really no reason not to tell you: They have a 384 bit RSA DKIM key configured at: dkim._domainkey.t-systems.nl

                            384 bit RSA is... how shall I put it? I think 512 bit is the lowest RSA key size that was ever really used. 384 bit RSA is crackable in a few hours on a modern PC (using cado-nfs). The private key is:
                            -----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
                            MIHxAgEAAjEAtTliQYV2Xvx1OGkDyOL799BTFEuobY2dn2AgtiKCQgrh78NVK1JK
                            j0yRXgNnPpGBAgMBAAECMF0t+TBZUCi8xATSMij7VLTxv5Xi5OIXesNiXOKtYIRP
                            LkpYfR5PggaMScfbmqSssQIZAMwOhm9d7Y7Qi7I2j1AlYbiqdtqO54T7FQIZAONa
                            9dJFkC6lM3EPXR+0SZ4dqwwpiM0nvQIYYgz8thi5JK264ohq9sTvnu9yKvUN9I09
                            AhgfgMYZKcxtujRjkSZtMzUUNLYzzDmJe90CGDKwqcBI0v9ChaR8WHht+/chMdxj
                            7ez94w==
                            -----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----

                            crispycat@mastodon.calitabby.netC This user is from outside of this forum
                            crispycat@mastodon.calitabby.netC This user is from outside of this forum
                            crispycat@mastodon.calitabby.net
                            wrote last edited by
                            #62

                            @badkeys i didn't know anything below rsa-1024 even existed!

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            1
                            0
                            Reply
                            • Reply as topic
                            Log in to reply
                            • Oldest to Newest
                            • Newest to Oldest
                            • Most Votes


                            • Login

                            • Login or register to search.
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            0
                            • Categories
                            • Recent
                            • Tags
                            • Popular
                            • World
                            • Users
                            • Groups