Cyberoam: "Not a mass surveillance device"

Powered by SC Magazine
 

Company refutes TorProject claims private keys can be extracted.

Cyberoam has denied allegations by the Tor Project that its Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) boxes were “mass surveillance devices” capable of intercepting a wide range of traffic.

The security vendor was embroiled in controversy last week after Tor security researcher Runa Sandvik and OpenDNS’ Ben Laurie concluded its DPI units had intercepted traffic from a user from Jordan.

They discovered that the Unified Threat Management (UTM) units used shared certificates which users must accept to have their encrypted traffic scanned, ostensibly for security threats.

Users accepting the certificates could be scanned by any Cyberoam DPI unit, researchers said. Moreover, they claimed the private key could be extracted from the devices.

But Cyberoam fired back, stating its keys could not be extracted.

“.. theoretically it is possible to decrypt SSL data using a conned private key. Cyberoam UTM does not allow import or export of the foresaid private key used for the SSL-Bridging technology,” the company said on its blog.

“Cyberoam UTM either accepts or rejects, but does not store HTTPS Deep Scan Inspection data, as processing is done in real-time. The possibility of data interception between any two Cyberoam appliances is hence nullified.

“Having vindicated Cyberoam technology, we appreciate Tor for the awareness campaign.”

Copyright © SC Magazine, Australia


Cyberoam: "Not a mass surveillance device"
 
 
 
Top Stories
ATO releases long-awaited Bitcoin guidance
Everyday investors escape the tax man.
 
Why the Weather Bureau’s new supercomputer is a 'gamechanger'
IT transformation starts to reap results.
 
Sydney Trains chief thinks beyond Opal
Plots app to help you find a seat on the train.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...
Latest Comments
Polls
Which is the most prevalent cyber attack method your organisation faces?




   |   View results
Phishing and social engineering
  67%
 
Advanced persistent threats
  3%
 
Unpatched or unsupported software vulnerabilities
  12%
 
Denial of service attacks
  7%
 
Insider threats
  11%
TOTAL VOTES: 437

Vote