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

[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

[gerdesj@mastodonapp.uk]

@buherator @badkeys

I installed a MariaDB cluster backed set of PowerDNS servers for that exact reason! There were a couple of other reasons but that was what finally made me roll up my sleeves.

[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.

[q@glauca.space]

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

[yacc143@mastodon.social]

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

That's not even funny.

[sys64738@www.librepunk.club]

@q @16af93 @badkeys iirc 256-bit rsa is satcomms 'standards'

[keksdosenmann@mastodon.social]

@badkeys Telekom. Die machen das.

[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

[kate@mk.absturztau.be]

@badkeys@infosec.exchange ..OMFG ..​​