Skip to main content

Flaw in email security means signed mails cannot be encrypted

I was at a company the other day that uses a well-known email encryption solution as they have some very sensitive information that they need to send both internally and externally. As is common for these solutions, it is possible to automatically sign the email by putting a keyword in the subject line, such as 'signemail'. Similarly, the mail will be encrypted automatically if the confidential flag is set or a keyword, such as 'encryptemail' is added to the subject.

So far, so good. There are no messy button presses or extra steps for the user. However, there is a flaw with the solution. (I should point out that at this moment it is unclear if it is a product problem or a configuration problem, hence my not mentioning the product.)

The issue is that signing the message appears to take precedence over encryption. So, if you add both keywords to the subject then the message will only be signed and not encrypted. Now the encryption solution does also sign the message, so if you want it encrypted then you don't need to specifically sign it as well.

So is this really a problem or am I just making a fuss? Well, I can envisage several situations when it would be a problem. The most likely is probably replying to a signed message with confidential data. Let's say that Alice puts in a request for sensitive information from Bob via a signed email - only certain people can have access to the information so it is reasonable to expect Alice to digitally sign the request, but the request is not sensitive in itself.

Now, if Bob replies to that request with the sensitive information attached he will follow policy and mark it as confidential and add the encryption keyword, 'encryptemail', to the subject line. He will now assume that the information will automatically be encrypted. However, if he doesn't remove Alice's 'signemail' keyword it will just be signed and not encrypted. This then violates the policy and sends confidential information in plaintext while the user believes that it has been encrypted.

It also highlights that you shouldn't use a keyword that might be used as part of everyday language. For example, don't use the keyword 'sign' as someone could send a sensitive document with a subject something like 'Contract for you to sign'.

I suggest that everyone using this type of solution should test it to see if this happens on their system. If it does, you will, at the least, need to publish an advisory warning to your users.
Labels:

Comments

  1. public key infrastructure21 November 2011 at 02:18

    I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commentters here!Keep writing.Thanks.

    pki certificate.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Trusteer or no trust 'ere...

...that is the question. Well, I've had more of a look into Trusteer's Rapport, and it seems that my fears were justified. There are many security professionals out there who are claiming that this is 'snake oil' - marketing hype for something that isn't possible. Trusteer's Rapport gives security 'guaranteed' even if your machine is infected with malware according to their marketing department. Now any security professional worth his salt will tell you that this is rubbish and you should run a mile from claims like this. Anyway, I will try to address a few questions I raised in my last post about this. Firstly, I was correct in my assumption that Rapport requires a list of the servers that you wish to communicate with; it contacts a secure DNS server, which has a list already in it. This is how it switches from a phishing site to the legitimate site silently in the background. I have yet to fully investigate the security of this DNS, however, as most
13 comments
Read more

Security Through Obscurity

I have been reminded recently, while looking at several products, that people still rely on the principle of 'security through obscurity.' This is the belief that your system/software/whatever is secure because potential hackers don't know it's there/how it works/etc. Although popular, this is a false belief. There are two aspects to this, the first is the SME who thinks that they're not a target for attack and nobody knows about their machines, so they're safe. This is forgivable if misguided and false. See my post about logging attack attempts on a home broadband connection with no advertised services or machines. The second set of people is far less forgivable, and those are the security vendors. History has shown that open systems and standards have a far better chance of being secure in the long run. No one person can think of every possible attack on a system and therefore they can't secure a system alone. That is why we have RFCs to arrive at ope
Post a Comment
Read more

How Reliable is RAID?

We all know that when we want a highly available and reliable server we install a RAID solution, but how reliable actually is that? Well, obviously, you can work it out quite simply as we will see below, but before you do, you have to know what sort of RAID are you talking about, as some can be less reliable than a single disk. The most common types are RAID 0, 1 and 5. We will look at the reliability of each using real disks for the calculations, but before we do, let's recap on what the most common RAID types are. Common Types of RAID RAID 0 is the Stripe set, which consists of 2 or more disks with data written in equal sized blocks to each of the disks. This is a fast way of reading and writing data to disk, but it gives you no redundancy at all. In fact, RAID 0 is actually less reliable than a single disk, as all the disks are in series from a reliability point of view. If you lose one disk in the array, you've lost the whole thing. RAID 0 is used purely to speed up dis
Post a Comment
Read more