TL;DR Sent from Nine<http://www.9folders.com/>
From: Timothe Litt <[email protected]> Sent: Apr 20, 2017 7:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: RDRAND, etc [ wasRe: Slow zone signing with ECDSA On 20-Apr-17 01:26, Paul Kosinski wrote: "The tinfoil hat brigade in some distributions has resisted using them, fearing some conspiracy to provide not-so-random numbers." I think the NSA *did*, in fact, compromise the "Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generator" and paid RSA to make it the default in one of their products -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG. My comment was specifically directed to the RDRAND source for /dev/*random. The point is that even if the source were somehow compromised, it is mixed with other sources using one-way algorithms. You can search for the full discussions; it's by no means simple to envision a scheme where compromising RDRAND as a source to /dev/*random is effective after the mixing with other sources/whitening. Merge entropy from multiple machines (e.g. entropybroker), and it's more challenging. On the other hand, if you have legitimate worries about being an attractive target - or just are in to conspiracy theories: There are far more straightforward ways to attack hardware. Get to a microcode patch mechanism & target password prompts. Or introduce floating point math errors in specific computations. Use "unpredictable" bits as covert channels. For higher bandwidth, see the papers on how forcing cache conflicts can produce a high bandwidth covert channel. Harvest data *before* it's encrypted. Why not attack the AES acceleration instructions? Detect use of the compare instructions in code that tests for randomness and fudge the test results. There are papers on introducing hardware monitors that can be concealed at the foundries. Use power consumption to send data back through the power lines - or RF. (Is your machine room in a double Faraday cage with interlocking doors? Or do bits leak out when you open the door? What? No cage?) Do your DRAMs have data transmitters? Could your power supply capacitors hide a microcomputer? There's a lot you *can* worry about. Software is an easier vector - why not duplicate ISC's signing keys and send you a different version of BIND? Open source says you CAN read and inspect all the code that you get for subtle security flaws. Do you? Really? Or do you just trust the people at ISC? Breaking ONE key is a whole lot easier than attacking everyone's encrypted data. The easiest vector is the oldest - compromise the people. Snowden, Manning, etc... And phish - maybe even you. Then ask, "what's the alternative"? You can build your own hardware - if you have the expertise. After all, those DIY plans for RNGs on the internet could have been tweaked by your favorite government agency. But don't stop with the hardware RNG - build your own CPU from components that you fabricate yourself. And memory. And IO. And routers. And... In your own foundry - using tooling that you developed (it can be booby-trapped too.) When you package your chips - you are making your own packages, right?... And testing the encapsulant for nanoprobes? Better make that too. You can decide to trust someone else - the USB key or SSL accelerator, or HSM, or auditors and software vendors or your in-house staff, or ... ( You can hope that the penetration attacks are diverse, and run all your computations on 15 wildly different platforms and compare the results. Not on one system, of course - the comparator/voter could be compromised. Pay several people to develop different versions of your code - remember, it's not just hardware. Or just build a truly secure system - the one with no I/O, no power, and no physical access. If you're a *very* high value target, you may want to exploit all the countermeasures that you can afford. You still need to trust someone. Or someone trusts you. Most people (and institutions) selectively apply the reasonable countermeasures that they can reasonably afford, balancing cost against the threat to them. Do the basic things like taking care of your people, audits, modest key lifetimes, secure storage for important keys, physical access controls - and did I mention - backups? Given all that - are the CPUs' random sources sufficiently likely to be compromised that excluding them as one of the inputs to the OSs' entropy pools is rational? Even if true, are the weaknesses at the system level cheap enough to exploit that YOU are a worthwhile target? (Contrary to fiction, attackers do not have unlimited budgets/resources.) How does that compare to the business lost when your webserver/DNS/email goes unresponsive due to a lack of entropy? Considering what I know (and what I know I don't know), I don't put using RDRAND for an input to /dev/*random very high on my worry list - and I think that the distributions that do qualify for the overly worried/"tinfoil hat" moniker. However, I'm by no means a Pollyanna - I do worry about what I consider important risks. Of course, what worries me may not worry you. And it's always fun to dream up theoretical threats. By the way, have you seen Mark Andrews recently? How sure are you that he hasn't been replaced by aliens? Or a really good chatbot? Has he been Turing tested recently? (And can we trust the test, er, certificate?) Timothe Litt ACM Distinguished Engineer -------------------------- This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views, if any, on the matters discussed.
_______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
