skip to main content
10.1145/3196494.3196528acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesasia-ccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

To Intercept or Not to Intercept: Analyzing TLS Interception in Network Appliances

Published: 29 May 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Many enterprise-grade network appliances host a TLS proxy to facilitate interception of TLS-protected traffic for various purposes, including malware scanning, phishing detection, and preventing data exfiltration. When deployed, the TLS proxy acts as the security validating client for external TLS web servers, on behalf of the original requesting client; on the other hand, the proxy acts as the web server to the client. Consequently, TLS proxies must maintain a reliable level of security, at least, at the same level as modern web browsers and properly configured TLS servers. Failure to do so increases the attack surface of all the proxied clients served the network appliance. We develop a framework for testing TLS inspecting appliances, combining and extending tests from existing work on client-end and network-based interception. Utilizing this framework, we analyze six representative network appliances, and uncover several security issues regarding TLS version and certificate parameters mapping, CA trusted stores, private keys, and certificate validation tests. For instance, we found that two appliances perform no certificate validation at all, exposing their end-clients to trivial Man-in-the-Middle attacks. The remaining appliances that perform certificate validation, still do not follow current best practices, and thus making them vulnerable against certain attacks. We also found that all the tested appliances deceive the requesting clients, by offering TLS parameters that are different from the proxy-to-server TLS parameters, such as the TLS versions, hashing algorithms, and RSA key sizes. We hope that this work bring focus on the risks and vulnerabilities of using TLS proxies that are being widely deployed in many enterprise and government environments, potentially affecting all their users and systems.

