[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3626232.3653263acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescodaspyConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Investigating TLS Version Downgrade in Enterprise Software

Published: 19 June 2024 Publication History

Abstract

In this paper, we revisit the problem of TLS version downgrade, with a specific focus on enterprise software, which are applications that play direct roles in the daily operations of an organization, including remote desktop, email, and VPN clients. Although TLS version downgrade is a classic problem, previous studies have mostly focused on its manifestations in browser applications. However, as TLS continues to gain prominence in other application scenarios, it is crucial to also investigate the implementation and deployment of TLS in other mission-critical appliances that depend upon TLS for their corresponding security guarantees. To this end, we identified and tested 217 enterprise software on 4 mainstream operating systems (OSes) for how they implement and deploy TLS downgrade defenses. We carefully designed a series of experiments to determine whether a client-side enterprise software is vulnerable to downgrade attacks. Results of our experiments paint the enterprise software ecosystem in a positive light, as only 8 enterprise client applications exhibit some vulnerabilities to TLS version downgrade due to missing protection mechanisms. Given the availability and low costs of standardized downgrade defenses, we champion their adoption by software vendors to put an end to the threat of TLS version downgrade. Finally, as various industries are moving away from legacy versions of TLS, it is also time for enterprise software vendors to rethink the necessity and merits of supporting old TLS versions in their products.

