Let's Encrypt 生了新的 Root 與 Intermediate Certificate

Let's Encrypt 弄了新的 Root Certificate 與 Intermediate Certificate:「Let's Encrypt's New Root and Intermediate Certificates」。

一方面是本來的 Intermediate Certificate 也快要要過期了,另外一方面是要利用 ECDSA 降低傳輸時的頻寬成本:

On Thursday, September 3rd, 2020, Let’s Encrypt issued six new certificates: one root, four intermediates, and one cross-sign. These new certificates are part of our larger plan to improve privacy on the web, by making ECDSA end-entity certificates widely available, and by making certificates smaller.

本來有 Let's Encrypt Authority {X1,X2,X3,X4} 四組 Intermediate Certificate,都是 RSA 2048 bits。

其中 X1 與 X2 差不多都到期了 (cross-signed 的已經過了,自家 ISRG Root X1 簽的剩不到一個月),不過這兩組已經沒在用了,這次就不管他了。

而 X3 與 X4 這兩組則是明年到期,會產生出新的 Intermediate Certificate,會叫做 R3 與 R4,跟之前一樣會被自家 ISRG Root X1 簽,以及 IdenTrust DST Root CA X3 簽:

For starters, we’ve issued two new 2048-bit RSA intermediates which we’re calling R3 and R4. These are both issued by ISRG Root X1, and have 5-year lifetimes. They will also be cross-signed by IdenTrust. They’re basically direct replacements for our current X3 and X4, which are expiring in a year. We expect to switch our primary issuance pipeline to use R3 later this year, which won’t have any real effect on issuance or renewal.

然後是本次的重頭戲,會弄出一個新的 Root Certificate,叫做 ISRG Root X2,以及兩個 Intermediate Certificate,叫做 E1 與 E2:

The other new certificates are more interesting. First up, we have the new ISRG Root X2, which has an ECDSA P-384 key instead of RSA, and is valid until 2040. Issued from that, we have two new intermediates, E1 and E2, which are both also ECDSA and are valid for 5 years.

主要的目的就是降低 TLS 連線時的 bandwidth,這次的設計預期可以降低將近 400 bytes:

While a 2048-bit RSA public key is about 256 bytes long, an ECDSA P-384 public key is only about 48 bytes. Similarly, the RSA signature will be another 256 bytes, while the ECDSA signature will only be 96 bytes. Factoring in some additional overhead, that’s a savings of nearly 400 bytes per certificate. Multiply that by how many certificates are in your chain, and how many connections you get in a day, and the bandwidth savings add up fast.

另外一個特別的修改是把名字改短 (把「Let's Encrypt Authority」拿掉),也是為了省傳輸的成本:

As an aside: since we’re concerned about certificate sizes, we’ve also taken a few other measures to save bytes in our new certificates. We’ve shortened their Subject Common Names from “Let’s Encrypt Authority X3” to just “R3”, relying on the previously-redundant Organization Name field to supply the words “Let’s Encrypt”. We’ve shortened their Authority Information Access Issuer and CRL Distribution Point URLs, and we’ve dropped their CPS and OCSP urls entirely. All of this adds up to another approximately 120 bytes of savings without making any substantive change to the useful information in the certificate.

這個部份讓我想到之前寫的「省頻寬的方法:終極版本...」這篇,裡面提到 AWS 自家的 SSL Certificate 太胖,改用 DigiCert 的反而可以省下不少錢 XDDD

另外也提到了這次 cross-sign 的部份是對 ECDSA Root Certificate 簽 (ISRG Root X2),而不是對 ECDSA Intermediate Certificate 簽 (E1 與 E2),主因是不希望多一次切換的轉移期:

In the end, we decided that providing the option of all-ECDSA chains was more important, and so opted to go with the first option, and cross-sign the ISRG Root X2 itself.

這算是蠻重要的進展,看起來各家 client 最近應該都會推出新版支援。

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。

CloudFront 支援 TLS 1.3

看到 AWS 的公告,宣佈 CloudFront 支援 TLS 1.3:「Amazon CloudFront announces support for TLSv1.3 for viewer connections」。

預設會自動啟用:

TLSv1.3 is available today and enabled by default across all Amazon CloudFront security policies options. No additional changes are required to your CloudFront configuration to benefit from the security and performance improvements of TLSv1.3 for your viewer connections.

