6 ms·

This is almost certainly related to some sort of Russian cybercrime investigation. If you ever read Krebs or peruse some of the seedier Russian forums, xmpp.ru

by costco 3y ago

This is almost certainly related to some sort of Russian cybercrime investigation. If you ever read Krebs or peruse some of the seedier Russian forums, xmpp.ru will sound familiar to you, because it is. Not imputing anything to the operator, that's just the nature of operating an anonymous service. https://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2021/03/exposing-currently-active-portfolio-of_82.html https://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2021/03/exposing-currently-act... https://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2019/07/profiling-currently-active-portfolio-of.html https://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2019/07/profiling-currently-ac... https://blog.talosintelligence.com/picking-apart-remcos/ https://blog.talosintelligence.com/picking-apart-remcos/ https://flashpoint.io/wp-content/uploads/Plea-Agreement-USA-v.-Vitalii-Chychasov.pdf https://flashpoint.io/wp-content/uploads/Plea-Agreement-USA-... Really interesting writeup though. I guess it's a practical example of why everyone should get a CT monitoring service!

ValdikSS 3y ago
Yes, I tend to believe that as well. My guess it's either related to Genesis Market or Qakbot takedowns.
orbital-decay 3y ago
Drug gangs widely use XMPP as a secure communication channel in combination with Tor. Hydra (the darknet market) has been taken down by German police in 2022 after trying to extend their "service" to the EU; something similar might or might not have happened here.
- codedokode 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - _lvbh 3y ago
    Telegram? Not Signal or Matrix?
    - toastal 3y ago
      Signal has massive usability issues: requires a phone number, requires a primary Android or iOS devices, can’t register multiple Android or iOS devices, requires Google Play services for notifications unless you get the APK which drains your battery (a fork, Molly, no supports UnifiedPush tho).
      - cies 3y ago
        > Signal has massive usability issues I'd say these are security issues
      - KomoD 3y ago
        > requires a phone number so does Telegram > requires a primary Android or iOS devices so does Telegram
        toastal 3y ago
        Telegram is also bad
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Has Telegram been audited? Does it encrypt by default?
    - codedokode 3y ago
      Did audit help Let's Encrypt to prevent issuing fake certificates? Such audit is useless. SSL infrastructure security is in a much worse state than Telegram's yet nobody seems to notice it. If any large ISP can issue fake certificates by doing MitM then this system is compromised completely. What's the point of having SSL if basically anyone can MitM it? To be honest, Telegram using homemade crypto instead of relying on standard approaches like CA certs turned out to be good solution in the end. Apps should stop trusting CA and should hardcode public certificates instead.
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        Apples and oranges? Let's Encrypt is a bandaid for a (possibly inevitable) architectural weakness, one serving browsers which must communicate with a world of unfamiliar servers. Telegram is a messaging app primarily meant for communicating among people and groups one already knows. Regardless, using open and verified cryptographic primitives is a best practice for a reason. As are audits. The likelihood any company can start from scratch and produce a flawless solution is a number approaching zero. I'd feel much more comfortable with something using Signal protocol. Ideally built from independently audited source.
  - asdfv09s9d80fu9 3y ago
    The same Telegram that leaks your IP? https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/19/telegram-is-still-leaking-user-ip-addresses-to-contacts/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/19/telegram-is-still-leaking-...
    - grishka 3y ago
      > The popular messaging app Telegram can leak your IP address if you simply add a hacker to your contacts and accept a phone call from them. Peer-to-peer communication reveals people's IP addresses to each other, what a sensational revelation! By the way, water is wet.
      - asdfv09s9d80fu9 3y ago
        Since Telegram claims to be a secure messaging app, while leaking private details and since you used to work at Telegram, maybe stfu. All voice can be E2E thru servers, like Signal does.
        codedokode 3y ago
