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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:03:40 +0100
From: Jakob Wenzel <jakob.wenzel@...-weimar.de>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Overview of PHC Candidates and Garbage-Collector Attacks

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 30.10.2014 17:39, Bill Cox wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Jakob Wenzel 
> <jakob.wenzel@...-weimar.de <mailto:jakob.wenzel@...-weimar.de>>
> wrote:
> 
> On 30.10.2014 10:55, Bill Cox wrote:
>> Hi, Jacob.  This is a nice analysis.
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Thank you!
> 
>> You misread TwoCats.  It is easy to do, which is one reason I
>> wrote SkinnyCat, which indeed is vulnerable to both GC and WGC
>> attacks. However, TwoCats has strong defense against both.  I
>> would argue that TwoCats has the strongest GC and WGC defense of
>> all the entries.
> 
> The attacks for skinnycat are clear. For twocats, we totally agree
> that it is strong against GC attacks (we just misread that the
> early memory within twocats is always overwritten). But, regarding
> WGC attacks, we still see the attack as described in the paper.
> According to our definition of a Weak Garbage-Collector Attack an
> algorithm is vulnerable, if it maintains a function $F$ with $y =
> F(pwd)$, where the value $y$ is later used in the hashing process.
> Thus, $y$ has to remain in memory during the time until it is used
> again at the end.
> 
> For twocats (and skinnycat), the value $y$ is given by PRK, which
> is initialized with the password. PRK is later used in the
> function addIntoHash(PRK, state). Thus, it has to remain in memory
> and can be used by a WGC adversary to filter password candidates as
> described in the paper.
> 
> Did we misunderstood something?
> 
> 
> Yes, I think so.  addIntoHash mixes state into PRK, not the other
> way around, overwriting the PRK.  This inside the garlic
> application loop. The PRK is overwritten much faster than in
> Catena, for instance.
> 

OK. I just had a close look to your code and now I am convinced. I
just overlooked that PRK is overwritten for each increment of the
garlic factor, which, when starting with MinGarlic = 0, is indeed at
an early stage of the hash generation, rendering WGC attacks not
applicable. Nevertheless, if I understood your code and explainations
right, skinnycat does not support the parameters startMemCost and
stopMemCost and thus, the proposed WGC attacks on the value PRK seems
to work.

> 
>> By default, Catena runs with minGarlic == maxGarlic == 18.  In
>> this mode, Catena does not begin to overwrite memory derived from
>> the password until it has finished filling memory.  During this
>> entire time, H(H(key material)) is present in memory.  If Catena
>> tries to use too much memory, this memory might get swapped to
>> disk.  If Catena is running continuously, as it might on an
>> authentication server, with lambda == 3, there is about a 1 in 4
>> chance that a cold-boot attack, DMA attack, or forced
>> hibernation, will reveal H(H(key material)).
>> 
> 
> For Catena-BRG, this is indeed an attack which succeeds with a
> chance of $1/(lambda+1)$. Thanks for pointing this out! We will
> recommend to use Catena-BRG with MinGarlic = 1 in the next version
> of our submission paper to thwart this attack.
> 
> 
> That would slow you down 2X, meaning you would lose another 2X in 
> memory*time defense against brute-force password guessing attacks.
>  Instead, please consider doing what TwoCats does, and apply
> Garlic starting at 0, but when you get close to the m_cost, just
> skip ahead and to the last level of garlic.  This enables your
> algorithm to trade-off defense against brute-force guessing attacks
> vs memory-leak attacks.
> 
> I certainly have copied many good ideas from Catena.  It would be
> nice to contribute back something :-)
> 

We will indeed consider this idea! Thanks!

Best regards,
Jakob


> 
> When considering Catena-DBG (our new instance using a
> double-butterfly graph), such an attack succeeds only with
> probability of 1/((lambda*2(logn-2))+2logn-1), which leads to a
> much stronger resistance in this case. Therefore, we plan to
> recommend MinGarlic = 1 for Catena-BRG and MinGarlic=MaxGarlic for
> Catena-DBG. What do you think?
> 
> 
> I'll read through it and get back to you.  Thanks for bringing
> this issue up.  I do think it is one of the more important things
> for defense.  OTOH, it does complicate algorithms...
> 
> Bill


- -- 
Jakob Wenzel
Research Assistant
Chair of Media Security (Prof. Lucks)
Bauhausstra├če 11 (Room 217)
99423 Weimar
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUm9sAAoJEDFlRQsgEDnD+VkIAIi3uiWrj36Mr9dfli9vcUcs
cDGYmu44MDf3mgzcCIQ7JXWGhTCUwBNiAIxyRbLKKG6FeODGFLd/3rQJX2W4SFld
bnQUK1AH1C6KBikkCKmeiSmFKR3lMVtybn/FOJeY2kObMYz4SteHKuL3Bgm9WBYS
20kqMdbwlceOf7WgjZWGQmOLQOS+YfzW4Rcz76lAa+jo6h2PBMVcMbt8iBRk4UNd
CdY65T1/jsNZY1REy0VDRbq5CkZpDr9JqiGNjeV7GSrOCx29yXd9iYqTw2KMHesB
rBVpHHpK1/4hTGELaSRMdnr77aln/uaVGNMdMOiiFTcZpBailfX7ZBMXXUWOyQc=
=6+p6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Powered by blists - more mailing lists