New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
crypto/ecdsa: uses unsafe nonces #9452
Comments
(EC)DSA is a non-deterministic algorithm by specification. It seems like too large a change to switch the default to be deterministic—something could reasonably be depending on that. So I'd (unsurprisingly) lean towards the randomised solution, as done in OpenSSL. Of those, SHAKE can't be used because the code libraries can't depend on go.crypto. |
Indeed. Another option (which is rather more similar to what you did in OpenSSL), would be to use an HMAC DRBG:
which has the advantage of just using a single primitive. (And, I think, is reasonably satisfying from the perspective of indifferentiability.) |
ECDSA is unsafe to use if an entropy source produces predictable output for the ephemeral nonces. E.g., [Nguyen]. A simple countermeasure is to hash the secret key, the message, and entropy together to seed a CSPRNG, from which the ephemeral key is derived. Fixes #9452 -- This is a minimalist (in terms of patch size) solution, though not the most parsimonious in its use of primitives: - csprng_key = ChopMD-256(SHA2-512(priv.D||entropy||hash)) - reader = AES-256-CTR(k=csprng_key) This, however, provides at most 128-bit collision-resistance, so that Adv will have a term related to the number of messages signed that is significantly worse than plain ECDSA. This does not seem to be of any practical importance. ChopMD-256(SHA2-512(x)) is used, rather than SHA2-256(x), for two sets of reasons: *Practical:* SHA2-512 has a larger state and 16 more rounds; it is likely non-generically stronger than SHA2-256. And, AFAIK, cryptanalysis backs this up. (E.g., [Biryukov] gives a distinguisher on 47-round SHA2-256 with cost < 2^85.) This is well below a reasonable security-strength target. *Theoretical:* [Coron] and [Chang] show that Chop-MD(F(x)) is indifferentiable from a random oracle for slightly beyond the birthday barrier. It seems likely that this makes a generic security proof that this construction remains UF-CMA is possible in the indifferentiability framework. -- Many thanks to Payman Mohassel for reviewing this construction; any mistakes are mine, however. And, as he notes, reusing the private key in this way means that the generic-group (non-RO) proof of ECDSA's security given in [Brown] no longer directly applies. -- [Brown]: http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2000/corr2000-54.ps "Brown. The exact security of ECDSA. 2000" [Coron]: https://www.cs.nyu.edu/~puniya/papers/merkle.pdf "Coron et al. Merkle-Damgard revisited. 2005" [Chang]: https://www.iacr.org/archive/fse2008/50860436/50860436.pdf "Chang and Nandi. Improved indifferentiability security analysis of chopMD hash function. 2008" [Biryukov]: http://www.iacr.org/archive/asiacrypt2011/70730269/70730269.pdf "Biryukov et al. Second-order differential collisions for reduced SHA-256. 2011" [Nguyen]: ftp://ftp.di.ens.fr/pub/users/pnguyen/PubECDSA.ps "Nguyen and Shparlinski. The insecurity of the elliptic curve digital signature algorithm with partially known nonces. 2003" New tests: TestNonceSafety: Check that signatures are safe even with a broken entropy source. TestINDCCA: Check that signatures remain non-deterministic with a functional entropy source. Updated "golden" KATs in crypto/tls/testdata that use ECDSA suites. Change-Id: I55337a2fbec2e42a36ce719bd2184793682d678a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/3340 Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@golang.org>
ECDSA is unsafe to use if an entropy source produces predictable output for the ephemeral nonces. E.g., [Nguyen]. A simple countermeasure is to hash the secret key, the message, and entropy together to seed a CSPRNG, from which the ephemeral key is derived. Fixes golang#9452 -- This is a minimalist (in terms of patch size) solution, though not the most parsimonious in its use of primitives: - csprng_key = ChopMD-256(SHA2-512(priv.D||entropy||hash)) - reader = AES-256-CTR(k=csprng_key) This, however, provides at most 128-bit collision-resistance, so that Adv will have a term related to the number of messages signed that is significantly worse than plain ECDSA. This does not seem to be of any practical importance. ChopMD-256(SHA2-512(x)) is used, rather than SHA2-256(x), for two sets of reasons: *Practical:* SHA2-512 has a larger state and 16 more rounds; it is likely non-generically stronger than SHA2-256. And, AFAIK, cryptanalysis backs this up. (E.g., [Biryukov] gives a distinguisher on 47-round SHA2-256 with cost < 2^85.) This is well below a reasonable security-strength target. *Theoretical:* [Coron] and [Chang] show that Chop-MD(F(x)) is indifferentiable from a random oracle for slightly beyond the birthday barrier. It seems likely that this makes a generic security proof that this construction remains UF-CMA is possible in the indifferentiability framework. -- Many thanks to Payman Mohassel for reviewing this construction; any mistakes are mine, however. And, as he notes, reusing the private key in this way means that the generic-group (non-RO) proof of ECDSA's security given in [Brown] no longer directly applies. -- [Brown]: http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2000/corr2000-54.ps "Brown. The exact security of ECDSA. 