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.
  • 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-----

    nitram2342@chaos.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
    nitram2342@chaos.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
    nitram2342@chaos.social
    wrote last edited by
    #29

    @badkeys This is the mastodon method of converting a private key into a public key. Scnr.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
    • yacc143@mastodon.socialY yacc143@mastodon.social

      @Bebef
      It's probably not, some countries have really tough laws that they apply to email delivery and privacy that makes even spam filtering a legally dicey proposition

      But let me put it like this, who wants to sue a company that has a legal budget bigger than the whole government budget of some of the poorer EU MS?

      And in the end as long as the users won't start moving their fat posteriors away from the big tech monopolies, ...
      @kkarhan @momo @badkeys @BNetzA @EUCommission

      K This user is from outside of this forum
      K This user is from outside of this forum
      kkarhan@jorts.horse
      wrote last edited by
      #30

      @yacc143 @Bebef @momo @badkeys @BNetzA @EUCommission Depends...

      In #Germany, Corporations have to archive ALL #eMails in an automated, manipulation-proof manner with indexability (incl. attachments) for #Auditability purposes.

      • That's why you get stuff like benno MailArchiv.

      That being said the #cowardice of #regulators is appauling and if they ain't gonna do their job, they should vacate their positions and let others do it instead.

      • I'd happily do this work!
      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • yacc143@mastodon.socialY yacc143@mastodon.social

        @Bebef
        It's probably not, some countries have really tough laws that they apply to email delivery and privacy that makes even spam filtering a legally dicey proposition

        But let me put it like this, who wants to sue a company that has a legal budget bigger than the whole government budget of some of the poorer EU MS?

        And in the end as long as the users won't start moving their fat posteriors away from the big tech monopolies, ...
        @kkarhan @momo @badkeys @BNetzA @EUCommission

        yacc143@mastodon.socialY This user is from outside of this forum
        yacc143@mastodon.socialY This user is from outside of this forum
        yacc143@mastodon.social
        wrote last edited by
        #31

        @Bebef
        The really odd thing is it's not the oldies that nowadays are a problem, it's the youngsters, we literally had a complaint today about the PIM/office suite we use, our CEO nicely played that one. He's open to all proposals for alternatives from a company headquartered in the EEA for legal reasons.

        Interestingly the C level has no problem IMAP, and accessing the calendar over CalDAV. But the youngsters have never heard of these @kkarhan @momo @badkeys @BNetzA @EUCommission

        yacc143@mastodon.socialY 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • yacc143@mastodon.socialY yacc143@mastodon.social

          @Bebef
          The really odd thing is it's not the oldies that nowadays are a problem, it's the youngsters, we literally had a complaint today about the PIM/office suite we use, our CEO nicely played that one. He's open to all proposals for alternatives from a company headquartered in the EEA for legal reasons.

          Interestingly the C level has no problem IMAP, and accessing the calendar over CalDAV. But the youngsters have never heard of these @kkarhan @momo @badkeys @BNetzA @EUCommission

          yacc143@mastodon.socialY This user is from outside of this forum
          yacc143@mastodon.socialY This user is from outside of this forum
          yacc143@mastodon.social
          wrote last edited by
          #32

          things. And are shocked that email can be provided by something else then Google, outlook or Apple. On which of these is our email hosted I was asked. I had to explain very slowly that we are on the small option "other".
          @kkarhan @momo @badkeys @BNetzA @EUCommission @Bebef

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • tanja@mastodon.catgirl.cloudT tanja@mastodon.catgirl.cloud

            @badkeys@infosec.exchange oooofffff

            But why would they turn down the bug bounty????

            <img class="not-responsive emoji" src="https://content.mastodon.catgirl.cloud/custom_emojis/images/000/055/198/original/neocat_googly_shocked.png" title=":neocat_googly_shocked:" />

            oscherler@tooting.chO This user is from outside of this forum
            oscherler@tooting.chO This user is from outside of this forum
            oscherler@tooting.ch
            wrote last edited by
            #33

            @tanja Because they’re cheap assholes? Just a wild guess.

            m_berberich@chaos.socialM 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • keksdosenmann@mastodon.socialK keksdosenmann@mastodon.social

              @badkeys Telekom. Die machen das.

              christianrickert@23.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
              christianrickert@23.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
              christianrickert@23.social
              wrote last edited by
              #34

              @keksdosenmann @badkeys

              Die schaffen uns. 😮‍💨

              1 Reply Last reply
              1
              0
              • lunareclipse@snug.moeL lunareclipse@snug.moe

                @badkeys bad companies that don't pay out bug bounties can have uncoordinated public disclosure as a treat :3

                kbruen@procial.tchncs.deK This user is from outside of this forum
                kbruen@procial.tchncs.deK This user is from outside of this forum
                kbruen@procial.tchncs.de
                wrote last edited by
                #35

                @lunareclipse@snug.moe @badkeys@infosec.exchange I mean, if it's out of scope, then it's not even a disclosure, as "out of scope" is an admittance that it's no biggie for the information to be public to begin with, right?

                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-----

                  robot@wetdry.worldR This user is from outside of this forum
                  robot@wetdry.worldR This user is from outside of this forum
                  robot@wetdry.world
                  wrote last edited by
                  #36

                  @badkeys ReallySecureAlgorithm

                  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-----

                    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
                    #37

                    @badkeys
                    Not the same at all, but here are most of my dkim private keys https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/dkim-rotate/README.txt

                    badrihippo@fosstodon.orgB 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
                    • 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-----

                      selea@social.linux.pizzaS This user is from outside of this forum
                      selea@social.linux.pizzaS This user is from outside of this forum
                      selea@social.linux.pizza
                      wrote last edited by
                      #38

                      @badkeys

                      What wat. they published the private key?!

                      kramse@helvede.netK 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-----

                        artlog@agora.l0g.euA This user is from outside of this forum
                        artlog@agora.l0g.euA This user is from outside of this forum
                        artlog@agora.l0g.eu
                        wrote last edited by
                        #39
                        @badkeys

                        I don't remember have ever seen lower RSA keys size than 512 bits... We have a winner here !
                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • momo@social.linux.pizzaM momo@social.linux.pizza

                          @badkeys
                          Do they accept mails from noncommercial mailservers at their nl branch or do they refuse them with "554 None/Bad Reputation" as the german branch does, unless the mail admin publishes full personal (!) contact infos on a webserver hosted on the smtp machine? Just asking, because THOSE guys behave like they wrote the SMTP RFCs all by themselves...

                          bekopharm@indieweb.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                          bekopharm@indieweb.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                          bekopharm@indieweb.social
                          wrote last edited by
                          #40

                          @momo Hab mich damit auch schon herum geärgert und mit einem "Musterbrief" frei gekauft: https://beko.famkos.net/2023/06/02/%c2%b7t%c2%b7%c2%b7%c2%b7error/

                          Die haben doch echt nicht mehr alle Latten am Zaun o0

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

                            @badkeys

                            What wat. they published the private key?!

                            kramse@helvede.netK This user is from outside of this forum
                            kramse@helvede.netK This user is from outside of this forum
                            kramse@helvede.net
                            wrote last edited by
                            #41

                            @selea @badkeys

                            no, sounds like they stayed for tooo long on a short length that could be cracked quickly.

                            they should upgrade to more bits, and re-roll their keys

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • buherator@infosec.placeB buherator@infosec.place
                              @mcr314 @badkeys Source? I doubt someone who makes a mistake like this knows what ECDSA is.
                              J This user is from outside of this forum
                              J This user is from outside of this forum
                              janet_catcus@hachyderm.io
                              wrote last edited by
                              #42

                              @buherator @badkeys @mcr314 probably done by an apprentice anyway

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • diziet@mastodon.me.ukD diziet@mastodon.me.uk

                                @badkeys
                                Not the same at all, but here are most of my dkim private keys https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/dkim-rotate/README.txt

                                badrihippo@fosstodon.orgB This user is from outside of this forum
                                badrihippo@fosstodon.orgB This user is from outside of this forum
                                badrihippo@fosstodon.org
                                wrote last edited by
                                #43

                                @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 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-----

                                  linear@nya.socialL This user is from outside of this forum
                                  linear@nya.socialL This user is from outside of this forum
                                  linear@nya.social
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #44
                                  @badkeys@infosec.exchange just a few days ago i broke an rsa384 key using yafu on my home server (a ~6 year old dell poweredge, fairly decent spec) as a practice run for something, and it took under 5 minutes
                                  linear@nya.socialL 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • linear@nya.socialL linear@nya.social
                                    @badkeys@infosec.exchange just a few days ago i broke an rsa384 key using yafu on my home server (a ~6 year old dell poweredge, fairly decent spec) as a practice run for something, and it took under 5 minutes
                                    linear@nya.socialL This user is from outside of this forum
                                    linear@nya.socialL This user is from outside of this forum
                                    linear@nya.social
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #45
                                    @badkeys@infosec.exchange the yafu help describes using siqs for this, which would take that server 2 to 3 hours, but using nfs it took only minutes
                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • bekopharm@indieweb.socialB bekopharm@indieweb.social

                                      @momo Hab mich damit auch schon herum geärgert und mit einem "Musterbrief" frei gekauft: https://beko.famkos.net/2023/06/02/%c2%b7t%c2%b7%c2%b7%c2%b7error/

                                      Die haben doch echt nicht mehr alle Latten am Zaun o0

                                      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
                                      #46

                                      @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 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • oscherler@tooting.chO oscherler@tooting.ch

                                        @tanja Because they’re cheap assholes? Just a wild guess.

                                        m_berberich@chaos.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                                        m_berberich@chaos.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                                        m_berberich@chaos.social
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #47

                                        @oscherler @tanja

                                        Or they did not understand the problem?

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • lunareclipse@snug.moeL lunareclipse@snug.moe

                                          @badkeys bad companies that don't pay out bug bounties can have uncoordinated public disclosure as a treat :3

                                          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
                                          #48

                                          @lunareclipse @badkeys "bad companies", so most of them by nature ?

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          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