These tests also failed when I reran testsc, and looking at the code,
no wonder: in each test iteration, the hash object is allocated
_before_ logging begins, rather than after, so that its addresses
aren't normalised by the test suite to 'n bytes after allocation #0'.
So these tests only pass as long as all the allocations get lucky in
reusing the same address. I guess we got lucky on all previous
occasions and didn't notice until now.
Easy fix: now each iteration does alloc / do stuff / free within the
logged section.
This fixes a vulnerability that compromises NIST P521 ECDSA keys when
they are used with PuTTY's existing DSA nonce generation code. The
vulnerability has been assigned the identifier CVE-2024-31497.
PuTTY has been doing its DSA signing deterministically for literally
as long as it's been doing it at all, because I didn't trust Windows's
entropy generation. Deterministic nonce generation was introduced in
commit d345ebc2a5, as part of the initial version of our DSA
signing routine. At the time, there was no standard for how to do it,
so we had to think up the details of our system ourselves, with some
help from the Cambridge University computer security group.
More than ten years later, RFC 6979 was published, recommending a
similar system for general use, naturally with all the details
different. We didn't switch over to doing it that way, because we had
a scheme in place already, and as far as I could see, the differences
were not security-critical - just the normal sort of variation you
expect when any two people design a protocol component of this kind
independently.
As far as I know, the _structure_ of our scheme is still perfectly
fine, in terms of what data gets hashed, how many times, and how the
hash output is converted into a nonce. But the weak spot is the choice
of hash function: inside our dsa_gen_k() function, we generate 512
bits of random data using SHA-512, and then reduce that to the output
range by modular reduction, regardless of what signature algorithm
we're generating a nonce for.
In the original use case, this introduced a theoretical bias (the
output size is an odd prime, which doesn't evenly divide the space of
2^512 possible inputs to the reduction), but the theory was that since
integer DSA uses a modulus prime only 160 bits long (being based on
SHA-1, at least in the form that SSH uses it), the bias would be too
small to be detectable, let alone exploitable.
Then we reused the same function for NIST-style ECDSA, when it
arrived. This is fine for the P256 curve, and even P384. But in P521,
the order of the base point is _greater_ than 2^512, so when we
generate a 512-bit number and reduce it, the reduction never makes any
difference, and our output nonces are all in the first 2^512 elements
of the range of about 2^521. So this _does_ introduce a significant
bias in the nonces, compared to the ideal of uniformly random
distribution over the whole range. And it's been recently discovered
that a bias of this kind is sufficient to expose private keys, given a
manageably small number of signatures to work from.
(Incidentally, none of this affects Ed25519. The spec for that system
includes its own idea of how you should do deterministic nonce
generation - completely different again, naturally - and we did it
that way rather than our way, so that we could use the existing test
vectors.)
The simplest fix would be to patch our existing nonce generator to use
a longer hash, or concatenate a couple of SHA-512 hashes, or something
similar. But I think a more robust approach is to switch it out
completely for what is now the standard system. The main reason why I
prefer that is that the standard system comes with test vectors, which
adds a lot of confidence that I haven't made some other mistake in
following my own design.
So here's a commit that adds an implementation of RFC 6979, and
removes the old dsa_gen_k() function. Tests are added based on the
RFC's appendix of test vectors (as many as are compatible with the
more limited API of PuTTY's crypto code, e.g. we lack support for the
NIST P192 curve, or for doing integer DSA with many different hash
functions). One existing test changes its expected outputs, namely the
one that has a sample key pair and signature for every key algorithm
we support.
I saw a post on comp.security.ssh just now where someone had
encountered an SSH server that would _only_ speak that, which makes it
worth bothering to implement.
The totally obvious implementation works, and passes the test cases
from RFC 6234.
(cherry picked from commit b77e985513)
I only recently found out that OpenSSH defined their own protocol IDs
for AES-GCM, defined to work the same as the standard ones except that
they fixed the semantics for how you select the linked cipher+MAC pair
during key exchange.
(RFC 5647 defines protocol ids for AES-GCM in both the cipher and MAC
namespaces, and requires that you MUST select both or neither - but
this contradicts the selection policy set out in the base SSH RFCs,
and there's no discussion of how you resolve a conflict between them!
OpenSSH's answer is to do it the same way ChaCha20-Poly1305 works,
because that will ensure the two suites don't fight.)
People do occasionally ask us for this linked cipher/MAC pair, and now
I know it's actually feasible, I've implemented it, including a pair
of vector implementations for x86 and Arm using their respective
architecture extensions for multiplying polynomials over GF(2).
Unlike ChaCha20-Poly1305, I've kept the cipher and MAC implementations
in separate objects, with an arm's-length link between them that the
MAC uses when it needs to encrypt single cipher blocks to use as the
inputs to the MAC algorithm. That enables the cipher and the MAC to be
independently selected from their hardware-accelerated versions, just
in case someone runs on a system that has polynomial multiplication
instructions but not AES acceleration, or vice versa.
There's a fourth implementation of the GCM MAC, which is a pure
software implementation of the same algorithm used in the vectorised
versions. It's too slow to use live, but I've kept it in the code for
future testing needs, and because it's a convenient place to dump my
design comments.
The vectorised implementations are fairly crude as far as optimisation
goes. I'm sure serious x86 _or_ Arm optimisation engineers would look
at them and laugh. But GCM is a fast MAC compared to HMAC-SHA-256
(indeed compared to HMAC-anything-at-all), so it should at least be
good enough to use. And we've got a working version with some tests
now, so if someone else wants to improve them, they can.
Not sure how I missed this! I tested ChaCha20, but not the MAC that
goes with it. Happily, it passes, so no harm done.
This also involved adding a general framework for testing MACs that
are tied to a specific cipher: we have to allocate, key and IV the
cipher before attempting to use the MAC, and free it all afterwards.
Instead of having separate subsidiary list macros for all the AES-NI
or NEON accelerated ciphers, the main list macro now contains each
individual thing conditionalised under an IF_FOO macro defined at the
top.
Makes relatively little difference in the current state of things, but
it will make it easier to do lots of differently conditionalised
single entries in a list, which will be coming up shortly.
This consists of DJB's 'Streamlined NTRU Prime' quantum-resistant
cryptosystem, currently in round 3 of the NIST post-quantum key
exchange competition; it's run in parallel with ordinary Curve25519,
and generates a shared secret combining the output of both systems.
(Hence, even if you don't trust this newfangled NTRU Prime thing at
all, it's at least no _less_ secure than the kex you were using
already.)
As the OpenSSH developers point out, key exchange is the most urgent
thing to make quantum-resistant, even before working quantum computers
big enough to break crypto become available, because a break of the
kex algorithm can be applied retroactively to recordings of your past
sessions. By contrast, authentication is a real-time protocol, and can
only be broken by a quantum computer if there's one available to
attack you _already_.
I've implemented both sides of the mechanism, so that PuTTY and Uppity
both support it. In my initial testing, the two sides can both
interoperate with the appropriate half of OpenSSH, and also (of
course, but it would be embarrassing to mess it up) with each other.
In test_primegen, we loop round retrieving random data until we find
some that will permit a successful prime generation, so that we can
log only the successful attempts, and not the failures (which don't
have to be time-safe). But this itself introduces a potential mismatch
between logs, because the simplistic RNG used in testsc will have
different control flow depending on how far through a buffer of hash
data it is at the start of a given run.
random_advance_counter() gives it a fresh buffer, so calling that at
the start of a run should normalise this out. The code to do that was
already in the middle of random_read(); I've just pulled it out into a
separately callable function.
This hasn't _actually_ caused failures in test_primegen, but I'm not
sure why not. (Perhaps just luck.) But it did cause a failure in
another test of a similar nature, so before I commit _that_ test (and
the thing it's testing), I'd better fix this.
Now testcrypt has _two_ header files, that's more files than I want at
the top level, so I decided to move it.
It has a good claim to live in either 'test' or 'crypto', but in the
end I decided it wasn't quite specific enough to crypto (it already
also tests things in keygen and proxy), and also, the Python half of
the mechanism already lives in 'test', so it can live alongside that.
Having done that, it seemed silly to leave testsc and testzlib at the
top level: those have 'test' in the names as well, so they can go in
the test subdir as well.
While I'm renaming, also renamed testcrypt.h to testcrypt-func.h to
distinguish it from the new testcrypt-enum.h.
