Hubbry Logo
BSAFEBSAFEMain
Open search
BSAFE
Community hub
BSAFE
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
BSAFE
BSAFE
BSAFE
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
BSAFE
DevelopersDell, formerly RSA Security
Initial release1996
Written inC, assembly, Java
Operating systemBSD, Linux, macOS, Microsoft Windows, Android, iOS, AIX, Solaris
TypeCryptography library, Commercial software
LicenseProprietary
Websitewww.dell.com

Dell BSAFE, formerly known as RSA BSAFE, is a FIPS 140-2 validated cryptography library, available in both C and Java. BSAFE was initially created by RSA Security, which was purchased by EMC and then, in turn, by Dell. When Dell sold the RSA business to Symphony Technology Group in 2020, Dell elected to retain the BSAFE product line.[1][2] BSAFE was one of the most common encryption toolkits before the RSA patent expired in September 2000. It also contained implementations of the RCx ciphers, with the most common one being RC4. From 2004 to 2013 the default random number generator in the library was a NIST-approved RNG standard, widely known to be insecure from at least 2006, containing a kleptographic backdoor from the American National Security Agency (NSA), as part of its secret Bullrun program.[3] In 2013 Reuters revealed that RSA had received a payment of $10 million to set the compromised algorithm as the default option.[3] The RNG standard was subsequently withdrawn in 2014, and the RNG removed from BSAFE beginning in 2015.

Cryptography backdoors

[edit]

Dual_EC_DRBG random number generator

[edit]

From 2004 to 2013, the default cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator (CSPRNG) in BSAFE was Dual_EC_DRBG, which contained an alleged backdoor from NSA, in addition to being a biased and slow CSPRNG.[4] The cryptographic community had been aware that Dual_EC_DRBG was a very poor CSPRNG since shortly after the specification was posted in 2005, and by 2007 it had become apparent that the CSPRNG seemed to be designed to contain a hidden backdoor for NSA, usable only by NSA via a secret key.[5] In 2007, Bruce Schneier described the backdoor as "too obvious to trick anyone to use it."[5] The backdoor was confirmed in the Snowden leaks in 2013, and it was insinuated that NSA had paid RSA Security US$10 million to use Dual_EC_DRBG by default in 2004,[3] though RSA Security denied that they knew about the backdoor in 2004. The Reuters article which revealed the secret $10 million contract to use Dual_EC_DRBG described the deal as "handled by business leaders rather than pure technologists".[3] RSA Security has largely declined to explain their choice to continue using Dual_EC_DRBG even after the defects and potential backdoor were discovered in 2006 and 2007, and has denied knowingly inserting the backdoor.[6]

So why would RSA pick Dual_EC as the default? You got me. Not only is Dual_EC hilariously slow – which has real performance implications – it was shown to be a just plain bad random number generator all the way back in 2006. By 2007, when Shumow and Ferguson raised the possibility of a backdoor in the specification, no sensible cryptographer would go near the thing. And the killer is that RSA employs a number of highly distinguished cryptographers! It's unlikely that they'd all miss the news about Dual_EC.

— Matthew Green, cryptographer and research professor at Johns Hopkins University, A Few Thoughts on Cryptographic Engineering[4] (From after the backdoor was confirmed, but before the $10 million secret deal was revealed by Reuters.)

As a cryptographically secure random number generator is often the basis of cryptography, much data encrypted with BSAFE was not secure against NSA. Specifically it has been shown that the backdoor makes SSL/TLS completely breakable by the party having the private key to the backdoor (i.e. NSA).[5] Since the US government and US companies have also used the vulnerable BSAFE, NSA can potentially have made US data less safe, if NSA's secret key to the backdoor had been stolen. It is also possible to derive the secret key by solving a single instance of the algorithm's elliptic curve problem[5] (breaking an instance of elliptic curve cryptography is considered unlikely with current computers and algorithms, but a breakthrough may occur).

In June 2013, Edward Snowden began leaking NSA documents. In November 2013, RSA switched the default to HMAC DRBG with SHA-256 as the default option. The following month, Reuters published the report based on the Snowden leaks stating that RSA had received a payment of $10 million to set Dual_EC_DRBG as the default.[3]

With subsequent releases of Crypto-C Micro Edition 4.1.2 (April 2016), Micro Edition Suite 4.1.5 (April 2016) and Crypto-J 6.2 (March 2015), Dual_EC_DRBG was removed entirely.

Extended Random TLS extension

[edit]

"Extended Random" was a proposed extension for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol, submitted for standardization to IETF by an NSA employee,[7] although it never became a standard. The extension would otherwise be harmless, but together with the Dual_EC_DRBG, it would make it easier to take advantage of the backdoor.[8][9]

The extension was previously not known to be enabled in any implementations, but in December 2017, it was found enabled on some Canon printer models, which use the RSA BSAFE library, because the extension number conflicted a part of TLS version 1.3.[9]

Product suite history

[edit]
  • Crypto-J is a Java encryption library. In 1997, RSA Data Security licensed Baltimore Technologies' J/CRYPTO library, with plans to integrate it as part of its new JSAFE encryption toolkit[10] and released the first version of JSAFE the same year.[11] JSAFE 1.0 was featured in the January 1998 edition of Byte magazine.[12]
  • Cert-J is a Public Key Infrastructure API software library, written in Java. It contains the cryptographic support necessary to generate certificate requests, create and sign digital certificates, and create and distribute certificate revocation lists. As of Cert-J 6.2.4, the entire API has been deprecated in favor of similar functionality provided BSAFE Crypto-J JCE API.
  • BSAFE Crypto-C Micro Edition (Crypto-C ME) was initially released in June 2001 under the name "RSA BSAFE Wireless Core 1.0". The initial release targeted Microsoft Windows, EPOC, Linux, Solaris and Palm OS.
  • BSAFE Micro Edition Suite is a cryptography SDK in C. BSAFE Micro Edition Suite was initially announced in February 2002[13] as a combined offering of BSAFE SSL-C Micro Edition, BSAFE Cert-C Micro Edition and BSAFE Crypto-C Micro Edition. Both SSL-C Micro Edition and Cert-C Micro Edition reached EOL in September 2014, while Micro Edition Suite remains supported with Crypto-C Micro Edition as its FIPS-validated cryptographic provider.
  • SSL-C is an SSL toolkit in the BSAFE suite. It was originally written by Eric A. Young and Tim J. Hudson, as a fork of the open library SSLeay, that they developed prior to joining RSA.[14][15] SSL-C reached End Of Life in December 2016.
  • SSL-J is a Java toolkit that implements TLS. SSL-J was released as part of RSA JSAFE initial product offering in 1997.[16] Crypto-J is the default cryptographic provider of SSL-J.

Product suite support status

[edit]

On November 25, 2015, RSA announced End of Life (EOL) dates for BSAFE.[17] The End of Primary Support (EOPS) was to be reached on January 31, 2017, and the End of Extended Support (EOXS) was originally set to be January 31, 2019. That date was later further extended by RSA for some versions until January 31, 2022.[18] During Extended Support, even though the support policy stated that only the most severe problems would be patched, new versions were released containing bugfixes, security fixes and new algorithms.[19]

On December 12, 2020, Dell announced the reversal of RSA's past decision, allowing BSAFE product support beyond January 2022 as well as the possibility to soon acquire new licenses. Dell also announced it was rebranding the toolkits to Dell BSAFE.[20]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

BSAFE

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Dell BSAFE, formerly RSA BSAFE, is a commercial cryptographic software library validated under standards, providing implementations in C and for symmetric and asymmetric , digital signatures, , and related primitives to secure applications and systems. Originally developed by RSA Laboratories in the early , it became one of the earliest and most widely adopted cryptographic toolkits, predating the prominence of open-source alternatives like and serving enterprises in embedding secure communications such as TLS. The library's suite includes variants like BSAFE Crypto-C Micro Edition for resource-constrained environments and BSAFE Crypto-J for Java-based systems, supporting algorithms including AES, RSA, ECC, and hash functions while emphasizing compliance for government and financial sectors. Following RSA Security's acquisition by EMC in 2006 and subsequent integration into , BSAFE evolved to address modern needs like data-at-rest encryption and IoT security, though its lifecycle management reflects ongoing updates amid shifting cryptographic standards. BSAFE gained notoriety for incorporating the as a default option, later exposed as containing a deliberate weakness exploitable by the NSA for decrypting affected traffic, with reports indicating RSA received $10 million from the agency to prioritize its use despite internal awareness of risks. RSA recommended disabling in 2013 after public disclosure via Snowden leaks, but the episode eroded trust in crypto libraries and highlighted vulnerabilities in vendor-selected defaults. Additional scrutiny arose over a non-standard "Extended Random" TLS extension in BSAFE implementations, which cryptographers argued could facilitate targeted decryption without evident justification, further underscoring concerns about opaque commercial cryptography.

Overview

Description and Core Functionality

Dell BSAFE is a family of cryptographic software libraries provided by Dell Technologies, originally developed by RSA Security, intended for developers to embed secure cryptographic operations within applications. It offers implementations in C and Java, targeting diverse environments from general-purpose systems to resource-constrained embedded devices via variants including Crypto-J (Java-based), Crypto-C Micro Edition (lightweight C library), Micro Edition Suite (C/C++ with TLS and certificate support), and Crypto Module (advanced C module). These libraries deliver FIPS-validated cryptographic primitives and protocols to ensure compliance with U.S. federal security standards for protecting sensitive data in transit and at rest. Core functionalities encompass symmetric (e.g., AES in modes such as CBC, GCM, CTR, and CCM), asymmetric operations (e.g., RSA, DSA, ECDSA for and signatures; Diffie-Hellman and ECDH for key agreement), hashing (e.g., , family, ), message authentication codes (e.g., , AES-CMAC), key derivation (e.g., , ), and deterministic random bit generation (e.g., AES-CTR DRBG, HMAC-DRBG). These primitives support , import/export, and management, enabling secure data /decryption, verification, and . Certain variants extend to protocol-level capabilities, such as TLS implementation and certificate handling in the Micro Edition Suite, facilitating secure network communications and integration without requiring developers to implement low-level details from scratch. Additional features in specific modules include support for legacy ciphers like 3DES and DES, as well as emerging algorithms like post-quantum signatures (e.g., LMS, ML-DSA in Crypto Module).

Key Components and Variants

BSAFE cryptographic libraries consist of modular components providing symmetric and asymmetric , digital signatures, key agreement, message , and hashing , often compliant with standards like and IEEE P1363. These components are implemented through APIs for operations such as , /decryption, and , with support in select variants via instructions like AES-NI. Core include algorithms for RSA, (ECC), AES block ciphers, and SHA-family hashes, enabling integration into applications for secure data handling. The suite features variants tailored to different environments, including language-specific implementations and editions optimized for resource-constrained devices. BSAFE Crypto-J is a Java-based library supporting , #5, #8, and #12 standards, with validation and ongoing testing; it handles algorithms like RSA, DSA, ECDSA, Diffie-Hellman (DH), ECDH, AES, Triple-DES, /2/3, and ChaCha20, targeting platforms such as Solaris, , Windows, and AIX. BSAFE Crypto-C Micro Edition (CCME), a C implementation, provides similar support and validation, incorporating RSA, DSA, ECDSA, DH, ECDH, AES, DES, Triple-DES, , and ARIA, suited for embedded systems on OSes and Windows. BSAFE Micro Edition Suite (MES) extends CCME with additional algorithms (e.g., 28147-89), targeting the same platforms but lacking explicit FIPS validation in core documentation, focusing on international standards compliance for symmetric and hashing. BSAFE Crypto-Module (BCM), another C variant, emphasizes modes with support for post-quantum algorithms like LMS and ML-DSA via plugins, alongside traditional primitives including and hardware-optimized AES; it operates on Windows, , and Dell-specific systems like PowerMaxOS, with validation in progress. Historical components like BSAFE SSL-C for TLS/SSL protocols and BSAFE Cert-C for certificate handling have reached end-of-life, integrated or superseded in modern variants.
VariantLanguageFIPS StatusKey Algorithms SupportedTarget Platforms
Crypto-J140-2 validated; 140-3 testingRSA, ECDSA, AES, , ChaCha20Solaris, , Windows, AIX
Crypto-C MEC140-2 validatedRSA, ECDSA, AES, , ARIAUnix variants, Windows
Micro Edition SuiteCNot specifiedCCME + suiteUnix variants, Windows
Crypto-ModuleC140 modes; 140-3 testingRSA, ECDSA, , post-quantum (LMS, ML-DSA), Windows, PowerMaxOS

Historical Development

Origins and Early Adoption (Pre-2000)

RSA Data Security, founded in 1982 by cryptographers Ronald Rivest, , and to commercialize their patented public-key encryption algorithm, developed BSAFE as a software toolkit for integrating into applications. The toolkit originated in the late to early 1990s, providing a portable library with implementations of the RSA algorithm alongside symmetric ciphers like and , hash functions such as , and digital signature capabilities, all licensed under the RSA patent (U.S. Patent No. 4,405,829, issued September 20, 1983, expiring September 20, 2000). This structure addressed export restrictions and patent licensing requirements, positioning BSAFE as a controlled distribution mechanism for proprietary cryptography amid U.S. government regulations on encryption technology during the era. Early adoption accelerated in 1990 when RSA licensed BSAFE to Novell for use in network software, though disputes arose over unauthorized resale, leading to litigation that underscored the toolkit's commercial value. That same year, the U.S. Department of Defense approved RSA software, including elements of BSAFE, for secure communications, despite opposition from the National Security Agency, marking a pivotal endorsement for non-classified government applications. By 1991, RSA secured licensing agreements with major firms such as Microsoft, Apple, and Sun Microsystems, enabling BSAFE's integration into operating systems and developer tools for secure data protection in emerging client-server architectures. Version 2.0, released around 1994, enhanced portability across platforms and supported standards like ANSI X9, facilitating broader use in financial and e-commerce prototypes. Through the , BSAFE became a industry standard for proprietary RSA implementations, with thousands of developers embedding it in products due to enforcement and lack of free alternatives, as evidenced by its inclusion in toolkits for (PEM) and secure sockets precursors. Version 4.0 in 1998 introduced optimizations for processors and preliminary support for , reflecting adaptations to hardware advancements and competitive pressures from standards like DSS, while maintaining FIPS compliance for validated modules. Pre-2000 adoption was driven by BSAFE's role in bridging academic with commercial needs, though its closed-source nature limited scrutiny and tied users to RSA's licensing model until expiration.

Evolution Post-Patent Expiration (2000–2010)

Following the expiration of U.S. Patent 4,405,829 on the RSA algorithm on September 21, 2000, maintained BSAFE as a commercial cryptographic toolkit, shifting emphasis toward certified implementations, expanded platform support, and adaptations for emerging standards amid rising open-source competition. The company released the RSA BSAFE Crypto-C Micro Edition in June 2001, a compact variant optimized for embedded systems and resource-limited devices, building on the core Crypto-C library with reduced footprint while retaining key primitives like , , and RSA encryption. This micro edition underwent iterative updates, including version 1.7.2, which achieved Level 1 validation on April 6, 2004, confirming compliance for symmetric and asymmetric operations on platforms such as Windows and Unix variants. Subsequent releases, such as version 3.0 in August 2005, incorporated support for newly standardized algorithms like AES-256 following its selection as the in November 2001, enhancing symmetric encryption capabilities for government and enterprise use. The 2006 acquisition of by EMC Corporation, completed on September 18 for $2.1 billion, integrated BSAFE into EMC's data protection ecosystem, accelerating its application in storage solutions like encrypted file systems and appliances. Under EMC, BSAFE variants received additional FIPS validations, including for Crypto-C Micro Edition versions 3.0.0.1 through 3.0.0.23, with policies documented by August 2010, ensuring ongoing adherence to NIST requirements for and . These updates also extended compatibility to modern operating systems, such as and distributions prevalent in the era. By 2009, facing intensified competition from free libraries, RSA launched the Share Project on , providing no-cost access to select BSAFE toolkits—including Crypto-C and Crypto-J components—for developers, bundled with and support to encourage secure coding without licensing barriers. This initiative, active through at least May 2009, aimed to sustain BSAFE's market position by lowering entry costs while leveraging its validated robustness over unvetted alternatives, though proprietary extensions remained paid. Overall, the decade saw BSAFE evolve from patent-dependent dominance to a resilient, standards-compliant suite, with over a dozen FIPS certificates issued for its modules between 2001 and 2010.

Corporate Acquisitions and Transitions (2010–Present)

In the years following EMC Corporation's 2006 acquisition of , the BSAFE cryptographic libraries operated as part of RSA's product portfolio within EMC's Division, with ongoing development and maintenance focused on validations and algorithm updates through the early . On September 7, 2016, completed its $67 billion acquisition of EMC Corporation, incorporating —and by extension BSAFE—into Dell's broader infrastructure and security offerings under the Dell EMC banner. This transition integrated BSAFE into Dell's enterprise ecosystem, emphasizing its use in data-at-rest encryption and software development kits for C and Java environments. In February 2020, agreed to sell to a led by for $2.075 billion, finalizing the transaction later that year. However, strategically retained the BSAFE product line, with RSA transferring BSAFE products, including Crypto-C Micro Edition, Crypto-J, and related customer maintenance agreements, to prior to closing to ensure continuity of support and development. As of May 2024, announced the end of all net new sales for BSAFE FIPS 140-validated cryptographic modules and TLS libraries, shifting focus to maintenance for existing deployments while recommending migrations to alternative solutions. Support for legacy versions continues under 's lifecycle policies, reversing prior RSA end-of-life decisions for certain toolkits.

Technical Specifications

Supported Algorithms and Primitives

RSA BSAFE libraries, including Crypto-C and Crypto-C Micro Edition variants, provide implementations of standard for symmetric and asymmetric encryption, , hashing, and . These are designed for compliance in validated modules, supporting operations such as encryption, decryption, digital signatures, and . Symmetric algorithms include block ciphers like AES (with key sizes of 128, 192, and 256 bits in modes such as CBC, ECB, and GCM) and , alongside legacy options like DES, , , and for backward compatibility in non-FIPS contexts. Stream ciphers such as are supported but deprecated in modern FIPS-approved configurations due to vulnerabilities. Asymmetric primitives encompass RSA for encryption and signatures (key sizes from 1024 to 4096 bits), Diffie-Hellman (DH) and Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) for key agreement, DSA and ECDSA for signatures, and (ECC) over NIST curves (P-192 to P-521). Key generation for these follows standards like for RSA and FIPS 186 for DSA/ECDSA. Hash functions supported include SHA-1 (legacy), SHA-2 family (SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512), and message authentication via HMAC with these hashes. Deterministic random bit generators (DRBGs) implement HMAC-DRBG, CTR-DRBG (using AES), and Hash-DRBG per NIST SP 800-90A, with historical inclusion of Dual_EC_DRBG as a default in some versions despite its later-disclosed weaknesses.
CategoryAlgorithms/PrimitivesStandards/Notes
Symmetric CiphersAES-128/192/256 (CBC, ECB, GCM), TDES, DES, RC2/4/5FIPS-approved for AES/TDES; CAVP certs vary by module version
Asymmetric/Key ExchangeRSA (enc/sig), DH/ECDH, DSA/ECDSA, ECC (NIST curves)Key gen per FIPS 186-4; sizes up to 4096-bit RSA
Hashes/MACsSHA-1/2 series, HMAC-SHAApproved per FIPS 180/198; used in DRBGs
DRBGsHMAC-DRBG, CTR-DRBG (AES), Hash-DRBG, Dual_EC-DRBG (legacy)SP 800-90A compliance; Dual_EC default in pre-2013 configs
Additional low-level primitives include big-integer arithmetic for and padding schemes like v1.5 and OAEP for RSA operations. Support varies by edition (e.g., Micro Edition omits some enterprise features for embedded use), with FIPS validations ensuring only approved subsets for certified deployments.

Standards Compliance and Certifications

RSA BSAFE cryptographic libraries, including Crypto-C and Crypto-J variants, have received multiple validations under the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) for (FIPS) 140-1, 140-2, and 140-3. These certifications verify that the modules meet specified security requirements for cryptographic operations, such as , , and digital signatures, when operated in approved modes. For instance, RSA BSAFE Crypto-C 5.21 achieved FIPS 140-1 validation, enabling its use in environments requiring compliance with early federal cryptographic guidelines. Subsequent versions expanded compliance to , with RSA BSAFE Crypto-C Micro Edition (versions 3.0.0.1, 3.0.0.14, 3.0.0.15, and 3.0.0.16) certified at Security Level 1 under certificate #1092, covering cryptographic and algorithm implementations for symmetric and asymmetric primitives. Similarly, RSA BSAFE Crypto-J JSAFE and JCE Software Module 6.2.4 received Level 1 validation, supporting Java-based deployments in FIPS-approved configurations. , following its acquisition of RSA assets, continued validations; the BSAFE Crypto Module for C now holds certification, incorporating post-quantum cryptographic options alongside traditional algorithms. Beyond FIPS module-level certifications, BSAFE implementations align with underlying algorithm standards validated via NIST's Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program (CAVP), including AES (FIPS 197), / (FIPS 180-4), and RSA (FIPS 186-4). The libraries also conform to PKCS standards originated by , such as for RSA encryption, PKCS#5 for password-based encryption, and for cryptographic message syntax, ensuring interoperability with protocols like and CMS. No standalone Common Criteria (ISO/IEC 15408) certifications apply directly to core BSAFE modules, though products embedding them, such as certain and systems, have achieved evaluations leveraging BSAFE's FIPS-validated components.

