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.
  • 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
                    • 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-----

                      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
                      #49

                      @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 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • 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
                                          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