linux-kernel - Re: (Small) bias in generation of random passkeys for pairing

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <66098773-4d88-ebdb-02d5-8af0cc4ea99c@message-id.googlemail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jun 2019 14:00:38 +0200
From:   Stefan Seyfried <stefan.seyfried@...glemail.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        security@...nel.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
        johan.hedberg@...il.com, marcel@...tmann.org
Subject: Re: (Small) bias in generation of random passkeys for pairing

Hi Pavel,

Am 19.06.19 um 18:24 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> Hi!
> 
> There's a (small) bias in passkey generation in bluetooth:
> 
>                 get_random_bytes(&passkey, sizeof(passkey));
>  		passkey %= 1000000;
> 		put_unaligned_le32(passkey, smp->tk);
> 
> (there are at least two places doing this).
> 
> All passkeys are not of same probability, passkey "000000" is more
> probable than "999999", but difference is small.

It is slightly different IMHO.

Unsigned 32bits passkey assumed (and all users I found were u32),
the passkeys "000000" to "967295" are slightly more probable than
"967296" to "999999".

If my math is right (which I doubt), the difference in probability
for both entities is 4294:4293.

> Do we care?

I, personally, don't (yet).
But then, I'm not a real security expert.

Have fun,
-- 
Stefan Seyfried

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
 public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman