In October, Apple released Security Update 2014-005, specifically with the intend to address the POODLE issue [1]. The description with the update stated:
However, even with the most recent version of Safari, I am still not able to prove this statement as true. Instead, I am able to connect to a test server that ONLY supports SSLv3 and block ciphers. [2] Multiple users of the site confirmed this observation, and the logs also confirm that current versions of Safari will happily ignore Apple's statement above and connect via SSLv3. Here is a breakdown of a packet capture showing the entire handshake: The Safari client hello: SSL Record Layer: Handshake Protocol: Client Hello As it should, it indicates support for TLS 1.0. My server is now sending back the Server Hello message: Handshake Protocol: Server Hello The server offers AES, a block cipher (CBC) which is accepted by Safari. Other issues we discovered with the poodletest.com website is the use of proxies. Some proxies still support SSLv3, and if they are configured as a trusted proxy terminating SSL connections, then they may downgrade a connection to SSLv3. How serious is it? The POODLE attack is still a low probability attack. I am not aware of any active use of the attack. So no need to panic. But vendors like Apple aren't helping with incomplete statements. It is possible that Safari is doing some form of downgrading protection. But this is not explained in the very brief advisory. [1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203107 --- |
Johannes 4075 Posts ISC Handler Dec 15th 2014 |
Thread locked Subscribe |
Dec 15th 2014 6 years ago |
Hi
Can you report if your server that is testing this is using TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV? Similar to poodletest.com.... Is your connection reporting in error SSLv3 for TLS, pound perhaps? Curious? |
steve 7 Posts |
Quote |
Dec 17th 2014 6 years ago |
I count this is the 3rd major security misstep by Apple in recent months. First, icloud.com did not enforce a brute force attack lockout. Second, IOS did not enforce a brute force attack lockout. Third, Safari failed to disable SSL3.
All three of these vulnerabilities seem to me to have been easily preventable by the most basic of testing prior to them going to production. I don't get it. |
PhilBAR 24 Posts |
Quote |
Dec 18th 2014 6 years ago |
Sign Up for Free or Log In to start participating in the conversation!