netdev - Re: CCM/GCM implementation defect

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: <20150423114533.GI8928@secunet.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:45:34 +0200
From:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Paul Wouters <pwouters@...hat.com>,
	Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: CCM/GCM implementation defect

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:26:20AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Hi:
> 
> It looks like our IPsec implementations of CCM and GCM are buggy
> in that they don't include the IV in the authentication calculation.

Seems like crypto_rfc4106_crypt() passes the associated data it
got from ESP directly to gcm, without chaining with the IV.

> 
> This definitely breaks interoperability with anyone who implements
> them correctly.  The fact that there have been no reports on this
> probably means that nobody has run into this in the field yet.
> 
> On the security side, this is probably not a big deal for CCM
> because it always verifies the authentication tag after decryption.
> But for GCM this may be a DoS issue as an attacker could modify
> the IV without triggering the authentication check and thus cause
> an unnecessary decryption.  For both CCM and GCM this will result
> in random data injected as a packet into the network stack which
> hopefully will be dropped.
> 
> In order to fix this without breaking backwards compatibility,
> my plan is to introduce new templates such as rfc4106v2 which
> implement the RFC correctly.  The existing templates will be
> retained so that current users aren't broken by the fix.

Adding a second template for the correct implementation is
probaply the only thing that we can do if we don't want to
break backwards compatibility. But maybe we can add a warning
to the old implementation, such that users notice that they
use a broken version.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html