Penetration Test Report (IncludeSecurity): relaycorp relaynet network protocol

Security Assessment of
Relaycorp’s Relaynet Network Protocol
(on behalf of the Open Technology Fund)
Page 1 of 13
FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 3
Scope and Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 3
Assessment Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 3
Findings Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................. 3
ASSESSMENT RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 4
Project Scoping, Threat Modeling, and Assessment Methodology .......................................................... 4
CRITICAL-RISK FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 6
HIGH-RISK FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 6
H1: Relaynet Abstract Message Format Hashing Algorithm Not Specified .............................................. 6
H2: Minimum Required Key Strength Not Specified................................................................................. 6
H3: Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange may Operate on Key Material Generated from Different Algorithms
and Parameters ......................................................................................................................................... 7
H4: Supported Symmetric Encryption Algorithms Not Specified ............................................................. 8
MEDIUM-RISK FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 9
M1: Use of Public Hostnames Without Warning Message ....................................................................... 9
LOW-RISK FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 10
L1: Abstract Message Format Signature Check Process Not Explicitly Defined ...................................... 10
INFORMATIONAL FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 11
I1: Missing Threats Diagram .................................................................................................................... 11
Page 2 of 13
FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scope and Methodology
IncludeSec performed a security assessment of Relaycorp’s Relaynet Network Protocol (on
behalf of the Open Technology Fund). The assessment team performed a 5 day effort spanning
from March 18th – March 22nd, 2019, using a Time-Boxed Grey Box Assessment Methodology
which included a detailed review of all the components described above in a manner consistent
with the original Statement of Work (SOW).
Assessment Objectives
The objective of this assessment was to identify and confirm potential security vulnerabilities
within targets in-scope of the SOW. The team assigned a qualitative risk ranking to each finding.
IncludeSec also provided remediation steps which Relaycorp could implement to secure its
applications and systems.
Findings Overview
IncludeSec identified 7 categories of findings. There were 0 deemed a “Critical-Risk,” 4 deemed
a “High-Risk,” 1 deemed a “Medium-Risk,” and 1 deemed a “Low-Risk,” which pose some
tangible security risk. Additionally, 1 “Informational” level findings were identified that do not
immediately pose a security risk.
IncludeSec encourages Relaycorp to redefine the stated risk categorizations internally in a
manner that incorporates internal knowledge regarding business model, customer risk, and
mitigation environmental factors.
Next Steps
IncludeSec advises Relaycorp to remediate as many findings as possible in a prioritized manner
and make systemic changes to the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) to prevent further
vulnerabilities from being introduced into future release cycles. This report can be used by
Relaycorp as a basis for any SDLC changes. IncludeSec welcomes the opportunity to assist
Relaycorp in improving their SDLC in future engagements by providing security assessments of
additional products.
Page 3 of 13
FINAL REPORT
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
At the conclusion of the assessment, Include Security categorized findings into four levels of
perceived security risk: critical, high, medium, or low. Any informational findings for which the
assessment team perceived no direct security risk, were also reported in the spirit of full
disclosure. The risk categorizations below are guidelines that IncludeSec believes reflect best
practices in the security industry and may differ from internal perceived risk. It is common and
encouraged that all clients recategorize findings based on their internal business risk
tolerances. All findings are described in detail within the final report provided to Relaycorp.
Critical-Risk findings are those that pose an immediate and serious threat to the company’s
infrastructure and customers. This includes loss of system, access, or application control,
compromise of administrative accounts or restriction of system functions, or the exposure of
confidential information. These threats should take priority during remediation efforts.
High-Risk findings are those that could pose serious threats including loss of system, access, or
application control, compromise of administrative accounts or restriction of system functions,
or the exposure of confidential information.
Medium-Risk findings are those that could potentially be used with other techniques to
compromise accounts, data, or performance.
Low-Risk findings pose limited exposure to compromise or loss of data, and are typically
attributed to configuration issues, and outdated patches or policies.
Informational findings pose little to no security exposure to compromise or loss of data which
cover defense-in-depth and best-practice changes which we recommend are made to the
application.
The findings below are listed by a risk rated short name (e.g., C1, H2, M3, L4, I5) and finding
title. Each finding includes: Description (including proof of concept screenshots and lines of
code), Recommended Remediation, and References.
Project Scoping, Threat Modeling, and Assessment Methodology
Project Scoping
On March 18th, 2019, the assessment team began analyzing Relaynet for security
vulnerabilities (see reference links below for exact versions.). The assessment was time boxed
to 48 hours. Relaynet's specification was solely in scope the Relaynet implementation received
by the IncludeSec team was only to be used to verify findings found within the specification.
Page 4 of 13
FINAL REPORT
Given that the time spent on the assessment was not exhaustive, IncludeSec hopes this project
serves as inspiration for the open source communities to execute their own security reviews
and to report any identified vulnerabilities to the project maintainers.
Threat Modeling
As Relaynet is meant to define a secure messaging protocol which can operate in an untrusted
environment, threat modeling included actors who can partially or fully partake in generating,
receiving, and transferring messages. Note that while Relaynet makes heavy use of public key
cryptography, initial exchange of the Gateways's public key was out of scope of the assessment.
The following areas were of key focus during the assessment:
• Backdoors – Assessing if the specification voluntary or involuntary contains backdoors,
wh