Integration and Usage in Software

BSAFE libraries, particularly the Crypto-C and Crypto-J variants, are integrated into software applications via standardized that enable developers to incorporate such as , digital signatures, and without implementing low-level algorithms from scratch. The C-based BSAFE Crypto-C module exposes a unified API for accessing symmetric and asymmetric algorithms, hashing functions, and message authentication codes, allowing selective inclusion of algorithm subsets to minimize footprint in resource-constrained environments like embedded systems. Developers typically link the library statically or dynamically during compilation, with the module packaged as a shared containing executable code for FIPS 140-validated operations. In practice, integration begins with initializing a cryptographic context using API calls like those in the Crypto-C toolkit, followed by operations such as or data through high-level functions that abstract underlying primitives compliant with standards like and X.509. For instance, the BSAFE Cert-C component simplifies certificate handling in applications by providing objects for parsing, validation, and chain building, with developer guides outlining example workflows for accessing default cryptographic service providers. This modular approach facilitates embedding in C applications for secure data storage and transmission, as seen in its design for persistent protection against internal threats via techniques like strong . The variant, BSAFE Crypto-J, integrates as a provider for the Java Cryptography Extension (JCE) or via the JSAFE API, enabling seamless use in enterprise Java applications for tasks like SSL/TLS protocol implementation or secure messaging. Developers register the provider programmatically and invoke standard JCE interfaces for algorithm execution, with the module meeting Level 1 requirements for roles and services in Java environments. Micro Edition variants, such as Crypto-C ME, further support lightweight integration in mobile or IoT software by offering a reduced API surface for essential algorithms, easing compliance with federal standards in government or financial applications. Usage examples include embedding in e-business platforms for digital certificate-based authentication, where APIs handle PKI operations to simplify secure application development.

Security Controversies

Dual_EC_DRBG Implementation and Flaws

RSA BSAFE libraries, including BSAFE Crypto-C and BSAFE Micro Edition, incorporated as a option starting around 2005, following its standardization in NIST Special Publication 800-90A. The implementation generated output by iteratively multiplying an internal state point on a specific (P-256) by fixed generator points P and Q, producing up to 2^48 bits per iteration before reseeding, with seeds derived from system sources. In certain configurations, such as BSAFE's TLS implementations, was set as the default PRNG, a decision reportedly incentivized by a $10 million payment from the NSA to in a secret contract. The algorithm's design lacks a formal reduction to the problem, making its cryptographic strength unproven even under ideal assumptions. A critical arises from the choice of points P and Q: if Q = d * P for a secret scalar d known to an adversary, observing approximately 32 bytes of output suffices to recover the internal state and predict all subsequent bits, effectively breaking the generator. NIST's recommended points exhibited this structure, with estimates suggesting the effective against such an attack drops to around 2^80 operations for an attacker possessing d, far below expected levels for a 256-bit . In BSAFE specifically, implementation choices exacerbated these issues; for instance, TLS handshakes using BSAFE's exposed sufficient output bytes in ClientHello messages to enable state recovery without additional , rendering encrypted sessions decryptable in feasible time on standard hardware. Additional flaws included over-extraction of bits per iteration (up to 4 times the length, violating bounds) and vulnerability to prediction from low- sources, as demonstrated in practical exploits against affected libraries. These weaknesses were publicly flagged as early as 2007 by cryptographers Dan Shumow and Niels Ferguson, who highlighted the backdoor potential at the CRYPTO conference, yet RSA retained it as default until September 2013, when it issued an advisory urging customers to disable it. NIST subsequently deprecated in 2014, citing insufficient assurance against compromise.

Alleged NSA Influence and Backdoor Claims

In December 2013, reported, based on documents leaked by , that the (NSA) had paid approximately $10 million under a secret contract to prioritize the use of as the default in the BSAFE cryptographic toolkit. This arrangement allegedly occurred around 2004–2005, coinciding with the NSA's push for NIST to standardize in Special Publication 800-90, despite internal NSA awareness of its vulnerabilities. The generator, based on operations, was suspected of containing a deliberate backdoor: an entity controlling the non-standard generator points P and Q (allegedly the NSA) could predict future outputs after observing about 2^80 bits of generated randomness, far less than the 2^128 security claimed, enabling decryption of affected systems. Cryptographers had flagged concerns earlier; in 2007, Microsoft researchers Dan Shumow and Niels Ferguson presented at the Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems (CHES) that Dual_EC_DRBG's structure allowed for such a backdoor if the points were chosen adversarially, urging avoidance until the NSA proved their randomness. Despite this, RSA implemented it as the default in BSAFE libraries used by enterprises for SSL/TLS and other protocols, potentially compromising for keys and nonces. Snowden documents further revealed NSA efforts to weaken global encryption standards, including influencing Dual_EC_DRBG's inclusion and pressuring vendors, raising questions about broader NSA sway over commercial like BSAFE. RSA responded by denying knowledge of any backdoor, stating the selection stemmed from 's NIST endorsement and perceived efficiency for certain hardware, not compensation for weakness, and emphasizing no of exploitation. Following the disclosures, on , , RSA issued a security advisory recommending customers migrate away from in BSAFE due to efficiency and potential risks, though it stopped short of confirming a deliberate NSA implant. In 2015, NSA cybersecurity director Ledgett described the agency's promotion of the flawed generator as "regrettable," acknowledging post-Snowden withdrawal of support, but offered no denial of the backdoor's existence. These claims eroded trust in BSAFE, prompting industry scrutiny of government-influenced standards, though no direct emerged of NSA accessing specific BSAFE deployments via this mechanism.

Other Protocol Extensions and Vulnerabilities

In addition to the issues, RSA BSAFE implementations incorporated a non-standard TLS protocol extension known as "Extended Random," which appends 28 additional bytes of pseudorandom data to the standard 32-byte client and server random fields in TLS handshakes. This extension, proposed in an by NSA employee Margaret Salter and Eric Rescorla in 2006, was intended to provide scalability for protocols requiring randomness proportional to key sizes, such as certain government systems. However, its deployment in commercial RSA BSAFE toolkits, including SSL-C and Java variants, raised concerns when analyzed in conjunction with predictable . Security researchers from the and demonstrated that the Extended Random extension, while not introducing flaws on its own, significantly amplifies the predictability of nonces in TLS sessions when using as the underlying RNG, potentially reducing decryption complexity by factors of tens of thousands compared to standard TLS random lengths. This interaction was documented in CVE-2014-4193, affecting EMC RSA BSAFE-Java Toolkits that enabled the extension alongside , allowing remote attackers to predict random values and compromise session keys more efficiently. The extension's extension type (0x40) also conflicted with TLS 1.3's key_share extension, causing handshake failures in affected BSAFE-supported devices, such as certain Canon PIXMA printers running embedded BSAFE . Beyond this, BSAFE TLS libraries, including SSL-C and components within the Micro Edition Suite, have faced vulnerabilities in protocol parsing and state handling. For instance, versions of Dell BSAFE Crypto-C Micro Edition prior to 4.1.4 exhibited improper heap memory clearing, enabling potential information disclosure via crafted inputs that could be delivered over TLS connections. Similarly, heap-based buffer overflows during parsing of malformed TLS messages were patched in Micro Edition Suite versions before 4.4, which could lead to remote code execution if exploited by attackers sending adversarial handshake data. These issues, while rooted in lower-level cryptographic modules, manifest in protocol contexts due to BSAFE's integrated TLS implementations. Dell has issued remediation updates for affected versions, emphasizing the need for upgrades to mitigate exploitation risks.

Reception and Impact

Widespread Adoption and Achievements

RSA BSAFE libraries, particularly Crypto-C and Crypto-J, saw extensive integration into commercial software and hardware products following their release in the , powering cryptographic functions in applications ranging from secure communications protocols to data encryption tools. By the early , company documentation indicated that more than one billion copies of BSAFE technology were embedded in software applications and hardware devices globally, reflecting its role as a foundational toolkit for implementing and related primitives. Major technology firms, including Apple and , adopted RSA's encryption technologies—implemented via BSAFE—in 1993, contributing to its status as a industry standard for data protection and rejecting alternatives like the U.S. government's proposal. This widespread licensing enabled secure and protocols, with BSAFE components appearing in products such as Firewall Enterprise and VanDyke secure client software, as well as broader ecosystem integrations like SSL/TLS implementations in widely used browsers by 2009. Achievements included facilitating the U.S. Department of Defense's adoption of RSA software in February 1990 and broader internet encryption standards from 1989 onward, which supported the secure transmission of data across emerging networks. FIPS 140 validations for BSAFE variants further bolstered its deployment in compliance-sensitive sectors, with Crypto-C and Crypto-J modules certified for use in protecting sensitive data storage and transmission. The toolkit's availability in both C and Java formats allowed developers to embed robust, validated algorithms into diverse platforms, sustaining its prevalence until open-source alternatives gained traction post-patent expiration in 2000.

Criticisms, Boycotts, and Industry Backlash

Following the December 20, 2013, report alleging that the (NSA) paid $10 million to promote the flawed algorithm as the default in its BSAFE cryptographic toolkit, the company faced substantial criticism from the cybersecurity community for prioritizing financial incentives over user . The report, drawing from documents leaked by , highlighted how RSA's endorsement of the algorithm—suspected of containing an NSA backdoor due to its predictable output under specific conditions—exposed users to potential vulnerabilities, prompting accusations that RSA compromised cryptographic integrity for government contracts. RSA denied receiving payment to weaken or insert a backdoor, asserting the arrangement was for legitimate standards influence, but the eroded trust among developers and professionals who viewed it as of undue agency sway over commercial tools. This triggered organized targeting RSA's annual , a flagship event for the industry, with at least nine prominent speakers withdrawing their participation in early 2014 to protest the company's alleged . Figures such as security researchers and advocates redirected efforts to TrustyCon, a rival event launched in February 2014 in explicitly as a backlash against RSA's perceived alignment with NSA interests, emphasizing "trustworthy" computing free from government-compromised standards. The gained traction among activists and experts, who argued it highlighted systemic risks in relying on vendor-default , though it divided the industry: some deemed the tactic ineffective for change, while others saw it as a necessary signal of eroded in RSA's leadership. Broader industry backlash extended to calls for avoiding RSA products, including BSAFE, with critics like experts noting the toolkit's decade-long default use of amplified risks for embedded systems and . Reports in March 2014 further alleged RSA incorporated a second NSA-influenced tool, the Extended Random extension for TLS, exacerbating perceptions of repeated lapses in vetting government-recommended primitives. While no large-scale product bans materialized, the episode prompted vendors and developers to migrate away from BSAFE toward open-source alternatives like , reflecting a shift toward community-vetted amid fears of undisclosed influences.

Long-Term Effects on Cryptographic Trust

The scandal, exacerbated by revelations that RSA received approximately $10 million from the NSA to designate the flawed algorithm as the default in its BSAFE cryptographic libraries, precipitated a profound erosion of confidence in commercial cryptographic providers. This breach of vendor neutrality prompted widespread industry backlash, including high-profile boycotts of RSA conferences by security researchers and organizations such as the , which in 2014 co-organized TrustyCon as an alternative venue emphasizing uncompromised trust in cryptographic discourse. The incident amplified doubts about the integrity of U.S. standards bodies like NIST, which had approved despite cryptographers' prior warnings of its inefficiencies and potential for subversion, leading NIST to formally withdraw the algorithm from its Special Publication 800-90A in April 2014. Post-Snowden analyses underscored how NSA influence had subverted standardization processes, fostering a toward mandatory independent and open-source implementations to mitigate risks of hidden weaknesses or deliberate flaws. Over the ensuing decade, these developments entrenched a cultural preference for auditable, community-vetted over proprietary toolkits, diminishing BSAFE's market dominance and accelerating adoption of alternatives like those in forks or libsodium, where verifiable randomness and transparency became non-negotiable. This heightened vigilance extended to ongoing efforts, such as NIST's standardization, where proposals undergo rigorous public scrutiny to preempt backdoor vulnerabilities, reflecting a lasting recalibration of trust predicated on empirical validation rather than institutional authority.

Current Status

Product Support Lifecycle

RSA Security announced end-of-life dates for BSAFE products on November 25, 2015, setting the end of primary support (EOPS) for January 31, 2017. Following the transfer of BSAFE responsibilities to in July 2020, Dell reversed the prior EOL decision in December 2020, renaming the suite Dell BSAFE and committing to enterprise-class support for existing customers beyond the previously planned January 2022 termination. This extension applied to key components including BSAFE Crypto-C Micro Edition, Crypto-J, Cert-J, Micro Edition Suite, and SSL-J. Dell BSAFE operates under a structured lifecycle with three main phases: Primary Support, which includes standard maintenance such as bug fixes and security patches; Limited Support, limited to addressing critical security vulnerabilities in line with Dell's Vulnerability Response Policy and potentially requiring customer upgrades; and End of Service Life (EOSL), after which no patches, updates, or CVE investigations are provided. End dates for these phases are calculated to the end of the month and may be adjusted if underlying operating systems or platforms lose vendor support; specific dates per version, such as for Crypto-C or TLS-C libraries, are outlined in Dell's version-specific documentation. On May 27, 2024, Dell ceased net new sales of BSAFE FIPS 140-validated cryptographic modules and TLS libraries, affecting products like Crypto Module for C and SSL-J, but this does not alter ongoing maintenance for customers with active contracts, which remains governed by the established lifecycle stages. As of September 2024, support for maintained versions continues under Primary or Limited phases where applicable, emphasizing the need for customers to monitor version-specific EOSL dates to mitigate risks from unpatched vulnerabilities.

Recent Updates and Vulnerabilities

In , Dell maintained security patching for BSAFE Crypto-J and Crypto-C components under limited support phases, addressing flaws without major feature releases. These updates targeted legacy deployments still in use, consistent with Dell's vulnerability response policy providing critical fixes post-primary support. Dell BSAFE Crypto-J versions 6.0 through 6.3.0.1 and 7.0 contained CVE-2025-26333, a medium-severity information disclosure vulnerability (CVSS 3.1 base score 5.9) where error messages revealed sensitive environment and data details, potentially exploitable by remote attackers with high attack complexity. Remediation appeared in version 6.3.1 and 7.0.1 releases, initially issued March 17, 2025, and publicly detailed September 25, 2025. A high-severity stack overflow (CVSS 3.1 score 7.5) affects Dell BSAFE Crypto-C RSA 6.4's GetIndefiniteElementLen function (TALOS-2025-2142), enabling denial-of-service via malformed ASN.1 records without user interaction or privileges; no CVE has been assigned. Dell released a vendor patch on October 8, 2025, for affected systems. No additional vulnerabilities or substantive updates were reported for BSAFE suites in 2023 or 2024, reflecting a stabilization phase with patches limited to critical issues in supported variants.

