linux-kernel - Re: [Security] [PATCH] proc: avoid information leaks to non-privileged processes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090507005016.GJ31071@waste.org>
Date:	Wed, 6 May 2009 19:50:16 -0500
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Jake Edge <jake@....net>, security@...nel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Security] [PATCH] proc: avoid information leaks to non-privileged processes

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:57:17PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 09:48:20AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > Matt, are you willing to ack my suggested patch which adds history to the 
> > mix? Did somebody test that? I have this memory of there being an 
> > "exploit" program to show the non-randomness of the values, but I can't 
> > recall details, and would really want to get a second opinion from 
> > somebody who cares about PRNG's.
> 
> I still don't like it. I bounced it off some folks on the adversarial
> side of things and they didn't think it looked strong enough either.
> Full MD5 collisions can be generated about as fast as they can be
> checked, which makes _reduced strength_ MD4 not much better than an
> LFSR in terms of attack potential. So I suggest we either:
> 
> a) take my original patch 
> b) respin your patch using at least SHA1 rather than halfMD4 and
> changing the name to get_random_u32
> 
> If you'd prefer (b), I'll do the legwork.

I've done some basic benchmarks on the primitives here in userspace:

halfMD4 get_random_int: about .326us per call or 12.2MB/s
sha1 get_random_int: about .660us per call or 6.1MB/s
dd /dev/urandom: 3.6MB/s

So I think the SHA1 solution is quite competitive on the performance
front with far fewer concerns about its strength. I'll spin a proper
patch tomorrow.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/