對使用者最大的差異應該還是改善 first byte 的時間 (主要是因為 handshake 時間縮短),這點 AWS 的人也有提到在內部測試時,美國區的改善情況:

In our own internal tests in the US region as an example, first byte latency for new negotiated connections saw reductions of up to 33% for TLSv1.3 compared to previous versions of TLS.

在 latency 更高的地區應該也會有大幅改善...

中國開始擋 ESNI 了...

這兩天陸陸續續都有一些新聞出來了,中國已經開始擋 ESNI 了:「China is now blocking all encrypted HTTPS traffic that uses TLS 1.3 and ESNI」。

ESNI (Encrypted SNI) 的重點就是在於把 TLS 裡 ClientHello 的 hostname 部分加密 (通常會需要配合 DNS-over-HTTPS 或是 DNS-over-TLS 的方式取得 key 相關的資料),這個 hostname 的部分是目前 TLS 連線裡少數可以被看到的明文,也因此對於 GFW 過濾資料很有用,而 ESNI 等於是把這個洞補上,這次直接擋掉應該是預料中的事情...

但就算不管中國的部分,ESNI 對於 priavcy 的幫助還是很大,基本上 ISP 只剩下 IP 資訊可以分析,如果是有 CDN 之類的服務在前面擋住的就更看不出來了 (i.e. 許多網站用同一個 IP address)。

Cloudflare 降低 Workers 的 Cold Start 時間的方法...

Cloudflare 改善了 Workers 的 cold start 時間:「Eliminating cold starts with Cloudflare Workers」。

傳統的作法是連線結束後 application 層收到時去拉 worker 起來跑:

他們想到的方法是在收到 TLS 的 ClientHello 封包時就可以拉起來等了:

這點利用了 TLS 啟動時的交換時間,把 cold start 的時間疊起來,不過缺點應該就是同一個 domain 下的所有的 worker 都得拉起來,不過因為只有 cold start 的部份,應該是還好...

TLS 憑證的最長時效將從 825 天降到 398 天

在「Reducing TLS Certificate Lifespans to 398 Days」這邊看到才想起來沒寫這篇,這邊發生了一些有趣的事情...

提案是降低 TLS 憑證的有效時效,這件事情一開始是在 CA/B Forum 討論,但經過投票後沒有通過:「Ballot SC22 - Reduce Certificate Lifetimes (v2)」。

從投票記錄可以看到所有的憑證使用方 (包括了許多瀏覽器的廠商) 都贊同,但有大約 2/3 的憑證發行方都反對:

7 votes total including abstentions:

  • 7 Yes votes: Apple, Cisco, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera, 360
  • 0 No votes:
  • 0 Abstain:

33 votes total including abstentions

  • 11 Yes votes: Amazon, Buypass, Certigna (DHIMYOTIS), certSIGN, Sectigo (former Comodo CA), eMudhra, Kamu SM, Let’s Encrypt, Logius PKIoverheid, SHECA, SSL.com
  • 20 No votes: Camerfirma, Certum (Asseco), CFCA, Chunghwa Telecom, Comsign, D-TRUST, DarkMatter, Entrust Datacard, Firmaprofesional, GDCA, GlobalSign, GoDaddy, Izenpe, Network Solutions, OATI, SECOM, SwissSign, TWCA, TrustCor, SecureTrust (former Trustwave)
  • 2 Abstain: HARICA, TurkTrust

然後幾個比較大的憑證使用方 (AppleGoogleMozilla) 在提案被否決後就決定放到自家的規則了:「Apple strong-arms entire CA industry into one-year certificate lifespans」。

從 2020/09/01 開始,如果發出來的憑證超過 398 天就當作是無效憑證,也就是 2020/08/31 是最後一天可以發有效期限為 825 天的憑證,會落在 2022/12/05 失效:

$ date --date='Sep 1 2020 GMT+0000 +825days'
Mon Dec  5 08:00:00 CST 2022

這三家搞下去,就等於是強制性讓這些 CA 到九月就不能賣兩年的憑證了 (雖然還沒看到 Microsoft),這些 CA 一定是在心裡幹爆... XD

把 TLS 1.0 關掉...

突然想到所以到 SSL Report 上測試 blog.gslin.org,發現如果還支援 TLS 1.0,在 Overall Rating 的部份會直接被降為 B。

翻了一下 access log (我在 log 裡有多記錄連線的 TLS Protocol),看起來用 TLS 1.0 連的主要都是 bot,關掉應該是還好...

