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]
Date:   Sun, 6 Oct 2019 14:15:45 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Kurt Roeckx <kurt@...ckx.be>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Stop breaking the CSRNG

On Wed 2019-10-02 23:36:55, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 06:55:33PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > 
> > But it seems people are now thinking about breaking getrandom() too,
> > to let it return data when it's not initialized by default. Please
> > don't.
> 
> "It's complicated"
> 
> The problem is that whether a CRNG can be considered secure is a
> property of the entire system, including the hardware, and given the
> large number of hardware configurations which the kernel and OpenSSL
> can be used, in practice, we can't assure that getrandom(2) is
> "secure" without making certain assumptions.  For example, if we
> assume that the CPU is an x86 processor new enough to support RDRAND,
> and that RDRAND is competently implemented (e.g., it won't disappear
> after a suspend/resume) and doesn't have any backdoors implanted in
> it, then it's easy to say that getrandom() will always be secure.

Actually... if we have buggy AMD CPU with broken RDRAND, we should
still be able to get enough entropy during boot so that getrandom() is
cryptographically secure.

I don't think we get that right at the moment.

> Bottom line, we can do the best we can with each of our various
> components, but without control over the hardware that will be in use,
> or for OpenSSL, what applications are trying to call OpenSSL for, and
> when they might try to generate long-term public keys during the first
> boot, perfection is always going to be impossible to achieve.  The
> only thing we can choose is how do we handle failure.
> 
> And Linus has laid down the law that a performance improving commit
> should never cause boot-ups to hang due to the lack of randomness.
> Given that I can't control when some application might try to call
> OpenSSL to generate a long-term public key, and OpenSSL certainly
> can't control if it gets called during early boot, if getrandom(2)
> ever boots, we can't meet Linus's demand.

You can. You can just access disk while the userpsace is blocked on
getrandom. ("find /").

Best regards,
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