linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] tpm: Compare HMAC values in constant time

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: <20250801030210.GA1495@sol>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 20:02:10 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
	linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tpm: Compare HMAC values in constant time

On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 10:28:49PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-07-31 at 14:52 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > To prevent timing attacks, HMAC value comparison needs to be constant
> > time.  Replace the memcmp() with the correct function,
> > crypto_memneq().
> 
> Um, OK, I'm all for more security but how could there possibly be a
> timing attack in the hmac final comparison code?  All it's doing is
> seeing if the HMAC the TPM returns matches the calculated one.  Beyond
> this calculation, there's nothing secret about the HMAC key.

I'm not sure I understand your question.  Timing attacks on MAC
validation are a well-known issue that can allow a valid MAC to be
guessed without knowing the key.  Whether it's practical in this
particular case for some architecture+compiler+kconfig combination is
another question, but there's no reason not to use the constant-time
comparison function that solves this problem.

Is your claim that in this case the key is public, so the MAC really
just serves as a checksum (and thus the wrong primitive is being used)?

- Eric