Incident: Juniper Networks' ScreenOS Backdoor Vulnerability Impacting VPN Traffic.

Published Date: 2015-12-18

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident involving Juniper Networks' firewalls and VPN software occurred in December 2015 as reported in [57260], [56922], and [57083].
System 1. Juniper NetScreen firewalls running affected versions of ScreenOS software [57260, 56922, 57083] 2. Virtual Private Network (VPN) on Juniper firewalls [57260, 56922, 57083]
Responsible Organization 1. The unauthorized backdoors in Juniper firewalls were believed to have been caused by a sophisticated nation-state attacker, possibly the NSA or a similar entity [57260]. 2. Security researchers suggested that the NSA may be indirectly responsible for the backdoor in Juniper firewalls due to weaknesses in the encryption algorithm Dual_EC that were reportedly engineered by the NSA [56922]. 3. The hack that exploited weaknesses in the password encryption algorithm Dual_EC was suggested to have been the work of a foreign government, with the FBI investigating the breach [57083].
Impacted Organization 1. The US government, including the Defense Department, Justice Department, and Treasury Department, as well as the FBI [57083] 2. Corporate and government systems around the world that used Juniper NetScreen firewalls with the affected software [57260]
Software Causes 1. The failure incident was caused by the presence of unauthorized backdoors in Juniper Networks' firewalls, including one that allowed attackers to gain administrative access and decrypt VPN connections [57260, 56922, 57083]. 2. The backdoors exploited weaknesses in the encryption algorithm Dual_EC, which was believed to have been engineered by the NSA and promoted as a standard, making it vulnerable to exploitation by attackers [56922, 57083]. 3. Juniper's software flaw involved a configuration error in the VPN encryption scheme in its NetScreen devices, which allowed attackers to decrypt protected traffic passing through Juniper's devices [56922]. 4. The attackers altered Juniper's source code to change a constant or point used by the Dual_EC algorithm, combined with a secret key, inherent weaknesses in Dual_EC, and the configuration error in Juniper's system, enabling them to decrypt VPN traffic [56922]. 5. Juniper's failure to properly configure its system to rely on the ANSI generator instead of the Dual_EC generator, as well as a bug that ignored the second generator, left the firewalls susceptible to attack [56922]. 6. The backdoor remained undetected for at least three years until Juniper discovered it during a code review, indicating a lack of proper monitoring and detection mechanisms in place [57083].
Non-software Causes 1. Lack of proper oversight and monitoring during the development and maintenance of the software, allowing unauthorized code to be embedded in the system [57260, 56922, 57083]. 2. Potential exploitation of weaknesses in encryption algorithms, such as Dual_EC, that were promoted as standards by organizations like the NSA [56922, 57083]. 3. Possible involvement of nation-state actors in planting backdoors in the software, raising concerns about cybersecurity and espionage [57260, 56922, 57083]. 4. Failure to detect the vulnerabilities and unauthorized code for an extended period, indicating shortcomings in security measures and auditing processes [57083].
Impacts 1. The software failure incident involving Juniper Networks' firewalls allowed attackers to gain administrative access to NetScreen devices and decrypt VPN connections, potentially compromising sensitive information passing through the devices [57260, 56922, 57083]. 2. The backdoors discovered in the Juniper firewalls could have exposed encrypted VPN traffic to interception and decryption by unauthorized parties, including foreign governments or criminal groups [57083]. 3. The incident raised concerns about the security of networking equipment used by corporate and government systems globally, highlighting the risks associated with encryption backdoors and vulnerabilities in software [57260, 56922, 57083]. 4. The discovery of unauthorized code in Juniper's ScreenOS software led to the release of patches to address the vulnerabilities, emphasizing the importance of prompt software updates to mitigate security risks [57260, 57083]. 5. The incident underscored the potential dangers of exploiting weaknesses in encryption algorithms, such as Dual_EC, and the implications of repurposing government-designed backdoors for malicious purposes [56922, 57083].
Preventions 1. Implementing rigorous code review processes to detect unauthorized code or backdoors in the software [57260, 57083]. 2. Avoiding the use of encryption algorithms with known vulnerabilities, such as Dual_EC, and ensuring secure encryption practices [56922]. 3. Regularly updating and patching software to address vulnerabilities and security flaws [57260, 57083]. 4. Enhancing internal security measures to prevent unauthorized access to critical systems used to build source code [56922]. 5. Increasing transparency in the software development process to ensure the integrity of the code and prevent the insertion of backdoors [56922]. 6. Conducting thorough security audits and assessments to identify and mitigate potential security risks in the software [57083].
Fixes 1. Juniper should issue a new patch that makes the system use the ANSI generator and not the Dual_EC one to fix the backdoor problem [Article 56922]. 2. Juniper should remove the Dual_EC algorithm altogether from its system to protect customers [Article 56922]. 3. Juniper should reveal how it generated the Q point for Dual_EC to ensure its security and address concerns about the generation of a secret key [Article 56922].
References 1. Security researchers like Ralf-Philipp Weinmann from Comsecuris [Article 56922] 2. Seth Rosenblatt, managing editor of the security and privacy site the Parallax [Article 57083] 3. Bob Worrall, SVP and chief information officer at Juniper Networks [Article 57083]

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring one_organization (a) In the provided articles, the software failure incident related to unauthorized backdoors in Juniper Networks' firewalls is a case of a software failure incident happening again within the same organization. The incident involved the discovery of two unauthorized backdoors in Juniper firewalls, allowing attackers to gain administrative access and decrypt VPN connections [57260, 56922, 57083]. (b) The incident also highlights the broader issue of government backdoors in systems being a bad idea, as they can be hijacked and repurposed by other parties. Security experts have long warned against such backdoors, emphasizing the risks associated with them [57260, 56922].
Phase (Design/Operation) design, operation (a) The software failure incident related to the design phase: - The incident involved unauthorized code discovered in Juniper Networks' firewalls, which had been embedded in the operating system for several years, allowing attackers to gain administrative access and decrypt VPN connections [57260]. - The backdoors found in the firewalls were due to weaknesses in the password encryption algorithm "Dual_EC," which was reportedly engineered by the NSA and then repurposed by attackers to decrypt traffic passing through Juniper's devices [56922]. - The vulnerabilities in Juniper's VPN software were in the form of "unauthorized code" that went undiscovered for three years, potentially exposing sensitive information to foreign governments or criminal groups [57083]. (b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase: - The incident highlighted concerns about the operation of the firewalls, as attackers could exploit the backdoors to gain unauthorized access and decrypt VPN traffic, potentially compromising sensitive data passing through Juniper's devices [57260]. - The flaws in Juniper's VPN software could have allowed hackers to decrypt information passing through the devices, indicating a failure in the operation of the secure network used by companies internally [57083]. - The sophisticated nature of the hack and the ability of attackers to remain undetected for an extended period raised questions about the operation and security monitoring of Juniper's systems [57083].
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system, outside_system (a) The software failure incident related to Juniper Networks' firewalls and VPN software had contributing factors that originated from within the system. The incident involved unauthorized backdoors discovered in Juniper's firewalls, including one that allowed attackers to decrypt protected traffic passing through Juniper's devices [57260, 56922, 57083]. The vulnerabilities were in the form of "unauthorized code" found during an internal code review [57083]. The backdoors were embedded in the operating system itself and would have infected every customer who purchased products containing the compromised versions of the software [56922]. Juniper discovered the backdoors during an internal code review, indicating that the issues were present within the system itself [57260]. The incident highlighted weaknesses in the password encryption algorithm "Dual_EC" that were reportedly engineered by the NSA and promoted as a standard, which was exploited by the attackers [57083]. Juniper's system contained a bug in its configuration related to the VPN encryption scheme, making it vulnerable to attack [56922]. (b) The software failure incident also had contributing factors that originated from outside the system. The incident raised concerns about potential involvement of foreign governments or criminal groups in exploiting the vulnerabilities in Juniper's VPN software [57083]. Security researchers suggested that the NSA may be indirectly responsible for the backdoor in Juniper's software, as attackers repurposed an encryption backdoor previously believed to have been engineered by the NSA [56922]. The attack on Juniper firewalls underscored the risks associated with government backdoors in systems, as they can be hijacked and repurposed by other parties [56922]. The FBI was reportedly investigating the breach, indicating external involvement in the incident [57083].
Nature (Human/Non-human) non-human_actions, human_actions (a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions: - The software failure incident involving Juniper Networks' firewalls was due to the presence of unauthorized backdoors in the software, which were discovered during an internal code review [57260, 56922, 57083]. - The backdoors allowed attackers to gain administrative access to NetScreen devices and decrypt VPN connections, potentially exposing sensitive information passing through Juniper's devices [57260, 56922, 57083]. - The vulnerabilities were in the form of "unauthorized code" that had been present in the software for several years, indicating that the failure was due to contributing factors introduced without human participation [57083]. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions: - Security researchers believe that the backdoor embedded in Juniper firewalls was potentially repurposed from an encryption backdoor previously engineered by the NSA, suggesting human involvement in introducing the vulnerability [56922]. - The attackers behind the backdoor altered Juniper's source code to change a constant in the Dual_EC algorithm, indicating deliberate human actions to exploit existing weaknesses in the algorithm [56922]. - The attackers also relied on a mistake Juniper made in configuring the VPN encryption scheme in its NetScreen devices, further highlighting human actions contributing to the software failure incident [56922].
Dimension (Hardware/Software) software (a) The articles do not provide information about the software failure incident occurring due to contributing factors originating in hardware. (b) The software failure incident reported in the articles is due to contributing factors that originate in software. The incident involved Juniper Networks discovering unauthorized code in its ScreenOS software, which allowed attackers to gain administrative access to NetScreen devices and decrypt VPN connections [57260, 56922, 57083]. The vulnerabilities were in the form of "unauthorized code" that had been present in the software for three years, potentially exposing sensitive information to foreign governments or criminal groups [57083]. The incident highlighted the risks associated with government backdoors in systems, as the attackers exploited weaknesses in the encryption algorithm Dual_EC, which was believed to have been engineered by the NSA [56922]. The backdoors found in the software allowed attackers to take complete control of Juniper NetScreen firewalls and decrypt encrypted VPN traffic running through the firewalls [57260]. Juniper released patches to address the vulnerabilities, but concerns remained about the security of the affected systems [57260, 56922, 57083].