References

[1]
BEAST attack 1/n-1 split patch. Available at https://goo.gl/8MYeqz.
[2]
Cisco WSA AsyncOS documentation. Available at https://goo.gl/hkHRbK.
[3]
Diginotar ca breach. Available at https://goo.gl/p9ainQ, Sep 2011.
[4]
Distrusting new CNNIC certificates. Available at https://goo.gl/yPidqC, Apr 2015.
[5]
Distrusting new WoSign and StartCom certificates. Available at https://goo.gl/ zGmf5b, Oct 2016.
[6]
Effects of HTTPS and SSL inspection on the client. Available athttps://goo.gl/ q1MVw4, Aug 2017.
[7]
Extended validation OID. Available at https://goo.gl/AmmnXE, Oct 2013.
[8]
GRC certificate validation revoked test, note=Available at https://goo.gl/A83vCC.
[9]
Heartleech - GitHub. Available at https://goo.gl/JeKcpt.
[10]
Howsmyssl - GitHub. Available at https://goo.gl/48gyGd.
[11]
Lenovo's superfish security. Available at https://goo.gl/w2R2y5, Feb 2015.
[12]
Microsoft TMG 2010 updates. Available at https://goo.gl/WcykM6.
[13]
Microsoft TMG supported OS version. Available at https://goo.gl/SU9LQ8.
[14]
Microsoft trusted root certificate program. Available at https://goo.gl/5BT7d8.
[15]
Mimikatz - GitHub. Available at https://goo.gl/dUWCmH.
[16]
Revoking ANSSI CA. Available at https://goo.gl/rCjwtY, Dec 2013.
[17]
The risks of SSL inspection. Available athttps://goo.gl/S3mL5v, Mar 2015.
[18]
SSL client test. Available at https://goo.gl/3RdQ1J.
[19]
The TÜRKTRUST SSL certificate fiasco. Available at https://goo.gl/8gxCdc, Jan 2013.
[20]
UFS - Linux Kernel archives. Available at https://goo.gl/yZ3Fty.
[21]
Untangle SSL inspector documentation. Available at https://goo.gl/NZghGy.
[22]
US-CERT alert on HTTPS interception. Available at https://goo.gl/9oqZ4w.
[23]
Volatility. Available at https://goo.gl/LSnbwF.
[24]
Windows cryptography API (CNG). Available at https://goo.gl/UrARyq.
[25]
ZMap - GitHub. Available at https://goo.gl/1g2UtU.
[26]
D. Adrian, K. Bhargavan, Z. Durumeric, P. Gaudry, M. Green, J. A. Halderman, N. Heninger, D. Springall, E. Thomé, L. Valenta, et al. Imperfect forward secrecy: How diffie-hellman fails in practice. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 5--17, Denver, CO, USA, 2015.
[27]
B. Beurdouche, K. Bhargavan, A. Delignat-Lavaud, C. Fournet, M. Kohlweiss, A. Pironti, P.-Y. Strub, and J. K. Zinzindohoue. A messy state of the union: Taming the composite state machines of tls. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 535--552, Fairmont, CA, USA, 2015.
[28]
K. Bhargavan and G. Leurent. On the practical (in-) security of 64-bit block ciphers: Collision attacks on HTTP over TLS and OpenVPN. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 456--467, Vienna, Austria, 2016.
[29]
E. Biham, O. Dunkelman, N. Keller, and A. Shamir. New attacks on IDEA with at least 6 rounds. Journal of Cryptology, 28(2):209--239, 2015.
[30]
C. Brubaker, S. Jana, B. Ray, S. Khurshid, and V. Shmatikov. Using Frankencerts for automated adversarial testing of certificate validation in SSL/TLS implementations. In 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 114--129, Fairmont, CA, USA, 2014.
[31]
S. Y. Chau, O. Chowdhury, E. Hoque, H. Ge, A. Kate, C. Nita-Rotaru, and N. Li. SymCerts: Practical symbolic execution for exposing noncompliance in x.509 certificate validation implementations. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 61--68, Fairmont, CA, USA, 2017.
[32]
X. de Carné de Carnavalet and M. Mannan. Killed by proxy: Analyzing client-end tls interception software. In Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, San Diego, CA, USA, 2016.
[33]
T. Duong and J. Rizzo. Here come the ⊕ ninjas. Technical Report. Available at https://goo.gl/DujxQg, May 2011.
[34]
T. Duong and J. Rizzo. The CRIME attack. Presentation at Ekoparty Security Conference, 2012.
[35]
Z. Durumeric, Z. Ma, D. Springall, R. Barnes, N. Sullivan, E. Bursztein, M. Bailey, J. A. Halderman, and V. Paxson. The security impact of HTTPS interception. In Network and Distributed Systems Symposium, San Diego, CA, USA, 2017.
[36]
S. Fahl, M. Harbach, T. Muders, L. Baumgärtner, B. Freisleben, and M. Smith. Why eve and mallory love android: An analysis of Android SSL (in) security. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 50--61, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2012.
[37]
M. Georgiev, S. Iyengar, S. Jana, R. Anubhai, D. Boneh, and V. Shmatikov. The most dangerous code in the world: validating ssl certificates in non-browser software. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 38--49, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2012.
[38]
B. He, V. Rastogi, Y. Cao, Y. Chen, V. Venkatakrishnan, R. Yang, and Z. Zhang. Vetting SSL usage in applications with SSLint. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 519--534, Fairmont, CA, USA, 2015.
[39]
R. Housley, W. Ford, W. Polk, and D. Solo. RFC 5280: Internet x.509 public key infrastructure certificate and crl profile, May 2008.
[40]
L. S. Huang, A. Rice, E. Ellingsen, and C. Jackson. Analyzing forged SSL certificates in the wild. In 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 83--97, Fairmont, CA, USA, 2014.
[41]
J. Jarmoc. SSL/TLS interception proxies and transitive trust. Black Hat Europe, Mar 2012.
[42]
M. O'Neill, S. Ruoti, K. Seamons, and D. Zappala. TLS proxies: Friend or foe? In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference, pages 551--557, Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2016.
[43]
E. Rescorla, M. Ray, S. Dispensa, and N. Oskov. RFC 5746: Transport layer security (tls) renegotiation indication extension, Feb 2010.
[44]
S. Ruoti, M. O'Neill, D. Zappala, and K. E. Seamons. User attitudes toward the inspection of encrypted traffic. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security, pages 131--146, Denver, CO, USA, 2016.
[45]
S. Sivakorn, G. Argyros, K. Pei, A. D. Keromytis, and S. Jana. HVLearn: Automated black-box analysis of hostname verification in SSL/TLS implementations. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 521--538, Fairmont, CA, USA, 2017.
[46]
L. Valenta, S. Cohney, A. Liao, J. Fried, S. Bodduluri, and N. Heninger. Factoring as a service. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 321--338, Christ Church, Barbados, 2016.
[47]
P. Van De Zande. The day DES died. SANS Institute, Jul 2001.
[48]
M. Vanhoef and F. Piessens. All your biases belong to us: Breaking RC4 in WPATKIP and TLS. In USENIX Security Symposium, pages 97--112, Washington D.C., USA, 2015.
[49]
X. Wang and H. Yu. How to break MD5 and other hash functions. In 37th Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pages 19--35, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2005.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)mmTLSProceedings of the 2024 USENIX Conference on Usenix Annual Technical Conference10.5555/3691992.3692031(631-647)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Challenges and Advances in Analyzing TLS 1.3-Encrypted Traffic: A Comprehensive SurveyElectronics10.3390/electronics1320400013:20(4000)Online publication date: 11-Oct-2024
  • (2024)On the Complexity of the Web’s PKI: Evaluating Certificate Validation of Mobile BrowsersIEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing10.1109/TDSC.2023.325586921:1(419-433)Online publication date: Jan-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. To Intercept or Not to Intercept: Analyzing TLS Interception in Network Appliances

