5 ms·

naturally oblivious to the security implications Rest assured Lenovo was perfectly aware of the security and privacy implications of this feature from the begi

by moe 12y ago

naturally oblivious to the security implications Rest assured Lenovo was perfectly aware of the security and privacy implications of this feature from the beginning. They merely try to sound oblivious because their laywers hope that will soften the legal and media repercussions.

kentonv 12y ago
Honestly, I think that's unlikely. This is far too sloppy to have been intentional. There are much better ways to implement a backdoor when you control the OS image. This is just incompetence, plain and simple. Superfish looks like the kind of crapware that pays OEMs to include it in their bundle. Lenovo took the cash and didn't bother to review the code. Superfish, for its part, probably doesn't have the best and brightest engineers working for them. They probably tasked a junior programmer with working around SSL, who then committed the first solution that worked without ever thinking about security implications, and they shipped it.
- WestCoastJustin 12y ago
  Cannot see how this could possibly be true. Having been privy to OS bundling for products, I can assure you there is lengthy contracts, and negotiations, about exactly what is happening. You do no simply walk up to Lenovo and have your "software" installed into the OS without a very detailed contract and pay structure. There also looks to be js injected into pages, which is serving up the ads, and a comment about Lenovo [1]. Think about what the means. There was a project at this company, where they had meetings, project plans, testing to make sure it worked, and a very detailed idea of what was going on. Never mind all the ramping up capacity due to new Lenovo's boxes coming on-line. There is zero chance this was some low level junior programmer fly by night operation. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9072542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9072542
  - kentonv 12y ago
    Oh I'm sure they had lots of meetings about the contracts and pay structure, and they may have done testing to make sure it didn't break things, but apparently no one did a security review. Sadly, this doesn't surprise me that much. If they did know about the problem, they could have fixed it. If the app simply generated a new key as part of first-time use, then it would just be run-of-the-mill crapware rather than a gaping security hole. Even if Lenovo has malicious intent, it would still have been in their best interests to do at least that, yet they didn't. Hence I assume it was incompetence.
    - moe 12y ago
      but apparently no one did a security review It doesn't take a "security review" to spot a gaping security and privacy violation like this. Any engineer with even the slightest clue of how a browser and "the internet" works would have called this out during the first "How does this product work?"-presentation. Let's not pretend Lenovo is staffed with monkeys.
      - e12e 12y ago
        “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.” Remember stuff like this: http://www.cryptofails.com/post/70059600123/saltstack-rsa-e-d-1 http://www.cryptofails.com/post/70059600123/saltstack-rsa-e-... (Which, possibly unfairly, is one reason I'm leaning more towards ansible than saltstack to this day -- I mean, if stuff like that got through... what else, in more complex areas of the system?)
        freehunter 12y ago
        The problem in Lenovo's situation is, calling it incompetence is the real stretch. You could call Charles Manson incompetent saying he just didn't know what he was doing was wrong, but everyone knows he was just evil. Never falsely attribute to incompetence what is actually ascribable to malice. You can't come in here with a straight face and say that no one at Lenovo considered the security risk of including this software. If it was considered and they pushed ahead with it anyway, that's malice.
  - BinaryIdiot 12y ago
    I don't know, I've worked on some large government projects where things like this could have possibly slipped through because an engineer or two thought it was a clever way to workaround the issue. Granted they should have known and may have known but I'm not convinced they had to have known.
- O____________O 12y ago
  They probably tasked a junior programmer with working around SSL I don't think I've seen a junior anything who was informed and insightful enough to write a network proxy, including SSL support, and the necessary certificate work.
- JoachimS 12y ago
  How could you add mitm functionality by mistake?
  - ptaipale 12y ago
    Because you call it "enhanced functionality featuring cloud services", not a "man in the middle attack". And calling it enhanced is not always an unreasonable interpretation. For instance, take the case of a cheap mobile phone with a very limited bandwidth. You can increase the end user satisfaction considerably if you move some of the functionality to a server layer so that when you browse, the things actually happen somewhere in a cloud and your phone is just displaying the result, without being the actual browser as seen by the site you visit. Nokia did this with some of the cheaper devices, and I think it was quite OK. It comes down to how much you trust that party, of course, and how critical your communication is.
- eitally 12y ago
  I think you give them too much credit. This was probably a decision made by a non-technical group without input from a technical group (e.g. Marketing goes and does something without even thinking of contacting Engineering), and whoever slipstreamed it into the factory image just followed instructions unquestioningly. This will likely result in an eventual retraction and apology, and internal process improvements being made to prevent such things from happening again. Such things will eventually happen again because large orgs are inefficient and individual employees are frustrated by inefficiency, so they'll work around the protocols. Rinse & repeat.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
zyx321 12y ago
Someone has posted the actual script elsewhere in this thread [1]. Of particular interest is line 194: if (location.protocol === 'https:' && queryString.search(/dlsource=hdrykzc/i) !== -1) // Patch for Lenovo - do not run on https sites So yes, it seems someone at Lenovo was security-aware enough to demand an exception for HTTPS. Unfortunately the fine folks at Superfish either didn't understand or didn't care. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9072542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9072542
Intermernet 12y ago
No, this is an example of the Lenovo sales / marketing people making distribution deals with dodgy third-party companies. The people who design the machines don't make the decision to ship MITM proxies on them. I honestly don't know why Lenovo (and others) still make these third party deals. Just ship the machine with a blank OS, or install a vetted selection of open-source software (7zip, VLC, LibreOffice if they want). Just don't install crapware for the mediocre kickback it generates!
- johansch 12y ago
  For low-end machines these bundling deals likely form a sizeable chunk of the profit margin. (I've heard eyebrow-raising numbers for e.g. the default browser spot.)
  - eitally 12y ago
    Yep. The other chunk results from the OEM's refusal to stick to any long term consistency in the components they spec in consumer lines of devices. In business lines, you will likely get a 6-12 month guarantee with a 6-24mo forecast showing exactly what is shipping with what (CPUs, GPUs, screens, hard drives, etc). With consumer lines, they change components & suppliers any time, for any reason.
    - pixl97 12y ago
      >With consumer lines, they change components & suppliers any time, for any reason. I always love when the same model (down to the part number) comes with a different configuration and board inside the case.

by moe 12y ago

kentonv 12y ago

Honestly, I think that's unlikely. This is far too sloppy to have been intentional. There are much better ways to implement a backdoor when you control the OS image. This is just incompetence, plain and simple. Superfish looks like the kind of crapware that pays OEMs to include it in their bundle. Lenovo took the cash and didn't bother to review the code. Superfish, for its part, probably doesn't have the best and brightest engineers working for them. They probably tasked a junior programmer with working around SSL, who then committed the first solution that worked without ever thinking about security implications, and they shipped it.

WestCoastJustin 12y ago
Cannot see how this could possibly be true. Having been privy to OS bundling for products, I can assure you there is lengthy contracts, and negotiations, about exactly what is happening. You do no simply walk up to Lenovo and have your "software" installed into the OS without a very detailed contract and pay structure. There also looks to be js injected into pages, which is serving up the ads, and a comment about Lenovo [1]. Think about what the means. There was a project at this company, where they had meetings, project plans, testing to make sure it worked, and a very detailed idea of what was going on. Never mind all the ramping up capacity due to new Lenovo's boxes coming on-line. There is zero chance this was some low level junior programmer fly by night operation. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9072542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9072542
- kentonv 12y ago
  Oh I'm sure they had lots of meetings about the contracts and pay structure, and they may have done testing to make sure it didn't break things, but apparently no one did a security review. Sadly, this doesn't surprise me that much. If they did know about the problem, they could have fixed it. If the app simply generated a new key as part of first-time use, then it would just be run-of-the-mill crapware rather than a gaping security hole. Even if Lenovo has malicious intent, it would still have been in their best interests to do at least that, yet they didn't. Hence I assume it was incompetence.
  - moe 12y ago
    but apparently no one did a security review It doesn't take a "security review" to spot a gaping security and privacy violation like this. Any engineer with even the slightest clue of how a browser and "the internet" works would have called this out during the first "How does this product work?"-presentation. Let's not pretend Lenovo is staffed with monkeys.
    - e12e 12y ago
      “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.” Remember stuff like this: http://www.cryptofails.com/post/70059600123/saltstack-rsa-e-d-1 http://www.cryptofails.com/post/70059600123/saltstack-rsa-e-... (Which, possibly unfairly, is one reason I'm leaning more towards ansible than saltstack to this day -- I mean, if stuff like that got through... what else, in more complex areas of the system?)
      - freehunter 12y ago
        The problem in Lenovo's situation is, calling it incompetence is the real stretch. You could call Charles Manson incompetent saying he just didn't know what he was doing was wrong, but everyone knows he was just evil. Never falsely attribute to incompetence what is actually ascribable to malice. You can't come in here with a straight face and say that no one at Lenovo considered the security risk of including this software. If it was considered and they pushed ahead with it anyway, that's malice.
- BinaryIdiot 12y ago
  I don't know, I've worked on some large government projects where things like this could have possibly slipped through because an engineer or two thought it was a clever way to workaround the issue. Granted they should have known and may have known but I'm not convinced they had to have known.
O____________O 12y ago
They probably tasked a junior programmer with working around SSL I don't think I've seen a junior anything who was informed and insightful enough to write a network proxy, including SSL support, and the necessary certificate work.
JoachimS 12y ago
How could you add mitm functionality by mistake?
- ptaipale 12y ago
  Because you call it "enhanced functionality featuring cloud services", not a "man in the middle attack". And calling it enhanced is not always an unreasonable interpretation. For instance, take the case of a cheap mobile phone with a very limited bandwidth. You can increase the end user satisfaction considerably if you move some of the functionality to a server layer so that when you browse, the things actually happen somewhere in a cloud and your phone is just displaying the result, without being the actual browser as seen by the site you visit. Nokia did this with some of the cheaper devices, and I think it was quite OK. It comes down to how much you trust that party, of course, and how critical your communication is.
eitally 12y ago
I think you give them too much credit. This was probably a decision made by a non-technical group without input from a technical group (e.g. Marketing goes and does something without even thinking of contacting Engineering), and whoever slipstreamed it into the factory image just followed instructions unquestioningly. This will likely result in an eventual retraction and apology, and internal process improvements being made to prevent such things from happening again. Such things will eventually happen again because large orgs are inefficient and individual employees are frustrated by inefficiency, so they'll work around the protocols. Rinse & repeat.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

zyx321 12y ago

Someone has posted the actual script elsewhere in this thread [1]. Of particular interest is line 194: if (location.protocol === 'https:' && queryString.search(/dlsource=hdrykzc/i) !== -1) // Patch for Lenovo - do not run on https sites So yes, it seems someone at Lenovo was security-aware enough to demand an exception for HTTPS. Unfortunately the fine folks at Superfish either didn't understand or didn't care. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9072542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9072542

Intermernet 12y ago

No, this is an example of the Lenovo sales / marketing people making distribution deals with dodgy third-party companies. The people who design the machines don't make the decision to ship MITM proxies on them. I honestly don't know why Lenovo (and others) still make these third party deals. Just ship the machine with a blank OS, or install a vetted selection of open-source software (7zip, VLC, LibreOffice if they want). Just don't install crapware for the mediocre kickback it generates!

johansch 12y ago
For low-end machines these bundling deals likely form a sizeable chunk of the profit margin. (I've heard eyebrow-raising numbers for e.g. the default browser spot.)
- eitally 12y ago
  Yep. The other chunk results from the OEM's refusal to stick to any long term consistency in the components they spec in consumer lines of devices. In business lines, you will likely get a 6-12 month guarantee with a 6-24mo forecast showing exactly what is shipping with what (CPUs, GPUs, screens, hard drives, etc). With consumer lines, they change components & suppliers any time, for any reason.
  - pixl97 12y ago
    >With consumer lines, they change components & suppliers any time, for any reason. I always love when the same model (down to the part number) comes with a different configuration and board inside the case.