Skip to content

Researchers Solve Juniper Backdoor Mystery; Signs Point to NSA


Evidence uncovered by Ralf-Philipp Weinmann, founder and CEO of Comsecuris, a security consultancy in Germany, suggests that the Juniper culprits repurposed an encryption backdoor previously believed to have been engineered by the NSA, and tweaked it to use for their own spying purposes. Weinmann reported his findings in an extensive post published late Monday.

Security experts say the attack on Juniper firewalls underscores precisely why they have been saying for a long time that government backdoors in systems are a bad idea—because they can be hijacked and repurposed by other parties.

They did this by exploiting weaknesses the NSA allegedly placed in a government-approved encryption algorithm known as Dual_EC, a pseudo-random number generator that Juniper uses to encrypt traffic passing through the VPN in its NetScreen firewalls. But in addition to these inherent weaknesses, the attackers also relied on a mistake Juniper apparently made in configuring the VPN encryption scheme in its NetScreen devices, according to Weinmann and other cryptographers who examined the issue. This made it possible for the culprits to pull off their attack.

Weinmann says the Juniper backdoor is a textbook example of how someone can exploit the existing weaknesses in the Dual_EC algorithm, noting that the method they used matches exactly a method the security community warned about back in 2007.

The new information about how the backdoor works also suggests that a patch Juniper sent to customers last week doesn’t entirely fix the backdoor problem, since the major configuration error Juniper made still exists.

“One [more] line of code could fix this,” Weinmann says. He’s not sure why Juniper didn’t add this fix to the patch it sent to customers last week.

Although the party behind the Juniper backdoor could be the NSA or an NSA spying partner like the UK or Israel, news reports last week quoted unnamed US officials saying they don’t believe the US intelligence community is behind it, and that the FBI is investigating the issue. Other possible culprits behind the sophisticated attack, of course, could be Russia or China.

If someone other than the US did plant the backdoor, security experts say the attack on Juniper firewalls underscores precisely why they have been saying for a long time that government backdoors in systems are a bad idea—because they can be hijacked and repurposed by other parties.

How the Backdoor Works

According to Weinmann, to make their scheme work, the attackers behind the Juniper backdoor altered Juniper’s source code to change a so-called constant or point that the Dual_EC algorithm uses to randomly generate a key for encrypting data. It’s assumed the attackers also possess a second secret key that only they know. This secret key, combined with the point they changed in Juniper’s software, the inherent weaknesses in Dual_EC, and the configuration error Juniper made, would allow them to decrypt Juniper’s VPN traffic.

The weaknesses in Dual_EC have been known for at least eight years. In 2007, a Microsoft employee named Dan Shumow gave a five-minute talk at a cryptography conference in California discussing discoveries that he and a Microsoft colleague named Niels Ferguson had made in the algorithm. The algorithm had recently been approved by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, along with three other random number generators, for inclusion in a standard that could be used to encrypt government classified communication. Each of the four approved generators are based on a different cryptographic design. The Dual_EC is based on elliptic curves. The NSA had long championed elliptic curve cryptography in general and publicly championed the inclusion of Dual_EC specifically for inclusion in the standard.

Random number generators play a crucial role in creating cryptographic keys. But Shumow and Ferguson found that problems with the Dual_EC made it possible to predict what the random number generator would generate, making the encryption produced with it susceptible to cracking. But this wasn’t the only problem.

The NIST standard also included guidelines for implementing the algorithm and recommended using specific constants or points—static numbers—for the elliptic curve that the random number generator relies on to work. These constants serve as a kind of public key for the algorithm. Dual_EC needs two parameters or two points on the elliptic curve; Shumow and Ferguson referred to them as P and Q.

They showed that if Q is not a true randomly generated point, and the party responsible for generating Q also generates a secret key, what they referred to as “e”, then whoever has the secret key can effectively break the generator. They determined that anyone who possessed this secret key could predict the output of the random number generator with only a very small sample of data produced by the generator—just 32 bytes of output from it. With that small amount, the party in possession of the secret key could crack the entire encryption system.

No one knew who had produced the constants, but people in the security community assumed the NSA had produced them because the spy agency had been so instrumental in having the Dual_EC algorithm included in the standard. If the NSA did produce the constants, there was concern that the spy agency might have also generated a secret key.

The only problem with this is that major companies, like Cisco, RSA, and Juniper did use Dual_EC. The companies believed this was okay because for years no one in the security community could agree if the weakness in Dual_EC was actually an intentional backdoor. But in September 2013, the New York Times seemed to confirm this when it asserted that Top Secret memos leaked by Edward Snowden showed that the weaknesses in Dual_EC were intentional and had been created by the NSA as part of a $250-million, decade-long covert operation to weaken and undermine the integrity of encryption systems in general.

Except Juniper’s system contained a bug, according to Willem Pinckaers, an independent security researcher in the San Francisco area who examined the system with Weinmann. Instead of using the second generator, it ignored this one and used only the output from the bad Dual_EC generator.

“What’s happening is they managed to screw it up in all the firmware, such that the ANSI code is there but it’s never used,” Weinmann told WIRED. “That’s a catastrophic fail.”

This put the output at risk of being compromised if an attacker also possessed a secret key that could be used with the Q point to unlock the encryption.

Matthew Green, a cryptographer and professor at Johns Hopkins University, says that the ANSI failure raises additional questions about Juniper. “I don’t want to say that Juniper did this on purpose. But if you wanted to create a deliberate backdoor based on Dual_EC and make it look safe, while also having it be vulnerable, this is the way you’d do it. The best backdoor is a backdoor that looks like a bug, where you look at the thing and say, ‘Whoops, someone forgot a line of code or got a symbol wrong.’ … It makes it deniable. But this bug happens to be sitting there right next to this incredibly dangerous NSA-designed random number generator, and it makes that generator actually dangerous where it might not have been otherwise.”

Green says because of the weakness inherent in Dual_EC, Juniper should have removed it back in 2013 after the Times story published and should do so now to protect customers. “There’s no legitimate reason to put Dual_EC in a product,” he says. “There never was. This is an incredibly powerful and dangerous code and you put it in your system and it creates a capability that would not have been there otherwise. There’s no way to use it safely.”


This is the point that I made for my Masters dissertation – you never trust any device running suspect encryption. Pity Juniper didn’t get that.

A Norwegian crytographer in 2006, became the first to ring the alarm bells on this algorithm.   Next came Dutch cryptographers, hitting the fire alarm.

It’s good to keep a note of the cryptographers who first challenged this – and they were all European.  Norwegian/Dutch to be precise.  Eventually  Microsoft cryptographers picked up on their work.



Safe European Cryptographers

Norwegian Crytographer

Kristian Gjøsteen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Kristian submitted a comment paper to NIST as far back as 2006 pointing out that the EC DRBG was cryptographically unsound and shouldn’t be used.

Gjøsteen’s attack was improved in a May 2006 paper [35] by Berry Schoenmakers and Andrey Sidorenko from Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. “Our experimental results and also empirical argument show that [Dual EC] is insecure,” Schoenmakers and Sidorenko wrote.

DUTCH Cryptographers

Berry Schoenmakers and Andrey Sidorenko Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science, TU Eindhoven


Remember their names.  These are the good guys – the Europeans who called out the dangerous algorithm – almost 10 years ago.


Even more interesting reading is here…



One Comment
  1. Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: