MIT license 與 Expat license

在包新版的 dehydrated 時發現 license 的部分過不去,說沒有 mit 這個選項:

dh_make: error: argument -c/--copyright: invalid choice: 'mit' (choose from 'apache', 'artistic', 'bsd', 'gpl', 'gpl2', 'gpl3', 'isc', 'lgpl', 'lgpl2', 'lgpl3', 'expat', 'custom')

翻了程式碼也的確是被拔掉了,先從 manpage 上確認,可以看到在 20.04 上面還有看到 mit,但到了 22.04 上面就沒看到了:「focal (1) dh_make.1.gz」與「jammy (1) dh_make.1.gz」。

回到上游去找可以翻到「Rename MIT license to Expat Closes: #963141」這個 commit,裡面提到的票在「Debian Bug report logs - #963141 /usr/bin/dh_make: "MIT" license should be called Expat to be more specific」這個 bug report 可以看到。

維基百科上面的「MIT License」有提到一些名稱背景:

The MIT License has the identifier MIT in the SPDX License List. It is also known as the "Expat License".

看起來主要是避免誤會,不過我自己覺得是不太容易誤會,但反正就改了:

The name "MIT License" is potentially ambiguous. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has used many licenses for software since its creation[.]

當初 22.04 的 package 好像是直接在網站上點一點 copy 出來的,所以沒遇到這個問題...

新的 TLS 攻擊:Raccoon Attack

這次看到的是針對 TLS 實做上的問題產生的 Raccoon Attack,反正先取個名字就對了,原圖有點大張,設個 medium size 好了 XDDD:

Why is the attack called "Raccoon"?
Raccoon is not an acronym. Raccoons are just cute animals, and it is well past time that an attack will be named after them :)

先講影響的產品,首先是經常中槍的 F5,這次連 timing measurement 都不需要太準確就可以打穿:

In particular, several F5 products allow executing a special version of the attack, without the need for precise timing measurements.

OpenSSL 的部份因為從 1.0.2f 之後因為其他的 security issue 所以改善了實做方式,就不會受到這次的攻擊手法影響。

剛剛翻了一下 Ubuntu 上的的資料,看起來 16.04 (xenial) 上的 OpenSSL 就已經是 1.0.2g 了,所以目前只要是有在 Ubuntu 支援的版本應該都不受影響:

OpenSSL assigned the issue CVE-2020-1968. OpenSSL does use fresh DH keys per default since version 1.0.2f (which made SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE default as a response to CVE-2016-0701).

Firefox 直接拔了 DH 與 DHE 相關的 cipher suite,反正在這次攻擊手法出來前本來就已經計畫要拔掉:

Mozilla assigned the issue CVE-2020-12413. It has been solved by disabling DH and DHE cipher suites in Firefox (which was already planned before the Raccoon disclosure).

微軟的部份則是推更新出來:

Microsoft assigned the issue CVE-2020-1596. Please refer to the Microsoft Security Response Center portal.

回到攻擊手法,這次的問題是因為 DH 相關的實做造成的問題。

TLS 要求去掉 premaster secret 裡開頭的 0,造成會因為開頭的 0 數量不同而實做上就不會是 constant time,所以有了一些 side channel information 可以用:

Our Raccoon attack exploits a TLS specification side channel; TLS 1.2 (and all previous versions) prescribes that all leading zero bytes in the premaster secret are stripped before used in further computations. Since the resulting premaster secret is used as an input into the key derivation function, which is based on hash functions with different timing profiles, precise timing measurements may enable an attacker to construct an oracle from a TLS server.

然後一層一層堆,能夠知道 premaster secret 開頭是不是 0 之後,接下來因為 server side 會重複使用同一組 premaster secret,所以可以當作一個 oracle,試著去計算出更後面的位數:

This oracle tells the attacker whether a computed premaster secret starts with zero or not. For example, the attacker could eavesdrop ga sent by the client, resend it to the server, and determine whether the resulting premaster secret starts with zero or not.

Learning one byte from a premaster secret would not help the attacker much. However, here the attack gets interesting. Imagine the attacker intercepted a ClientKeyExchange message containing the value ga. The attacker can now construct values related to ga and send them to the server in distinct TLS handshakes. More concretely, the attacker constructs values gri*ga, which lead to premaster secrets gri*b*gab. Based on the server timing behavior, the attacker can find values leading to premaster secrets starting with zero. In the end, this helps the attacker to construct a set of equations and use a solver for the Hidden Number Problem (HNP) to compute the original premaster secret established between the client and the server.

所以針對這個攻擊手法的解法就是用「新鮮的」premaster secret (像是完全不重複使用),然後保留開頭的 0,不需要去掉。而 TLS 1.3 在定義的時候把這兩件事情都做了,所以不會受到影響:

Is TLS 1.3 also affected?
No. In TLS 1.3, the leading zero bytes are preserved for DHE cipher suites (as well as for ECDHE ones) and keys should not be reused.

