Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Missing protocol and ciphers #294

Open
shemsargent-ch opened this issue Sep 19, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Missing protocol and ciphers #294

shemsargent-ch opened this issue Sep 19, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@shemsargent-ch
Copy link

I can connect to this server using TLS 1.0, but sslscan reports that protocol is not enabled. Nmap (report below) and Qualys SSL Labs show TLS 1.0 is enabled and return the same list of available ciphers. I can provide target server info privately on request.

kali@kali:~$ sslscan https://[redacted]
Version: 2.1.0-static
OpenSSL 3.0.10 1 Aug 2023

Connected to [redacted]

Testing SSL server [redacted] on port 443 using SNI name [redacted]

  SSL/TLS Protocols:
SSLv2     disabled
SSLv3     enabled
TLSv1.0   disabled
TLSv1.1   disabled
TLSv1.2   disabled
TLSv1.3   disabled

  TLS Fallback SCSV:
Server does not support TLS Fallback SCSV

  TLS renegotiation:
Secure session renegotiation supported

  TLS Compression:
Compression disabled

  Heartbleed:

  Supported Server Cipher(s):

  SSL Certificate:
Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption
RSA Key Strength:    2048

Subject:  *.[redacted]
Altnames: DNS:*.[redacted], DNS:[redacted]
Issuer:   DigiCert Global G2 TLS RSA SHA256 2020 CA1

Not valid before: May 30 00:00:00 2023 GMT
Not valid after:  Jun 16 23:59:59 2024 GMT

Compare to

kali@kali:~$ nmap -sV --script ssl-enum-ciphers -p 443 [redacted]
Starting Nmap 7.94 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2023-09-19 09:08 EDT
Nmap scan report for [redacted] ([redacted])
Host is up (0.017s latency).

PORT    STATE SERVICE    VERSION
443/tcp open  ssl/https?
| ssl-enum-ciphers:
|   SSLv3:
|     ciphers:
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - C
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 (rsa 2048) - C
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (rsa 2048) - C
|     compressors:
|       NULL
|     cipher preference: client
|     warnings:
|       64-bit block cipher 3DES vulnerable to SWEET32 attack
|       Broken cipher RC4 is deprecated by RFC 7465
|       CBC-mode cipher in SSLv3 (CVE-2014-3566)
|       Ciphersuite uses MD5 for message integrity
|       Forward Secrecy not supported by any cipher
|   TLSv1.0:
|     ciphers:
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - C
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 (rsa 2048) - C
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (rsa 2048) - C
|     compressors:
|       NULL
|     cipher preference: client
|     warnings:
|       64-bit block cipher 3DES vulnerable to SWEET32 attack
|       Broken cipher RC4 is deprecated by RFC 7465
|       Ciphersuite uses MD5 for message integrity
|       Forward Secrecy not supported by any cipher
|_  least strength: C

Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 15.13 seconds
@jtesta
Copy link
Contributor

jtesta commented Sep 19, 2023 via email

@jtesta
Copy link
Contributor

jtesta commented Sep 19, 2023

@shemsargent-ch : I submitted PR #295 to address this problem. Thanks for getting me the target host, and thanks for reporting!

@rbsec
Copy link
Owner

rbsec commented Sep 19, 2023

Interesting that the server is detecting and rejecting this - which I suppose is fairly sensible behaviour on their part.

Thanks as always.

@jtesta
Copy link
Contributor

jtesta commented Sep 19, 2023 via email

@rbsec
Copy link
Owner

rbsec commented Sep 19, 2023

The word "required" seems to have a fairly loose meaning to most of the people who write TLS stacks. As does the word "standard"...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants