Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure PRF

Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure PRF

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:17 PM, George Spelvin
<linux@sciencehorizons.net> wrote:
> My (speaking enerally; I should walk through every hash table you've
> converted) opinion is that:
>
> - Hash tables, even network-facing ones, can all use hsiphash as long
>   as an attacker can only see collisions, i.e. ((H(x) ^ H(y)) & bits) ==
>   0, and the consequences of a successful attack is only more collisions
>   (timing).  While the attack is only 2x the cost (two hashes rather than
>   one to test a key), the knowledge of the collision is statistical,
>   especially for network attackers, which raises the cost of guessing
>   beyond an even more brute-force attack.
> - When the hash value directly visible (e.g. included in a network
>   packet), full SipHash should be the default.
> - Syncookies *could* use hsiphash, especially as there are
>   two keys in there.  Not sure if we need the performance.
> - For TCP ISNs, I'd prefer to use full SipHash.  I know this is
>   a very hot path, and if that's a performance bottleneck,
>   we can work harder on it.
>
> In particular, TCP ISNs *used* to rotate the key periodically,
> limiting the time available to an attacker to perform an
> attack before the secret goes stale and is useless.  commit
> 6e5714eaf77d79ae1c8b47e3e040ff5411b717ec upgraded to md5 and dropped
> the key rotation.

While I generally agree with this analysis for the most part, I do
think we should use SipHash and not HalfSipHash for syncookies.
Although the security risk is lower than with sequence numbers, it
previously used full MD5 for this, which means performance is not
generally a bottleneck and we'll get massive speedups no matter what,
whether using SipHash or HalfSipHash. In addition, using SipHash means
that the 128-bit key gives a larger margin and can be safe longterm.
So, I think we should err on the side of caution and stick with
SipHash in all cases in which we're upgrading from MD5.

In other words, only current jhash users should be potentially
eligible for hsiphash.


> Current code uses a 64 ns tick for the ISN, so it counts 2^24 per second.
> (32 bits wraps every 4.6 minutes.)  A 4-bit counter and 28-bit hash
> (or even 3+29) would work as long as the key is regenerated no more
> than once per minute.  (Just using the 4.6-minute ISN wrap time is the
> obvious simple implementation.)
>
> (Of course, I defer to DaveM's judgement on all network-related issues.)

I saw that jiffies addition in there and was wondering what it was all
about. It's currently added _after_ the siphash input, not before, to
keep with how the old algorithm worked. I'm not sure if this is
correct or if there's something wrong with that, as I haven't studied
how it works. If that jiffies should be part of the siphash input and
not added to the result, please tell me. Otherwise I'll keep things
how they are to avoid breaking something that seems to be working.

Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure PRF

[George Spelvin]

Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> I saw that jiffies addition in there and was wondering what it was all
> about. It's currently added _after_ the siphash input, not before, to
> keep with how the old algorithm worked. I'm not sure if this is
> correct or if there's something wrong with that, as I haven't studied
> how it works. If that jiffies should be part of the siphash input and
> not added to the result, please tell me. Otherwise I'll keep things
> how they are to avoid breaking something that seems to be working.

Oh, geez, I didn't realize you didn't understand this code.

Full details at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_sequence_prediction_attack

But yes, the sequence number is supposed to be (random base) + (timestamp).
In the old days before Canter & Siegel when the internet was a nice place,
people just used a counter that started at boot time.

But then someone observed that I can start a connection to host X,
see the sequence number it gives back to me, and thereby learn the
seauence number it's using on its connections to host Y.

And I can use that to inject forged data into an X-to-Y connection,
without ever seeing a single byte of the traffic!  (If I *can* observe
the traffic, of course, none of this makes the slightest difference.)

So the random base was made a keyed hash of the endpoint identifiers.
(Practically only the hosts matter, but generally the ports are thrown
in for good measure.)  That way, the ISN that host X sends to me
tells me nothing about the ISN it's using to talk to host Y.  Now the
only way to inject forged data into the X-to-Y connection is to
send 2^32 bytes, which is a little less practical.

Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure PRF

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hi George,

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:25 PM, George Spelvin
<linux@sciencehorizons.net> wrote:
> But yes, the sequence number is supposed to be (random base) + (timestamp).
> In the old days before Canter & Siegel when the internet was a nice place,
> people just used a counter that started at boot time.
>
> But then someone observed that I can start a connection to host X,
> see the sequence number it gives back to me, and thereby learn the
> seauence number it's using on its connections to host Y.
>
> And I can use that to inject forged data into an X-to-Y connection,
> without ever seeing a single byte of the traffic!  (If I *can* observe
> the traffic, of course, none of this makes the slightest difference.)
>
> So the random base was made a keyed hash of the endpoint identifiers.
> (Practically only the hosts matter, but generally the ports are thrown
> in for good measure.)  That way, the ISN that host X sends to me
> tells me nothing about the ISN it's using to talk to host Y.  Now the
> only way to inject forged data into the X-to-Y connection is to
> send 2^32 bytes, which is a little less practical.

Oh, okay, that is exactly what I thought was going on. I just thought
you were implying that jiffies could be moved inside the hash, which
then confused my understanding of how things should be. In any case,
thanks for the explanation.

Jason

Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure PRF

[George Spelvin]

An idea I had which mght be useful:

You could perhaps save two rounds in siphash_*u64.

The final word with the length (called "b" in your implementation)
only needs to be there if the input is variable-sized.

If every use of a given key is of a fixed-size input, you don't need
a length suffix.  When the input is an even number of words, that can
save you two rounds.

This requires an audit of callers (e.g. you have to use different
keys for IPv4 and IPv6 ISNs), but can save time.

(This is crypto 101; search "MD-strengthening" or see the remark on
p. 101 on Damgaard's 1989 paper "A design principle for hash functions" at
http://saluc.engr.uconn.edu/refs/algorithms/hashalg/damgard89adesign.pdf
but I'm sure that Ted, Jean-Philippe, and/or DJB will confirm if you'd
like.)

Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Oh, okay, that is exactly what I thought was going on. I just thought
> you were implying that jiffies could be moved inside the hash, which
> then confused my understanding of how things should be. In any case,
> thanks for the explanation.

No, the rekeying procedure is cleverer.

The thing is, all that matters is that the ISN increments fast enough,
but not wrap too soon.

It *is* permitted to change the random base, as long as it only
increases, and slower than the timestamp does.

So what you do is every few minutes, you increment the high 4 bits of the
random base and change the key used to generate the low 28 bits.

The base used for any particular host might change from 0x10000000
to 0x2fffffff, or from 0x1fffffff to 0x20000000, but either way, it's
increasing, and not too fast.

This has the downside that an attacker can see 4 bits of the base,
so only needs to send send 2^28 = 256 MB to flood the connection,
but the upside that the key used to generate the low bits changes
faster than it can be broken.

Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure PRF

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hi Ted,

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:15:03PM -0500, George Spelvin wrote:
>> >> - Ted, Andy Lutorminski and I will try to figure out a construction of
>> >>   get_random_long() that we all like.
>
> We don't have to find the most optimal solution right away; we can
> approach this incrementally, after all.

Thanks to your call for moderation. This is the impression I have too.
And with all the back and forth of these threads, I fear nothing will
get done. I'm going to collect the best ideas amongst all of these,
and try to get it merged. Then after that we can incrementally improve
on it.

David Miller -- would you merge something into your 4.11 tree? Seems
like you might be the guy for this, since the changes primarily affect
net/*.

Latest patches are here:
https://git.zx2c4.com/linux-dev/log/?h=siphash


> So long as we replace get_random_{long,int}() with something which is
> (a) strictly better in terms of security given today's use of MD5, and
> (b) which is strictly *faster* than the current construction on 32-bit
> and 64-bit systems, we can do that, and can try to make it be faster
> while maintaining some minimum level of security which is sufficient
> for all current users of get_random_{long,int}() and which can be
> clearly artificulated for future users of get_random_{long,int}().
>
> The main worry at this point I have is benchmarking siphash on a
> 32-bit system.  It may be that simply batching the chacha20 output so
> that we're using the urandom construction more efficiently is the
> better way to go, since that *does* meet the criteron of strictly more
> secure and strictly faster than the current MD5 solution.  I'm open to
> using siphash, but I want to see the the 32-bit numbers first.

Sure, I'll run some benchmarks and report back.

> As far as half-siphash is concerned, it occurs to me that the main
> problem will be those users who need to guarantee that output can't be
> guessed over a long period of time.  For example, if you have a
> long-running process, then the output needs to remain unguessable over
> potentially months or years, or else you might be weakening the ASLR
> protections.  If on the other hand, the hash table or the process will
> be going away in a matter of seconds or minutes, the requirements with
> respect to cryptographic strength go down significantly.
>
> Now, maybe this doesn't matter that much if we can guarantee (or make
> assumptions) that the attacker doesn't have unlimited access the
> output stream of get_random_{long,int}(), or if it's being used in an
> anti-DOS use case where it ultimately only needs to be harder than
> alternate ways of attacking the system.

The only acceptable usage of HalfSipHash is for hash table lookups
where top security isn't actually a goal. I'm still a bit queasy about
going with it, but George S has very aggressively been pursuing a
"save every last cycle" agenda, which makes sense given how
performance sensitive certain hash tables are, and so I suspect this
could be an okay compromise between performance and security. But,
only for hash tables. Certainly not for the RNG.

>
> Rekeying every five minutes doesn't necessarily help the with respect
> to ASLR, but it might reduce the amount of the output stream that
> would be available to the attacker in order to be able to attack the
> get_random_{long,int}() generator, and it also reduces the value of
> doing that attack to only compromising the ASLR for those processes
> started within that five minute window.

The current implemention of get_random_int/long in my branch uses
128-bit key siphash, so the chances of compromising the key are pretty
much nil. The periodic rekeying is to protect against direct-ram
attacks or other kernel exploits -- a concern brought up by Andy.

With siphash, which takes a 128-bit key, if you got an RNG output once
every picosecond, I believe it would take approximately 10^19 years...

Jason

Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure PRF

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hi Daniel,

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 11:47 -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>> That's about 3x of jhash speed (7 nsecs). So that might closer
>> to a more palatable replacement for jhash. Do we lose any security
>> advantages with halfsiphash?
>
> Have you tested a lower round SipHash? Probably best to stick with the
> usual construction for non-DoS mitigation, but why not try SipHash 1-3,
> 1-2, etc. for DoS mitigation?
>
> Rust and Swift both went with SipHash 1-3 for hash tables.

Maybe not a bad idea.

SipHash2-4 for MD5 replacement, as we've done so far. This is when we
actually want things to be secure (and fast).

And then HalfSipHash1-3 for certain jhash replacements. This is for
when we're talking only about DoS or sort of just joking about
security, and want things to be very competitive with jhash. (Of
course for 64-bit we'd use SipHash1-3 instead of HalfSipHash for the
speedup.)

I need to think on this a bit more, but preliminarily, I guess this
would be maybe okay...

George, JP - what do you think?

Jason