References

  1. https://www.dell.com/support/home/product-support/product/bsafe-crypto-c-micro-edition
  2. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/certificate/4942
  3. https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/10387/who-uses-the-rsa-bsafe-library
  4. https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000190141/comparison-of-bsafe-cryptographic-library-implementations
  5. https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000181945/dell-bsafe-product-version-life-cycle
  6. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/exclusive-nsa-infiltrated-rsa-security-more-deeply-than-thought-study-idUSBREA2U0TY/
  7. https://www.wired.com/2013/09/rsa-advisory-nsa-algorithm/
  8. https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2017/12/19/the-strange-story-of-extended-random/
  9. https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ace/papers/dual-ec.pdf
  10. https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp4967.pdf
  11. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/validated-modules/search?SearchMode=Basic&Vendor=rsa&ModuleName=crypto-c+micro&CertificateStatus=Active&ValidationYear=0
  12. https://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/rsa-security-inc-history/
  13. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/rsa-sues-novell-over-cryptography-patent/
  14. https://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-magazines/rsa-security-inc
  15. https://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.857/2022/files/L21-jim-bidzos-guest-lecture-slides.pdf
  16. https://svr-sk818-web.cl.cam.ac.uk/keshav/papers/94/unforgeable.pdf
  17. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/rsa-opens-its-software-safe/
  18. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/exclusive-secret-contract-tied-nsa-and-security-industry-pioneer-idUSBRE9BJ1C5/
  19. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36481
  20. https://csrc.nist.rip/groups/STM/cmvp/documents/140-1/140sp/140sp364.pdf
  21. https://www.dell.com/en-us/dt/corporate/newsroom/announcements/2006/09/09182006-4605.htm
  22. https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp865.pdf
  23. https://www.dell.com/en-us/dt/corporate/newsroom/announcements/2009/04/20090420-01.htm
  24. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program
  25. https://www.delltechnologies.com/asset/en-us/products/storage/industry-market/h15090-dell-emc-unity-data-at-rest-encryption.pdf
  26. https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000125778/bsafe-support-and-billing-update
  27. https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/18/dell-sells-rsa-to-consortium-led-by-symphony-technology-group-for-over-2b/
  28. https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000225447/dell-bsafe-end-of-sale-announcement
  29. https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000180496/dell-bsafe-product-support-update
  30. https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp4172.pdf
  31. https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp2056.pdf
  32. https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp163.pdf
  33. https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp2294.pdf
  34. https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp163.pdf
  35. https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp2294.pdf
  36. https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp2056.pdf
  37. https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp3172.pdf
  38. https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000199443/fips-140-status-of-bsafe-cryptographic-modules
  39. https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp2097.pdf
  40. https://www.thedocsteam.com/assets/docs/API/certc_27_basicdevguide.pdf
  41. https://csrc.nist.rip/groups/STM/cmvp/documents/140-1/140sp/140sp1092.pdf
  42. https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp1785.pdf
  43. http://www.di-srv.unisa.it/~ads/corso-security/www/CORSO-9900/oracle/bsafe.pdf
  44. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/report-nsa-paid-rsa-to-make-flawed-crypto-algorithm-the-default/
  45. https://blog.citp.princeton.edu/2013/12/23/rsa-doesnt-quite-deny-undermining-customers-crypto/
  46. https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/09/18/the-many-flaws-of-dualecdrbg/
  47. https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/767.pdf
  48. https://www.theregister.com/2013/09/23/rsa_crypto_warning/
  49. https://thehackernews.com/2014/04/nist-removes-dualecdrbg-random-number.html
  50. https://www.wired.com/2013/09/nsa-backdoor/
  51. https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5231006/nsa-paid-10-million-for-a-back-door-into-rsa-encryption-according-to
  52. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/23/security-company-rsa-denies-installing-nsa-back-door
  53. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/01/nsa-official-support-of-backdoored-dual_ec_drbg-was-regrettable/
  54. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/after-nsa-backdoors-security-experts-leave-rsa-conference-they-can-trust
  55. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rescorla-tls-extended-random-02
  56. https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-4193
  57. https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000181115/dsa-2020-286-dell-bsafe-crypto-c-micro-edition-4-1-5-and-dell-bsafe-micro-edition-suite-4-6-multiple-security-vulnerabilities
  58. https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000194054/dsa-2019-079
  59. https://www.company-histories.com/RSA-Security-Inc-Company-History.html
  60. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/stop-using-nsa-influence-code-in-our-product-rsa-tells-customers/
  61. https://www.vandyke.com/aboutus/news/pressreleases/company/vandyke_rsa_partnership.html
  62. https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp3172.pdf
  63. https://www.wired.com/2013/12/what-we-really-lost-with-the-rsa-nsa-revelations/
  64. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2831204/trustycon-vs--rsa-and-nsa--new-conference-pushes-trustworthy-agenda.html
  65. https://www.csoonline.com/article/540360/security-awareness-rsa-boycott-splits-security-industry-on-tactic-s-effectiveness.html
  66. https://time.com/archive/7179550/privacy-activists-sour-on-rsa/
  67. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/more-researchers-join-rsa-conference-boycott-to-protest-10-million-nsa-deal/
  68. https://thehackernews.com/2014/03/not-just-one-rsa-adopted-two-nsa_31.html
  69. https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/12/28/rsa-under-fire-after-nsa-allegations/8HMxjo7pf9xhj2isTTauEJ/story.html
  70. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/02/a-tale-of-two-cybersecurity-conferences-mistrust-at-trustycon-and-rsa-usa/
  71. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2022/06/on-the-subversion-of-nist-by-the-nsa.html
  72. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/nsas-subversion-nists-algorithm
  73. https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-the-nsa-may-have-put-a-backdoor-in-rsas-cryptography-a-technical-primer/
  74. https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/nist-kicks-off-post-snowden-crypto-standards/
  75. https://blog.cr.yp.to/20220805-nsa.html
  76. https://www.dell.com/support/contents/en-us/article/product-support/self-support-knowledgebase/security-antivirus/alerts-vulnerabilities/dell-vulnerability-response-policy
  77. https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000296144/dsa-2025-100-dell-bsafe-crypto-j-security-update
  78. https://www.talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2025-2142
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.