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) malicious (a) The software failure incident was malicious in nature, involving the insertion of unauthorized backdoors in Juniper Networks' firewalls, allowing attackers to gain administrative access and decrypt VPN connections [57260, 56922, 57083]. The backdoors were found to have been planted by sophisticated actors, potentially nation-state attackers, and were designed to exploit weaknesses in the encryption algorithm Dual_EC, which was believed to have been engineered by the NSA [56922, 57083]. The attackers altered Juniper's source code to change a point in the Dual_EC algorithm, allowing them to decrypt VPN traffic passing through Juniper's devices [56922]. The incident highlighted the risks associated with government-mandated backdoors in systems, as they can be hijacked and repurposed by other parties [56922]. (b) The software failure incident was non-malicious in the sense that Juniper Networks discovered the unauthorized code during an internal code review and took immediate action to investigate and develop patches to address the vulnerabilities [57260, 57083]. Juniper Networks issued advisories to customers to update their systems with the patched releases to mitigate the risks posed by the backdoors [57260, 57083]. The company emphasized the importance of customers applying the patches with the highest priority to secure their systems [57083].
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) poor_decisions (a) The intent of the software failure incident related to poor_decisions: - The software failure incident involving Juniper Networks' firewalls and VPN software was related to poor decisions made in the implementation of encryption algorithms and configuration of the VPN encryption scheme [57260, 56922]. - Juniper Networks used the Dual_EC algorithm, which had known weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and failed to properly configure the VPN encryption scheme, leaving the system susceptible to exploitation [56922]. - Juniper Networks made a critical mistake in configuring the VPN encryption scheme in its NetScreen devices, which allowed attackers to decrypt protected traffic passing through Juniper's devices [56922]. - The attackers exploited weaknesses in the Dual_EC algorithm, which was previously believed to have been engineered by the NSA, and repurposed it for their own spying purposes [56922]. - Juniper Networks failed to address the inherent weaknesses in the Dual_EC algorithm and did not implement proper security measures to prevent exploitation of the vulnerabilities [56922]. (b) The intent of the software failure incident related to accidental_decisions: - The software failure incident was not accidental but rather a result of deliberate actions taken by attackers to exploit vulnerabilities in the encryption algorithms and configuration of the VPN encryption scheme [57260, 56922]. - The attackers behind the backdoor in Juniper's firewalls altered the source code intentionally to change a point in the Dual_EC algorithm, indicating a deliberate and calculated effort to compromise the system [56922]. - The attackers changed critical parameters in Juniper's software, such as the Q point in the Dual_EC algorithm, to enable decryption of VPN traffic, demonstrating a purposeful act rather than an accidental mistake [56922]. - The presence of unauthorized backdoors in Juniper's software was not accidental but a result of deliberate actions by sophisticated attackers to gain unauthorized access and decrypt sensitive information passing through the devices [57083].
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) development_incompetence (a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the case of Juniper Networks' firewalls. Unauthorized code was discovered in the ScreenOS software, allowing attackers to gain administrative access and decrypt VPN connections [57260]. The vulnerabilities were present for three years, indicating a lack of thorough code review and oversight by the development team. Additionally, the configuration error in the VPN encryption scheme in Juniper's NetScreen devices contributed to the exploit [56922]. (b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors includes the discovery of two security flaws in Juniper Networks' VPN software that went undetected for three years. The vulnerabilities were in the form of unauthorized code, which could have exposed sensitive information to foreign governments or criminal groups [57083]. The accidental nature of these flaws is highlighted by the fact that they were only discovered during a recent internal code review, indicating that they were not intentionally introduced but rather slipped through undetected for an extended period.
Duration permanent The software failure incident related to Juniper Networks' firewalls and VPN software backdoors can be considered as a permanent failure. The unauthorized backdoors were discovered after being present in the software for several years, indicating a long-term issue that persisted until it was identified during an internal code review [57260, 56922, 57083]. The backdoors allowed attackers to gain administrative access to devices and decrypt VPN connections, posing a significant security risk that persisted over time [57260, 56922, 57083]. The vulnerabilities were not temporary glitches but rather fundamental flaws that could have long-lasting consequences if exploited [57260, 56922, 57083].
Behaviour other (a) crash: The software failure incident described in the articles does not involve a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions. The incident involves unauthorized backdoors being discovered in Juniper Networks' firewalls, allowing attackers to gain administrative access and decrypt VPN connections [57260, 56922, 57083]. (b) omission: The software failure incident does not involve omission where the system omits to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). Instead, the incident revolves around the presence of unauthorized backdoors that could compromise the security of the system [57260, 56922, 57083]. (c) timing: The software failure incident is not related to timing issues where the system performs its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. The incident primarily focuses on the discovery of backdoors that could allow attackers to gain control and decrypt VPN traffic [57260, 56922, 57083]. (d) value: The software failure incident does not involve a failure due to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. The incident is centered around the presence of unauthorized backdoors in Juniper Networks' firewalls, potentially compromising security [57260, 56922, 57083]. (e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit a byzantine behavior where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The incident primarily involves the discovery of unauthorized backdoors in the system, raising concerns about security vulnerabilities [57260, 56922, 57083]. (f) other: The software failure incident involves the discovery of unauthorized backdoors in Juniper Networks' firewalls, potentially allowing attackers to gain administrative access and decrypt VPN connections. The incident highlights the risks associated with such backdoors and the potential implications for security [57260, 56922, 57083].

IoT System Layer

Layer Option Rationale
Perception None None
Communication None None
Application None None

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence property, non-human, theoretical_consequence (a) death: There is no mention of any deaths resulting from the software failure incident in the provided articles [57260, 56922, 57083]. (b) harm: The articles do not mention any physical harm caused to individuals due to the software failure incident [57260, 56922, 57083]. (c) basic: There is no indication that people's access to food or shelter was impacted by the software failure incident [57260, 56922, 57083]. (d) property: The software failure incident did impact people's material goods, money, or data as sensitive information passing through Juniper's devices could have been exposed to foreign governments or criminal groups [57083]. (e) delay: There is no mention of any activities being postponed due to the software failure incident [57260, 56922, 57083]. (f) non-human: Non-human entities were impacted as the software failure incident involved vulnerabilities in Juniper Networks' widely used corporate virtual private network (VPN) software for three years, potentially exposing sensitive information [57083]. (g) no_consequence: The software failure incident had real observed consequences, such as the potential exposure of sensitive information passing through Juniper's devices [57083]. (h) theoretical_consequence: The articles discuss potential consequences of the software failure incident, such as the ability for attackers to decrypt VPN traffic and the risks associated with government backdoors in systems being hijacked and repurposed by other parties [57260, 56922]. (i) other: There are no other consequences mentioned in the articles beyond those related to potential data exposure and security risks associated with the software failure incident [57260, 56922, 57083].
Domain information, government (a) The failed system was intended to support the information industry. The software failure incident involved Juniper Networks' firewalls and VPN devices, which are crucial for protecting corporate and government systems and ensuring secure communication channels for information exchange [57260, 56922, 57083]. (l) The failed system was also related to the government industry. Juniper's clients included the US government, including departments like the Defense Department, Justice Department, and Treasury Department, as well as the FBI. The incident raised concerns about potential exposure of sensitive information to foreign governments or criminal groups [57083].

Sources

Back to List