IEEE P1735 漏洞,又是 Padding Oracle Attack...

在「IEEE P1735 Encryption Is Broken—Flaws Allow Intellectual Property Theft」這邊看到 US-CERT 發表的「IEEE P1735 implementations may have weak cryptographic protections」,裡面提到的主要漏洞:

The methods are flawed and, in the most egregious cases, enable attack vectors that allow recovery of the entire underlying plaintext IP.


CVE-2017-13091: improperly specified padding in CBC mode allows use of an EDA tool as a decryption oracle.

又是 CBCpadding oracle attack 啊... 看起來是標準沒有強制定義好造成的?

The main vulnerability (CVE-2017-13091) resides in the IEEE P1735 standard's use of AES-CBC mode.

Since the standard makes no recommendation for any specific padding scheme, the developers often choose the wrong scheme, making it possible for attackers to use a well-known classic padding-oracle attack (POA) technique to decrypt the system-on-chip blueprints without knowledge of the key.

去年 Cloudflare 寫的「Padding oracles and the decline of CBC-mode cipher suites」這邊有提到 padding oracle attack 的方式,比較一般性的解法是避開要自己決定 Encrypt-then-MAC (IPsec;也是數學上證明安全性) 或 Encrypt-and-MAC (SSH) 或是 MAC-then-Encrypt (SSL),而是用 AEAD 類的加密元件直接躲開 padding oracle attack 的某些必要條件 (像是 AES-GCM 或是 ChaCha20-Poly1305)。


CloudFlare 對 Go 上面加解密系統的改善

CloudFlare 發佈了自己版本的 Go,修改了其中的 crypto subsystem:「Go crypto: bridging the performance gap」。

文章花了不少篇幅介紹 AEAD (Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data),而目前 CloudFlare 支援的是 AES-GCM 與 ChaCha20-Poly1305,也是兩大主流,分別佔了 60% 與 10% 的 HTTPS 流量:

As such today more than 60% of our client facing traffic is encrypted with AES-GCM, and about 10% is encrypted with ChaCha20-Poly1305.

CloudFlare 提供的改進使得速度快很多,並且有考慮到 side-channel attack 的問題:

Both implementations are constant-time and side-channel protected.

                         CloudFlare          Go 1.4.2        Speedup
AES-128-GCM           2,138.4 MB/sec          91.4 MB/sec     23.4X

P256 operations:
Base Multiply           26,249 ns/op        737,363 ns/op     28.1X
Multiply/ECDH comp     110,003 ns/op      1,995,365 ns/op     18.1X
Generate Key/ECDH gen   31,824 ns/op        753,174 ns/op     23.7X
ECDSA Sign              48,741 ns/op      1,015,006 ns/op     20.8X
ECDSA Verify           146,991 ns/op      3,086,282 ns/op     21.0X

Sign                 3,733,747 ns/op      7,979,705 ns/op      2.1X
Sign 3-prime         1,973,009 ns/op      5,035,561 ns/op      2.6X

AES-GCM 與 EC 的改善主要是利用 CPU 指令集加速:

[T]herefore we created assembly implementations of Elliptic Curves and AES-GCM for Go on the amd64 architecture, supporting the AES and CLMUL NI to bring performance up to par with the OpenSSL implementation we use for Universal SSL.

不過 RSA 的部份雖然幅度也不小 (比起 AES 與 EC 的部份是不大,不過純就數字來看,快了一倍多也不少),不過沒提到怎麼改善,只稍微帶過:

In addition the fork includes small improvements to Go's RSA implementation.