        You can disable peer-to-peer connections in settings, as well as disable calls from everyone or specific contacts.
        grishka 3y ago
        Telegram is as secure as it can possibly be without the security requiring compromises and leaking into the UX. I thought that was clear to anyone who has ever used it. If you require 100% bulletproof security and are willing to compromise on convenience, it's not for you. Since this thread is about XMPP, Telegram's security is effectively the same as XMPP over TLS, maybe a bit better because there isn't a trusted third party (the CA). > All voice can be E2E thru servers, like Signal does. I know that. In fact, I built the first VoIP implementation for Telegram, libtgvoip, myself from scratch. Relay servers add delay, can run out of capacity, and cost money in bandwidth. Of course relays are still used if a P2P connection can not be established (libtgvoip always started the call through the relays and only switched to P2P if pings went through and RTT was lower, that took at least several seconds before enough statistics was gathered).
  - grishka 3y ago
    I'd like to add that MTProto is impossible to MITM because there are no trusted third parties. The handshake that happens before the user logs into their account includes a step with RSA. The public keys for that step are hardcoded into clients. To anyone who wants to complain about Telegram not encrypting chats by default and using "homebrew crypto" I'd like to say that it's XMPP we're discussing here. Telegram offers marginally better security than XMPP over TLS. The "homebrew crypto" is still not broken in 10 years and not for the lack of trying.
    - Jenda_ 3y ago
      > Telegram offers marginally better security than XMPP over TLS. I think you should compare apples to apples, that is, end-to-end encrypted XMPP using OTR/OMEMO/PGP. However, I agree that many XMPP clients were UX disaster when using E2E.
      - grishka 3y ago
        End-to-end encrypted XMPP should be compared to Telegram's secret chats then. Both are opt-in and both aren't very popular among users of these services.
        toastal 3y ago
        A lot of clients have OMEMO on by default now. You can’t enforce it for all clients & across the entire network tho as XMPP is a ‘simple’ protocol without a let of bells & whistles meant to be eXtended like OMEMO/OTR/PGP built atop it. With the newer compliance suites tho, to be considered ‘modern’ OMEMO & other e2ee options are expected to be supported. Gajim makes the UI easy, & Conversations isn’t bad. Profanity is a bit more obtuse to use since you need to trust your own keys manually too & they’re not autocompleted, but all the tools are there even for a TUI client.
      - raxxorraxor 3y ago
        XMPP over TLS is secure though. Of course that is for the transport as the name implies. The difference to e2e is the same. Although if one party of any e2e exchange is compromised, you would have similar problems.
  - Nasreddin_Hodja 3y ago
    > They should have used Telegram It requires phone number.
codedokode 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bananapub 3y ago
  what? nothing to do with Let's Encrypt, if someone gets to large-scale MITM your traffic then they can get anyone to issue a DV cert.
  - codedokode 3y ago
    So for example, if traffic to Google goes through a Huawei router somewhere, then Huawei can issue a Let's Encrypt certificate for Google, right? And any large national ISP can use MitM to issue fake certificates for any site hosted within that country? To me it looks like SSL cert infra is completely compromised and unreliable.
    - Jenda_ 3y ago
      > then Huawei can issue a Let's Encrypt certificate for Google, right? Google has CAA records set (https://www.entrust.com/resources/certificate-solutions/tools/caa-lookup https://www.entrust.com/resources/certificate-solutions/tool...) and I guess CAs will have denylists of "popular" domains, so no. > And any large national ISP can use MitM to issue fake certificates for any site hosted within that country? Yes. You can fix this by CAA and ACME-CAA. I can't think of a way to validate DV certificates in a better way that will resist this kind of attack.
      - schoen 3y ago
        Multiperspective validation, if the attacker is far enough away from the target site. :-) I think some of the researchers who wrote about BGP spoofing attacks against Let's Encrypt may have suggested something about logging BGP changes and delaying DV issuance if a network's BGP announcements are too recent, or something? I don't think Let's Encrypt currently checks that, but it could be an interesting data source in the future.
cf1241290841 3y ago
[dead]

by costco 3y ago

ValdikSS 3y ago

Yes, I tend to believe that as well. My guess it's either related to Genesis Market or Qakbot takedowns.

orbital-decay 3y ago

Drug gangs widely use XMPP as a secure communication channel in combination with Tor. Hydra (the darknet market) has been taken down by German police in 2022 after trying to extend their "service" to the EU; something similar might or might not have happened here.

codedokode 3y ago
[flagged]
- _lvbh 3y ago
  Telegram? Not Signal or Matrix?
  - toastal 3y ago
    Signal has massive usability issues: requires a phone number, requires a primary Android or iOS devices, can’t register multiple Android or iOS devices, requires Google Play services for notifications unless you get the APK which drains your battery (a fork, Molly, no supports UnifiedPush tho).
    - cies 3y ago
      > Signal has massive usability issues I'd say these are security issues
    - KomoD 3y ago
      > requires a phone number so does Telegram > requires a primary Android or iOS devices so does Telegram
      - toastal 3y ago
        Telegram is also bad
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Has Telegram been audited? Does it encrypt by default?
  - codedokode 3y ago
    Did audit help Let's Encrypt to prevent issuing fake certificates? Such audit is useless. SSL infrastructure security is in a much worse state than Telegram's yet nobody seems to notice it. If any large ISP can issue fake certificates by doing MitM then this system is compromised completely. What's the point of having SSL if basically anyone can MitM it? To be honest, Telegram using homemade crypto instead of relying on standard approaches like CA certs turned out to be good solution in the end. Apps should stop trusting CA and should hardcode public certificates instead.
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      Apples and oranges? Let's Encrypt is a bandaid for a (possibly inevitable) architectural weakness, one serving browsers which must communicate with a world of unfamiliar servers. Telegram is a messaging app primarily meant for communicating among people and groups one already knows. Regardless, using open and verified cryptographic primitives is a best practice for a reason. As are audits. The likelihood any company can start from scratch and produce a flawless solution is a number approaching zero. I'd feel much more comfortable with something using Signal protocol. Ideally built from independently audited source.
- asdfv09s9d80fu9 3y ago
  The same Telegram that leaks your IP? https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/19/telegram-is-still-leaking-user-ip-addresses-to-contacts/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/19/telegram-is-still-leaking-...
  - grishka 3y ago
    > The popular messaging app Telegram can leak your IP address if you simply add a hacker to your contacts and accept a phone call from them. Peer-to-peer communication reveals people's IP addresses to each other, what a sensational revelation! By the way, water is wet.
    - asdfv09s9d80fu9 3y ago
      Since Telegram claims to be a secure messaging app, while leaking private details and since you used to work at Telegram, maybe stfu. All voice can be E2E thru servers, like Signal does.
      - codedokode 3y ago
        You can disable peer-to-peer connections in settings, as well as disable calls from everyone or specific contacts.
      - grishka 3y ago
        Telegram is as secure as it can possibly be without the security requiring compromises and leaking into the UX. I thought that was clear to anyone who has ever used it. If you require 100% bulletproof security and are willing to compromise on convenience, it's not for you. Since this thread is about XMPP, Telegram's security is effectively the same as XMPP over TLS, maybe a bit better because there isn't a trusted third party (the CA). > All voice can be E2E thru servers, like Signal does. I know that. In fact, I built the first VoIP implementation for Telegram, libtgvoip, myself from scratch. Relay servers add delay, can run out of capacity, and cost money in bandwidth. Of course relays are still used if a P2P connection can not be established (libtgvoip always started the call through the relays and only switched to P2P if pings went through and RTT was lower, that took at least several seconds before enough statistics was gathered).
- grishka 3y ago
  I'd like to add that MTProto is impossible to MITM because there are no trusted third parties. The handshake that happens before the user logs into their account includes a step with RSA. The public keys for that step are hardcoded into clients. To anyone who wants to complain about Telegram not encrypting chats by default and using "homebrew crypto" I'd like to say that it's XMPP we're discussing here. Telegram offers marginally better security than XMPP over TLS. The "homebrew crypto" is still not broken in 10 years and not for the lack of trying.
  - Jenda_ 3y ago
    > Telegram offers marginally better security than XMPP over TLS. I think you should compare apples to apples, that is, end-to-end encrypted XMPP using OTR/OMEMO/PGP. However, I agree that many XMPP clients were UX disaster when using E2E.
    - grishka 3y ago
      End-to-end encrypted XMPP should be compared to Telegram's secret chats then. Both are opt-in and both aren't very popular among users of these services.
      - toastal 3y ago
        A lot of clients have OMEMO on by default now. You can’t enforce it for all clients & across the entire network tho as XMPP is a ‘simple’ protocol without a let of bells & whistles meant to be eXtended like OMEMO/OTR/PGP built atop it. With the newer compliance suites tho, to be considered ‘modern’ OMEMO & other e2ee options are expected to be supported. Gajim makes the UI easy, & Conversations isn’t bad. Profanity is a bit more obtuse to use since you need to trust your own keys manually too & they’re not autocompleted, but all the tools are there even for a TUI client.
    - raxxorraxor 3y ago
      XMPP over TLS is secure though. Of course that is for the transport as the name implies. The difference to e2e is the same. Although if one party of any e2e exchange is compromised, you would have similar problems.
- Nasreddin_Hodja 3y ago
  > They should have used Telegram It requires phone number.

codedokode 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bananapub 3y ago
what? nothing to do with Let's Encrypt, if someone gets to large-scale MITM your traffic then they can get anyone to issue a DV cert.
- codedokode 3y ago
  So for example, if traffic to Google goes through a Huawei router somewhere, then Huawei can issue a Let's Encrypt certificate for Google, right? And any large national ISP can use MitM to issue fake certificates for any site hosted within that country? To me it looks like SSL cert infra is completely compromised and unreliable.
  - Jenda_ 3y ago
    > then Huawei can issue a Let's Encrypt certificate for Google, right? Google has CAA records set (https://www.entrust.com/resources/certificate-solutions/tools/caa-lookup https://www.entrust.com/resources/certificate-solutions/tool...) and I guess CAs will have denylists of "popular" domains, so no. > And any large national ISP can use MitM to issue fake certificates for any site hosted within that country? Yes. You can fix this by CAA and ACME-CAA. I can't think of a way to validate DV certificates in a better way that will resist this kind of attack.
    - schoen 3y ago
      Multiperspective validation, if the attacker is far enough away from the target site. :-) I think some of the researchers who wrote about BGP spoofing attacks against Let's Encrypt may have suggested something about logging BGP changes and delaying DV issuance if a network's BGP announcements are too recent, or something? I don't think Let's Encrypt currently checks that, but it could be an interesting data source in the future.

cf1241290841 3y ago

[dead]