另外看了一下報告裡的 Cipher Suites 部份,發現不少 cipher (像是 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc028)) 被列為 weak,看起來像是把使用 CBC 的 cipher 都認為是 weak,是個推廣 AEAD 的概念。

影響應該不大,但還是記錄一下... 另外等 Ubuntu 20.04 出了以後把整台重灌好了,目前還在用 Ubuntu 16.04,系統內建的 nginx 不支援 TLS 1.3。

Let's Encrypt 在檢查 CAA 時出包

Let's Encrypt 發現在檢查 CAA 的程式碼有問題,發了說明:「2020.02.29 CAA Rechecking Bug」,以及預定的處理方式:「Revoking certain certificates on March 4」。

問題是當一個 certificate request 包含了 N 個 domain 時,本來的 CAA 檢查應該要對這 N 個檢查,但程式寫成只會抓一個,然後檢查了 N 次:

The bug: when a certificate request contained N domain names that needed CAA rechecking, Boulder would pick one domain name and check it N times. What this means in practice is that if a subscriber validated a domain name at time X, and the CAA records for that domain at time X allowed Let’s Encrypt issuance, that subscriber would be able to issue a certificate containing that domain name until X+30 days, even if someone later installed CAA records on that domain name that prohibit issuance by Let’s Encrypt.

2020/02/29 發現的,就程式碼的部屬時間,發現應該從去年 2019/07/25 開始就有這個 bug:

We confirmed the bug at 2020-02-29 03:08 UTC, and halted issuance at 03:10. We deployed a fix at 05:22 UTC and then re-enabled issuance.

Our preliminary investigation suggests the bug was introduced on 2019-07-25. We will conduct a more detailed investigation and provide a postmortem when it is complete.

然後決定要 revoke 這些可能會有問題的 SSL certificate,大約佔現有還有效的 SSL certificate 的 2.6%,大約三百萬筆:

Q: How many certificates are affected?
A: 2.6%. That is 3,048,289 currently-valid certificates are affected, out of ~116 million overall active Let’s Encrypt certificates. Of the affected certificates, about 1 million are duplicates of other affected certificates, in the sense of covering the same set of domain names.

在「Check whether a host's certificate needs replacement」這邊可以偵測線上使用的 SSL certificate 是否受到影響。

另外在「Download affected certificate serials for 2020.02.29 CAA Rechecking Incident」這邊可以抓到所有受到影響,預定要 revoke 的 SSL certificate 的序號。關於取得序號的方式,官方也有提供 CLI 的指令可以操作確認,對於有很多網域名稱需要確認的人可以用這組指令編寫程式判斷:

openssl s_client -connect example.com:443 -servername example.com -showcerts </dev/null 2>/dev/null | openssl x509 -text -noout | grep -A 1 Serial\ Number | tr -d :

照目前的描述,如果申請時只有一個 domain 應該是不會中這個問題,再來是最壞的情況大概會維持三個月 (網站主人沒管他,等到時間到了自動 renew)。

Safari 將會禁止長效憑證 (超過 398 天,大約十三個月)

在「Apple drops a bomb on long-life HTTPS certificates: Safari to snub new security certs valid for more than 13 months」這邊看到的,這次是 Safari 直接發難要幹掉長效憑證。

今年九月前發的憑證是照既有的協議,最長長度是 825 天 (大約 27 個月),但九月開始發的憑證,如果有效長度超過 398 天就會直接被 Safari 視為無效,所以大約是砍半,其他家瀏覽器不知道會不會跟進...

最早的時候可以直接買五年 (有印像是因為當年的 group.nctu.edu.tw 是我自己買的),後來好像降到三年,最近是兩年,看起來要變成一年了...

Let's Encrypt 的 ACME v1/v2 透過多個節點認證

從 2020/02/19 開始,Let's Encrypt 的 ACME v1/v2 都會透過多個節點認證:「ACME v1/v2: Validating challenges from multiple network vantage points」。

從多個節點認證可以降低路由被劫持後被拿來產生 SSL Certificate 的風險,看起來會有三個機房參與,需要兩個確認:

After Feb 19th we will make four total validation requests (1 from a primary datacentre, and 3 from remote datacentres). The primary request and at least 2 of the 3 remote requests must receive the correct challenge response value for the domain to be considered authorized.

也如同標題寫的,包括了現有的 v2 與將要淘汰的 v1。