Bug#499774: starttls is a joke

[arno@natisbad.org (Arnaud Ebalard)]

Hi,                                     [resending, forgot some CC]

RISKO Gergely <risko@debian.org> writes:

> Sorry, I haven't noticed that you have cc'd mailing lists.  Please
> find below my first response to Arnaud.

At least, thanks for the quick reply.

> You surely knows about the gnus usage of this, since you CC'd the
> mailing list, sorry.

yes.

> So my option is that a disclaimer should be placed, but SSL with
> SSL_VERIFY_NONE is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better than not using SSL at all.

No, it is not. It is worse. It provides a feeling of security to the
people that use it. It is like driving with deactivated airbags.

> And the joke is SSL's security model - where you are considered secure
> if you pay $500/year -, not starttls.

1) I use my own PKI for some of my services, which costs me nothing.
2) As a client, you do not pay for the server certificates (cf gmail)
   and trust anchors.
3) It is a lame excuse.

> -=- my original response here: -=-
>
> severity 499774 wishlist
> thanks
>
> Dear Arno,
>
> Thanks for your suggestions and reasoning.  Probably you haven't
> noticed that starttls is mainly an integration utility for mainly
> GNU/Emacs.  And yeah, it is also good for testing StartTLS based
> services as a system administrator.
>
> I'm against the removal, since it will break imaps/pop3s connections
> from emacs based muas (I'm at least sure in gnus, I use it hourly).

Then, someone should correct the code to support passing trust anchors,
allow passing the verify value, and document capabilities and
limitations. 

> And I'm also against the removal, because this is a very good tool for
> testing.

I will also send a copy of this reply to security@debian.org.

> You are right, it's package description should be changed and a
> disclaimer should be placed.  Probably an 'are you sure?' question
> shouldn't be implemented (or if implemented, it shouldn't be the
> default), because it would block integrations like with emacs.
>
> As this is a documentation or a new feature request issue, I
> changed severity to wishlist.

It is not a "wishlist" feature, it is a security issue.

> Thanks again for your contribution to Debian, if you write the
> disclaimer in a few world that should be appended to the package
> description in your opinion, it would be a big help.

"This software does not have any authentication capabilities: it does
not allow you to authenticate your peer, which is a basic requirement
for TLS/SSL to be used securely. You should only use it for testing
purposes and not relaying important information. Be aware that you are
vulnerable to MITM when using it"

Cheers,

a+