2000" [Coron]: https://www.cs.nyu.edu/~puniya/papers/merkle.pdf "Coron et al. Merkle-Damgard revisited. 2005" [Chang]: https://www.iacr.org/archive/fse2008/50860436/50860436.pdf "Chang and Nandi. Improved indifferentiability security analysis of chopMD hash function. 2008" [Biryukov]: http://www.iacr.org/archive/asiacrypt2011/70730269/70730269.pdf "Biryukov et al. Second-order differential collisions for reduced SHA-256. 2011" [Nguyen]: ftp://ftp.di.ens.fr/pub/users/pnguyen/PubECDSA.ps "Nguyen and Shparlinski. The insecurity of the elliptic curve digital signature algorithm with partially known nonces. 2003" New tests: TestNonceSafety: Check that signatures are safe even with a broken entropy source. TestINDCCA: Check that signatures remain non-deterministic with a functional entropy source. Updated "golden" KATs in crypto/tls/testdata that use ECDSA suites. Change-Id: I55337a2fbec2e42a36ce719bd2184793682d678a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/3340 Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@golang.org>
ECDSA is unsafe to use if an entropy source produces predictable output for the ephemeral nonces. E.g., [Nguyen]. A simple countermeasure is to hash the secret key, the message, and entropy together to seed a CSPRNG, from which the ephemeral key is derived. Fixes golang#9452 -- This is a minimalist (in terms of patch size) solution, though not the most parsimonious in its use of primitives: - csprng_key = ChopMD-256(SHA2-512(priv.D||entropy||hash)) - reader = AES-256-CTR(k=csprng_key) This, however, provides at most 128-bit collision-resistance, so that Adv will have a term related to the number of messages signed that is significantly worse than plain ECDSA. This does not seem to be of any practical importance. ChopMD-256(SHA2-512(x)) is used, rather than SHA2-256(x), for two sets of reasons: *Practical:* SHA2-512 has a larger state and 16 more rounds; it is likely non-generically stronger than SHA2-256. And, AFAIK, cryptanalysis backs this up. (E.g., [Biryukov] gives a distinguisher on 47-round SHA2-256 with cost < 2^85.) This is well below a reasonable security-strength target. *Theoretical:* [Coron] and [Chang] show that Chop-MD(F(x)) is indifferentiable from a random oracle for slightly beyond the birthday barrier. It seems likely that this makes a generic security proof that this construction remains UF-CMA is possible in the indifferentiability framework. -- Many thanks to Payman Mohassel for reviewing this construction; any mistakes are mine, however. And, as he notes, reusing the private key in this way means that the generic-group (non-RO) proof of ECDSA's security given in [Brown] no longer directly applies. -- [Brown]: http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2000/corr2000-54.ps "Brown. The exact security of ECDSA. 2000" [Coron]: https://www.cs.nyu.edu/~puniya/papers/merkle.pdf "Coron et al. Merkle-Damgard revisited. 2005" [Chang]: https://www.iacr.org/archive/fse2008/50860436/50860436.pdf "Chang and Nandi. Improved indifferentiability security analysis of chopMD hash function. 2008" [Biryukov]: http://www.iacr.org/archive/asiacrypt2011/70730269/70730269.pdf "Biryukov et al. Second-order differential collisions for reduced SHA-256. 2011" [Nguyen]: ftp://ftp.di.ens.fr/pub/users/pnguyen/PubECDSA.ps "Nguyen and Shparlinski. The insecurity of the elliptic curve digital signature algorithm with partially known nonces. 2003" New tests: TestNonceSafety: Check that signatures are safe even with a broken entropy source. TestINDCCA: Check that signatures remain non-deterministic with a functional entropy source. Updated "golden" KATs in crypto/tls/testdata that use ECDSA suites. Change-Id: I55337a2fbec2e42a36ce719bd2184793682d678a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/3340 Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@golang.org>
As the comment in ecdsa.go notes, the security of the private key depends on the rand.Reader outputting key-quality bits.
This is an unsafe assumption. @agl fixed this in OpenSSL a few years back: Add secure DSA nonce flag and Make `safe' (EC)DSA nonces the default.
I have a couple of different patches I've applied to Go (for various applications) to fix this. I'm happy to submit one via codereview, but first wanted some feedback on the preferred approach:
Level of determinism:
Choice of PRF; I'd prefer a PRF with 32-byte security strength and a proof of indifferentiability from a random oracle:
- AES-256-CTR(Chop256(MAC-SHA-512(private_key, entropy || hash))), where MAC is H2, HMAC, or Envelope MAC
- SHAKE256(private_key || entropy || hash)
Also, it seems rather undesirable to ever draw more than curvebitlen / 2 bits of entropy from the source.
I'm not as clear on the security story for the OpenSSL or RFC 6979 constructions, though I see no practical problems with them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: