Can You Trust Closed Source Software?
-
@JaredBusch said:
Have you actually read the articles on this? It was never intended as a backdoor. It was code intentionally wrote to allow Fortinet stuff communicate to each other. It was not meant to be open to the public, that is of course a bug.
In what way was it meant to communicate to other Fortinet gear?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
Have you actually read the articles on this? It was never intended as a backdoor. It was code intentionally wrote to allow Fortinet stuff communicate to each other. It was not meant to be open to the public, that is of course a bug.
In what way was it meant to communicate to other Fortinet gear?
From the last link..
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
At this point, everyone knows that Fortinet is insecure and actively not someone that can be trusted. Mistakes happen. Backdoors are not mistakes, they are malicious.
Have you actually read the articles on this? It was never intended as a backdoor. It was code intentionally wrote to allow Fortinet stuff communicate to each other. It was not meant to be open to the public, that is of course a bug.
Here is the quote and to me this reads exactly like "malicious backdoor."
As previously stated, this vulnerability is an unintentional consequence of a feature that was designed with the intent of providing seamless access from an authorized FortiManager to registered FortiGate devices. It is important to note, this is not a case of a malicious backdoor implemented to grant unauthorized user access.
It was intentional remote access. That they claim, now, that they didn't mean for humans to use it but for other computers is not relevant. It is a hard coded back door and intentional. It might be a bug that they left it in, but at this point that's just what they claim. That they intentionally introduced a security vulnerability for they themselves to access customers' systems seems to be something they have admitted to, but carefully couched the wording to attempt to soften it so that it might seem reasonable. But any vendor introduced back door could be described in this way.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
Have you actually read the articles on this? It was never intended as a backdoor. It was code intentionally wrote to allow Fortinet stuff communicate to each other. It was not meant to be open to the public, that is of course a bug.
In what way was it meant to communicate to other Fortinet gear?
From the last link..
Exactly what I read. In what way is that not:
-
not something to be believed. When you catch someone breaking into your house they don't say "Sorry, was here for your TV", they say "Oh, I was just testing the locks." Fortinet is not a trusted party here and that they are covering up for this is to be expected.
-
As described, it is exactly what we feared. An intentional back door for them to access customers' systems.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
An intentional back door for them to access customers' systems.
This is your opinion. Not stated fact.
-
The article is clear as well, it is an undocumented backdoor. There is no one but Fortinet officials trying to soften the blow by making it sound like it was unintentional after describing why it was intentional, and calling a backdoor a "management feature."
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
An intentional back door for them to access customers' systems.
This is your opinion. Not stated fact.
but it is what they said. They stated that it was a hard coded password for remote management. I guess I assumed "by them" but it could be by "whoever they gave the password to." I gave them some extra credit, but all of the bad stuff they openly admitted to in the paragraph that you quoted.
-
I didn't state that it was malicious, although I think it is without option malicious to introduce a backdoor when you are a security vendor, but I didn't state it. I simply looked at what they said: it was introduced by a feature that they didn't use.
If it was to be a feature, it had to be intentional, right? Maybe it got "left in" after they changed their minds, but there is nothing to support that except for a claim after they were caught red handed. And even if that were true, I see little relevance. That would make it "no longer malicious", but it wouldn't change the fact that it remains a backdoor, was introduced intentionally (what else could a feature be) and for the purpose of remote access. All of that they stated in their defence.
-
@JaredBusch said:
This is your opinion. Not stated fact.
I don't see why you are making this my opinion. I'm quoting Ars Technica.
-
Some other news outlets that have also stated that it is a backdoor:
Even when defending themselves to The Register, Fortinet carefully doesn't say that it wasn't a backdoor, they simply say that it was not a backdoor vulnerability issue. They did tell The Register that it was meant for Fortinet staff to access the systems - e.g. a backdoor. I see no one, not even Fortinet themselves, questioning if this is a backdoor.
That it is a backdoor is only in question to you personally, from what I can tell. Fortinet is defending why they feel it isn't a bad thing to have done it, but isn't saying that they didn't do it.
-
@scottalanmiller Fortinet clearly stated that is was designed to allow an authorized FortiManager to access registered FortiGate devices.
Your usage of them in that context is clearly an accusation against FortiNet as a company.
But how does ForitManager, which is a software product setup by the end user as an appliance or virtual appliance, equate to FortiNet having intentional unrestricted access?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
This is your opinion. Not stated fact.
I don't see why you are making this my opinion. I'm quoting Ars Technica.
No, you are not quoting. This is your opinion.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller Fortinet clearly stated that is was designed to allow an authorized FortiManager to access registered FortiGate devices.
And? Why does that change anything? A hardcoded backdoor for "authroized" access is a backdoor. And how does "authorized" apply to hard coded?
-
@JaredBusch said:
Your usage of them in that context is clearly an accusation against FortiNet as a company.
?They are the ones who did it, yes,. They themselves admitted it. There is no question or opinion here. I'm injecting nothing.
-
@JaredBusch said:
But how does ForitManager, which is a software product setup by the end user as an appliance or virtual appliance, equate to FortiNet having intentional unrestricted access?
Because that is not what they gave access to, nor what they themselves stated that they gave access to. Fortinet themselves did two things that, even from Fortinet, are without question:
- Made a backdoor
- Intended to use it for more than Fortimanager
And step two doesn't even matter. Intention isn't actually an issue. It remains an open backdoor issue.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
Your usage of them in that context is clearly an accusation against FortiNet as a company.
?They are the ones who did it, yes,. They themselves admitted it. There is no question or opinion here. I'm injecting nothing.
Your entire argument is that they are intentionally and maliciously doing this. That is purely you injecting your opinion on the facts.
-
@JaredBusch said:
I don't see why you are making this my opinion. I'm quoting Ars Technica.
The term "backdoor" is directly from all of those news sources. You aren't stating why I am wrong or that I am wrong, you are simply using personal attack to make it look like maybe I made this up. I'm neither the person who posted it here, nor the one(s) who stated it was a backdoor.
The only thing that differs from all accepted statements here appears to be you. You are stating that everyone, including Fortinet themselves, is just "opinion." Sure, you can use that for anything. Nothing is fact in the universe, it is all opinion. The difference here is that I'm with the crowd and you seem to be alone defending someone who isn't even defending themselves in the way that you are.
I'm just a bystander, why are you chosen to go after me and act like I added a new opinion? If you feel the articles are incorrect and that Fortinet was incorrect, state so.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Your entire argument is that they are intentionally and maliciously doing this. That is purely you injecting your opinion on the facts.
Based on what do you feel that I said it was malicious, other than when I later, after you had already gone into your "my opinion" thing, added that how anyone could non-maliciously hard code a password into a security device seemed impossible.
-
And, just to be clear, I'm using the dictionary definition of malicious here when I do use it and I fully believe that Fortinet has stated clearly that it was malicious, but this was not stated by me before it was proposed as my opinion that it was a backdoor: An act done maliciously is one that is wrongful and performed willfully or intentionally, and without legal justification.
From Fortinet's own statements that they intended for their staff to use it to access systems, and that customers were not informed that access was given to Fortinet staff. That it was willfully done has been admitted to, according to their interview with the Register and from the quote about it being put in for management purposes.
-
Maybe I am misreading the dictionary, so correct me there, but it seems like malice is very clear here. Malice does not mean with evil intent, only that it wasn't right to do and they willfully did it.
