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

[benbe@social.chaotikum.org]

@badkeys

You had me at

-----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----

[gerhardd@olching.social]

@badkeys

[q@glauca.space]

@badkeys You thought 384-bit was bad? I recently found a live, in daily use, 256-bit key in a, shall we say, large government entity that should know better (would rather not say much more publicly as its relevant to a paper under submission).

[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...

[dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.org]

@badkeys
Looks like they've fixed it now (?)

The TXT record is now
"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; g=*; s=email; p=MEwwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADOwAwOAIxALU5YkGFdl78dThpA8ji+/fQUxRLqG2NnZ9gILYigkIK4e/DVStSSo9MkV4DZz6RgQIDAQAB"

I really hope they generated a new key, and didn't just switch from publishing the private key to the corresponding public one...

[kkarhan@jorts.horse]

@momo @badkeys sadly this is being normalized today.

• #Microsoft literally demands people to self-d0x or they just silently drop all eMails, even replies to their customers.
  • And OFC neither @BNetzA nor @EUCommission did anything about this.

[buherator@infosec.place]

@badkeys My educated guess is they couldn't fit larger keys into their DNS records...

[wall_e@ioc.exchange]

@badkeys bruh

[millie@infosec.exchange]

@dragonfrog @badkeys Most people might not be fluent in base64-encoded ASN.1, but a trained eye can see that it's the same key.

Hint: A sufficiently strong RSA key cannot possibly be that short, and you know it's a DER-encoded pubkey because it starts with "ME" and ends with "AQAB" (0x10001, common RSA public exponent)

[mcr314@todon.nl]

@buherator @badkeys No, they thought they were generating an ECDSA key, for which a 256 or 384 bit would be strong. But, they didn't provide the right arguments, and wound up with RSA. I think the OP posted the private key that they were able to crack trivially.

[dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.org]

@millie @badkeys
Oh gosh, so they've removed the private key, but it's still the public key that goes with a private key that they already published.

A sound as if a thousand faces rested in a thousand palms, and a thousand IT people sighed heavily...

[millie@infosec.exchange]

@dragonfrog @badkeys No, the private key was never published by t-systems, but it's so weak that it's very easy to crack. OP cracked and published the private key.

[buherator@infosec.place]

@mcr314 @badkeys Source? I doubt someone who makes a mistake like this knows what ECDSA is.

[dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.org]

@millie @badkeys thank you, I get it now. Iguess I'm having a slow day!

[irelephant@app.wafrn.net]

@badkeys@infosec.exchange

send an email coming from them.

[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.

[16af93@wetdry.world]

@q @badkeys BSI at it again?

[q@glauca.space]

@16af93 @badkeys for once, its not the Germans

[16af93@wetdry.world]

@q @badkeys

[yacc143@mastodon.social]

@badkeys
That was crackable with private entity resources decades ago.

That's not even funny.