References

[1]
David Adrian, Karthikeyan Bhargavan, Zakir Durumeric, Pierrick Gaudry, Matthew Green, J. Alex Halderman, Nadia Heninger, Drew Springall, Emmanuel Thomé, Luke Valenta, Benjamin VanderSloot, Eric Wustrow, Santiago Zanella-Béguelin, and Paul Zimmermann. 2015. Imperfect Forward Secrecy: How Diffie-Hellman Fails in Practice. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CCS '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 5--17. https://doi.org/10.1145/2810103.2813707
[2]
Abhishek A Agrawal. 2022. Top 10 Best Email Apps for 2022. https://integrately.com/blog/best-email-apps
[3]
Eman Salem Alashwali and Kasper Rasmussen. 2018. What's in a downgrade" A Taxonomy of Downgrade Attacks in the TLS Protocol and Application Protocols Using TLS. In Security and Privacy in Communication Networks: 14th International Conference, SecureComm 2018, Singapore, Singapore, August 8--10, 2018, Proceedings, Part II. Springer, 468--487.
[4]
Blake Anderson and David McGrew. 2019. TLS Beyond the Browser: Combining End Host and Network Data to Understand Application Behavior. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (IMC '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 379--392. https://doi.org/10.1145/3355369.3355601
[5]
Karthikeyan Bhargavan and Gaëtan Leurent. 2016. Transcript Collision Attacks: Breaking Authentication in TLS, IKE, and SSH. In Network and Distributed System Security Symposium. https://doi.org/10.14722/ndss.2016.23418
[6]
Daniel Bleichenbacher. 1998. Chosen Ciphertext Attacks Against Protocols Based on the RSA Encryption Standard PKCS# 1. In Advances in Cryptology-CRYPTO'98: 18th Annual International Cryptology Conference Santa Barbara, California, USA August 23--27, 1998 Proceedings 18. Springer, 1--12.
[7]
Hanno Böck, Juraj Somorovsky, and Craig Young. 2018. Return Of Bleichenbachertextquoterights Oracle Threat (ROBOT). In 27th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 18). USENIX Association, Baltimore, MD, 817--849. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity18/presentation/bock
[8]
Peter Bright. 2018. Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla come together to end TLS 1.0. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/10/browser-vendors-unite-to-end-support-for-20-year-old-tls-1-0/.
[9]
Aldo Cortesi, Maximilian Hils, Thomas Kriechbaumer, and contributors. 2010--. mitmproxy: A free and open source interactive HTTPS proxy. https://mitmproxy.org/ [Version 9.0].
[10]
PCI Security Standards Council. 2018. Migrating from SSL and Early TLS.
[11]
Benjamin Dowling and Douglas Stebila. 2015. Modelling ciphersuite and version negotiation in the TLS protocol. In Information Security and Privacy: 20th Australasian Conference, ACISP 2015, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, June 29--July 1, 2015, Proceedings 20. Springer, 270--288.
[12]
Platon Kotzias, Abbas Razaghpanah, Johanna Amann, Kenneth G. Paterson, Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez, and Juan Caballero. 2018. Coming of Age: A Longitudinal Study of TLS Deployment. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018 (Boston, MA, USA) (IMC '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 415--428. https://doi.org/10.1145/3278532.3278568
[13]
Hyunwoo Lee, Doowon Kim, and Yonghwi Kwon. 2021. TLS 1.3 in Practice:How TLS 1.3 Contributes to the Internet. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (WWW '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 70--79. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442381.3450057
[14]
Sangtae Lee, Youngjoo Shin, and Junbeom Hur. 2020. Return of version downgrade attack in the era of TLS 1.3. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (Barcelona, Spain) (CoNEXT '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 157--168. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386367.3431310
[15]
Moxie Marlinspike. 2009. New Tricks for Defeating SSL in Practice. Black Hat DC, Vol. 2 (2009).
[16]
Bodo Moeller, Thai Duong, and Krzysztof Kotowicz. 2014. This POODLE Bites: Exploiting the SSL 3.0 Fallback. https://security.googleblog.com/2014/10/this-poodle-bites-exploiting-ssl-30.html
[17]
B. Moeller and A. Langley. 2015. TLS Fallback Signaling Cipher Suite Value (SCSV) for Preventing Protocol Downgrade Attacks. RFC 7507 (Proposed Standard). https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC7507
[18]
Kathleen Moriarty and Stephen Farrell. 2021. Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1. RFC 8996. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC8996
[19]
Damian Poddebniak, Fabian Ising, Hanno Böck, and Sebastian Schinzel. 2021. Why TLS is better without STARTTLS: A Security Analysis of STARTTLS in the Email Context. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21). USENIX Association, 4365--4382. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity21/presentation/poddebniak
[20]
Abbas Razaghpanah, Arian Akhavan Niaki, Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez, Srikanth Sundaresan, Johanna Amann, and Phillipa Gill. 2017. Studying TLS Usage in Android Apps. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (Incheon, Republic of Korea) (CoNEXT '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 350--362. https://doi.org/10.1145/3143361.3143400
[21]
E. Rescorla. 2018. The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3. RFC 8446 (Proposed Standard). https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC8446
[22]
Eric Rescorla, Hannes Tschofenig, and Nagendra Modadugu. 2022. The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version 1.3. RFC 9147. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC9147
[23]
Anindita Sengupta. 2023. Best Remote Desktop Software. https://www.g2.com/categories/remote-desktop
[24]
Y. Sheffer, R. Holz, and P. Saint-Andre. 2015. Summarizing Known Attacks on Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS). RFC 7457 (Informational). https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC7457
[25]
Mike Taylor. 2019. TLS 1.0 and 1.1 Removal Update. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/05/tls-1-0-and-1--1-removal-update/.
[26]
Ka Lok Wu, Man Hong Hue, Ngai Man Poon, Kin Man Leung, Wai Yin Po, Kin Ting Wong, Sze Ho Hui, and Sze Yiu Chau. 2023. Back to School: On the (In)Security of Academic VPNs. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23). USENIX Association, Anaheim, CA, 5737--5754. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity23/presentation/wu-ka-lok

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
CODASPY '24: Proceedings of the Fourteenth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy
June 2024
429 pages
ISBN:9798400704215
DOI:10.1145/3626232
  • General Chair:
  • João P. Vilela,
  • Program Chairs:
  • Haya Schulmann,
  • Ninghui Li
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 19 June 2024

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. email
  2. enterprise vpn
  3. remote desktop
  4. tls version downgrade

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

CODASPY '24
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 149 of 789 submissions, 19%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 204
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)204
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)69
Reflects downloads up to 12 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media