@gopherbot please open backport issues

Backport issue(s) opened: #61579 (for 1.19), #61580 (for 1.20).

Remember to create the cherry-pick CL(s) as soon as the patch is submitted to master, according to https://go.dev/wiki/MinorReleases.

Change https://go.dev/cl/514915 mentions this issue: [release-branch.go1.19] crypto/tls: restrict RSA keys in certificates to <= 8192 bits

Change https://go.dev/cl/514900 mentions this issue: [release-branch.go1.20] crypto/tls: restrict RSA keys in certificates to <= 8192 bits

Change https://go.dev/cl/515056 mentions this issue: [release-branch.go1.21] crypto/tls: restrict RSA keys in certificates to <= 8192 bits

Closed by merging a51957f to release-branch.go1.21.

This is fixed on release-branch.go1.21, but still needs to be fixed on the main branch for Go 1.22. Reopening for that.

(CL 515056 said "Updates #​61460", not "Fixes #​61460", but this got closed ahead of time due anyway due to #29599.)

Why was this implemented as a breaking change when backported in patch releases to existing golang versions? Usually y'all implement some sort of environment variable flag to allow code to opt in/out of changes like this until the next minor version.

Change https://go.dev/cl/515257 mentions this issue: crypto/tls: restrict RSA keys in certificates to <= 8192 bits

Note that the golang-announce announcement is missing a reference to this issue, or to the CVE number.

The fix has now landed both to release-branch.go1.21 (for the upcoming go1.21.0 release, and already included in go1.21rc4) and to the main branch (for the eventual go1.22.0 release). Moving the milestone back to Go1.21 since that's the earlier of the two. (We don't have dedicated backport issues for Go1.21 during early thaw.)

The title and description of this issue still need to be updated though. (CC @dr2chase.)

@geofffranks Generally speaking we use GODEBUGs for behavior changes that we expect to break people, and in security fixes we limit ourselves to changes we do not expect to break people. Are you using RSA keys > 8192-bit, or do you know of any common use of keys that large? Thanks.

For us, we distribute software built with Golang that is intended to be run in our customers' private networks. It is unlikely that any of our customers use such large RSA keys, but it's difficult to prove that they don't.

Without an "escape hatch" for this change, we probably have to pass this on to our customers as a breaking change, which complicates our release/support process.

The CVE for this hasn't been published yet, so maybe there's information forthcomming that changes how this appears, but this change seems analogous to if a hard limit to reads on a TCP connection were implemented at some arbitrary value, in the interest of preventing clients from denying service by issuing infinite data streams.

Similar caps to protect servers from malicious client behavior exist, but they're all configurable by the server. This cap is arbitrary, and hardcoded in the language. For users wanting to use 16K RSA keys for a client or server (testing, research, extreme paranoia for highly sensitive material), golang is no longer an option.

The 8192 bit limit was picked as it was considered an upper reasonable limit for acceptable verification latency, and because it was the upper limit of observed deployed keys. Surveying the web PKI, we found only two publicly trusted certificates containing 8192 bit or larger keys (both being 8192 bits). Since we primarily target the web PKI, this was considered an acceptable limit, since there were no known deployed publicly trusted keys above the limit.

Clearly people using private PKIs may use extremely large RSA keys, but it was my assumption that it would be extremely rare for anyone to be using keys larger than 8K, since that is already 2x the largest keys you typically see.

We generally try to avoid introducing GODEBUG flags in security changes (and in minor releases in general), but if it is clear that there are people relying on this behavior in the wild, we can look into introducing a flag that configures this behavior in the next minor release.

We generally try to avoid introducing GODEBUG flags in security changes (and in minor releases in general), but if it is clear that there are people relying on this behavior in the wild, we can look into introducing a flag that configures this behavior in the next minor release.

My point is that golang has allowed users to customize via code which ciphers and TLS versions to use (including less secure options to a point). It has allowed users to customers to customize via code timeouts and maximum request sizes. Why was this any different?

Some things in crypto/tls are configurable for legacy or compatibility reasons, but conversely there are a number of things that are not configurable in crypto/tls. In particular, we don't support testing and research use cases through the public API, encouraging instead forks like uTLS, zcrypto/ztls, and BoGo.

To put the "extreme paranoia" angle in perspective, the NSA Commercial National Security Algorithm Suite requires 3072-bit keys all the way to Top Secret. The WebPKI root CAs have 4096-bit keys. Using keys larger than 8192 bits has no security justification, even in "extreme paranoia" threat models.

Hi,

I would like to underline that 16k TLS keys is the standard upper limit in most OS for at least a decade. By making an arbitrary hardcoded limit to 8k keys breaks the standard compatibility. This should be a parameter and not hardcoded.

Also, limiting the RSA key size is a weird way to fix this issue. It's like "your car AC sometime leaks ? Well I'll fix this by removing the AC of all the cars of the same brand. Now there is no AC leak anymore, but you can't have fresh air when it's warm outside.". It's not a fix at all, it's limiting/removing a functionality because for a large minority of users, sometime, it takes a "long time" (whatever this means) to check the RSA key.

On a side note, qualifying 16k RSA keys of "extreme paranoia" is kind of condescendant with the users using them : you don't know the use cases, you can't make any kind of judgement.

Kind regards

@Astaoth #61965

That's not really an answer. What you suggest can be done only at the building time and not at the execution time.

@mateusz834 @rolandshoemaker

Well, as this issue isn't really fixed but only hidden, out of curiosity, how will you react when the same issue will be reported to you with RSA 8k keys and light servers ? Will you rull out RSA 8k keys as well and states that you don't support light hardware ?
And next, when the same issue will be reported to you with IOT devices and RSA 4k keys, will you state that you don't support IOT devices and you will drop RSA support as well ?

The way this issue is fixed is ridiculous and against good developpement and security pratices.

@Astaoth Please follow the Code of Conduct.

For the record, you're incorrect: GODEBUGs can be applied at runtime.

Hi @heschi,

Thank you for the information about the GODEBUG.

Apologies but I fail to see how I've broken the code of conduct. The questions about 8k keys and IOT seem to be legitimate ones and their answers would allow me a better understanding of the GO team philosophy, especially about the security vision.

@Astaoth The code of conduct asks people to be charitable and respectful. There are ways to ask questions about Go development choices that do not predict what the response will be, and do not refer to what people are doing as ridiculous. Thanks.

@ianlancetaylor That's interresting : in this case how would judging people and organizations in a condescending manner without knowing the context or judging the people intents respect the Code of Conduct ? Or unwelcoming 15 char messages ?

Also may I underline that I would haven't made any more noise than necessary here if an appropriate answer would have been provided in first place ?

I apologize on behalf of other open source contributors for making you feel condescended to or unwelcome. That is not a pleasant feeling, and I'm sorry that it happened. My only defense is that I'm sure it was not intended. The principle of charity applies here in particular: please assume that people responding to you have good intentions.

Nobody is asking you to not make noise. We are asking you to make noise respectfully and charitably.

Finally, note that this is not a support forum; for appropriate forums for questions about using Go please see https://go.dev/wiki/Questions.

Change https://go.dev/cl/563136 mentions this issue: crypto/x509: document that Verify does not restrict key sizes