另外在這邊提到的 Hidden Number Problem (HNP) 也是個不熟悉的詞彙,網站上有提到論文,也就是「Hardness of computing the most significant bits of secret keys in Diffie-Hellman and related schemes」這篇:

Given an oracle Oα(x) that on input x computes the k most significant bits of (α * gx mod p) , find α mod p.

是個離散對數類的問題,之後有空再來翻一翻好了。

密碼系統的 Monoculture

這篇文章講到最近密碼系統的現象:「On the Impending Crypto Monoculture」。

目前常在用的密碼系統包括了 RSA、DH、ECDH、ECDSA、SHA-2、AES 這些演算法,而最近這幾年大家在推廣使用的演算法都出自於同一個人手裡,Dan Bernstein,也就是 djb:

A major feature of these changes includes the dropping of traditional encryption algorithms and mechanisms like RSA, DH, ECDH/ECDSA, SHA-2, and AES, for a completely different set of mechanisms, including Curve25519 (designed by Dan Bernstein et al), EdDSA (Bernstein and colleagues), Poly1305 (Bernstein again) and ChaCha20 (by, you guessed it, Bernstein).

這些演算法或是定義,包括了 Curve25519、EdDSA、Poly1305、ChaCha20。而這篇文章試著說明造成這樣情況的背景以及原因,以及這樣會導致什麼問題。

當實際分析時會發現,檯面上沒幾個能用的演算法,而看起來能用的那幾個又有專利 (像是 OCB),不然就是看起來被 NSA 放了一些說明不了的參數 (像是 P-256 Curve)。

然後 djb 弄出來的演算法不只看起來乾淨許多,也直接用數學模型證明安全性。而且他的實作也很理論派,像是還蠻堅持要做到 constant time implementation 以避開各種 side channel attack。

就... 理論很強,又很實戰派的一個人啊,檯面上真的沒幾隻可以打的贏啊 XD

在攻擊時總是挑最弱的一環:NSA 對 DH 的攻擊

在「How is NSA breaking so much crypto?」這邊提到了 2012 年有文章說明 NSA 有能力解開部份的加密通訊,而後來 Snowden 所提供的資料也證實了這點:

In 2012, James Bamford published an article quoting anonymous former NSA officials stating that the agency had achieved a “computing breakthrough” that gave them “the ability to crack current public encryption.” The Snowden documents also hint at some extraordinary capabilities: they show that NSA has built extensive infrastructure to intercept and decrypt VPN traffic and suggest that the agency can decrypt at least some HTTPS and SSH connections on demand.

但在這之前一直都不清楚是怎麼解出來的,直到最近才猜測應該是 Diffie-Hellman 的強度以及實作問題:「Imperfect Forward Secrecy: How Diffie-Hellman Fails in Practice」。

而成果其實非常驚人,由於強度不夠以及實作問題,有相當可觀的數量是可被攻擊的:

We go on to consider Diffie-Hellman with 768- and 1024-bit groups. We estimate that even in the 1024-bit case, the computations are plausible given nation-state resources. A small number of fixed or standardized groups are used by millions of servers; performing precomputation for a single 1024-bit group would allow passive eavesdropping on 18% of popular HTTPS sites, and a second group would allow decryption of traffic to 66% of IPsec VPNs and 26% of SSH servers. A close reading of published NSA leaks shows that the agency’s attacks on VPNs are consistent with having achieved such a break. We conclude that moving to stronger key exchange methods should be a priority for the Internet community.

作者群給的建議有三個方向,一個是把長度加長到 2048 bits,另外一個是改用 ECDH,而最差的情況 (如果還是需要使用 1024 bits DH) 則是避免使用固定的 prime number。

CloudFlare 的 Keyless SSL 服務

CloudFlare 有兩篇公告出來:「Announcing Keyless SSL™: All the Benefits of CloudFlare Without Having to Turn Over Your Private SSL Keys」、「Keyless SSL: The Nitty Gritty Technical Details」。前面的一篇偏向公告文 (以及公關稿),而後面的一篇提到了實際運作的方式。

用兩張 Keyless SSL 的 flow 就可以知道差異了,一張是 RSA-based,一張是 DH-based:

把與 private key 相關的運算拆出來,由後方計算完成後再計算出 session key 與 client 溝通。如此一來,雖然速度比較慢,但 private key 管理在客戶自己手上...

1024bits 的 RSA 與 DH...

看到「Majority of Tor crypto keys could be broken by NSA, researcher says」,說明 NSA 曾經跟 IBM 訂作特殊晶片:

"Everyone seems to agree that if anything, the NSA can break 1024 RSA/DH keys," Graham wrote in a blog post published Friday. "Assuming no 'breakthroughs,' the NSA can spend $1 billion on custom chips that can break such a key in a few hours. We know the NSA builds custom chips, they've got fairly public deals with IBM foundries to build chips."

而目前大多數的 Tor 節點都是用 2.3.x 的版本 (使用 1024bits DHE),官方網站目前也是提供 2.3.x 下載,只有少數使用 2.4.x (使用 ECDHE),不過一時間找不到 ECDHE 用多長的 EC key,所以也不清楚抵抗能力到底到麼程度...