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ASIACCS '18: Proceedings of the 2018 on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security
      May 2018
      866 pages
      ISBN:9781450355766
      DOI:10.1145/3196494
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 29 May 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. certificates
      2. interception
      3. mitm
      4. network appliances
      5. proxy
      6. tls
      7. validation

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Funding Sources

      • NSERC - Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

      Conference

      ASIA CCS '18
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      ASIACCS '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 52 of 310 submissions, 17%;
      Overall Acceptance Rate 418 of 2,322 submissions, 18%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)43
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8
      Reflects downloads up to 02 Mar 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)mmTLSProceedings of the 2024 USENIX Conference on Usenix Annual Technical Conference10.5555/3691992.3692031(631-647)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2024
      • (2024)Challenges and Advances in Analyzing TLS 1.3-Encrypted Traffic: A Comprehensive SurveyElectronics10.3390/electronics1320400013:20(4000)Online publication date: 11-Oct-2024
      • (2024)On the Complexity of the Web’s PKI: Evaluating Certificate Validation of Mobile BrowsersIEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing10.1109/TDSC.2023.325586921:1(419-433)Online publication date: Jan-2024
      • (2024)ARMOR: A Formally Verified Implementation of X.509 Certificate Chain Validation2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)10.1109/SP54263.2024.00220(1462-1480)Online publication date: 19-May-2024
      • (2024)Towards Efficient Privacy-Preserving Deep Packet InspectionComputer Security – ESORICS 202310.1007/978-3-031-51476-0_9(166-192)Online publication date: 11-Jan-2024
      • (2023)A Survey and Analysis of TLS Interception Mechanisms and Motivations: Exploring how end-to-end TLS is made “end-to-me” for web trafficACM Computing Surveys10.1145/358052255:13s(1-40)Online publication date: 13-Jul-2023
      • (2022)Modern ağ trafiği analizi için derin paket incelemesi hakkında kapsamlı bir çalışma: sorunlar ve zorluklarÖmer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi10.28948/ngumuh.1184020Online publication date: 14-Nov-2022
      • (2022)LaTLS: A Lattice‐Based TLS Proxy ProtocolChinese Journal of Electronics10.1049/cje.2018.00.35731:2(313-321)Online publication date: Mar-2022
      • (2022)Passive, Transparent, and Selective TLS Decryption for Network Security MonitoringICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection10.1007/978-3-031-06975-8_6(87-105)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2022
      • (2021)Tracing your rootsProceedings of the 21st ACM Internet Measurement Conference10.1145/3487552.3487813(179-194)Online publication date: 2-Nov-2021
      • Show More Cited By

      View Options

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Figures

      Tables

      Media

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media