Compute secret should have blinds

[bastien-roucaries]

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=860771#10From

Is this timing safe? From the github page it uses a pure-JS
BigNum implementation (bn.js) for the complicated stuff, but
the README of that code doesn't mention timing at all. And
from perusing the source code of bn.js, it doesn't appear to
be the case that their implementation of exponentiation in
a prime field is geared towards constant-time execution (when
the sizes are the same).

If you look at e.g. OpenSSL's source code (bn_exp.c), there's
a specific function (bn_mod_exp_mont_consttime) in there that
takes great care of making sure that the operation runs in
constant time - down to how the memory layout is organized. I
wouldn't know how you'd even do that in an interpreted
language such as JavaScript, but even if that's possible, I'd
suspect that a lot of brain power would need to go into
designing that [1], while bn.js's implementation of the
Red.pow function seems rather straight-forward. (Which is
fine, bn.js appears to have the goal to be a generic bignum
library, and not targeted at crypto.)

What I'm saying is: while not having tested that, I believe
that this implementation of DH is going to be susceptible to
timing attacks. (And if it isn't, the author should really
provide some rationale why not, with some test results. The
README is rather sparse, though.) Which would be fine if you
just wanted to use this library to generate the DH prime
itself (that is not timing critical), or just use it in an
academic context (to let people play around with DH), but
I'd not want to use this for real-world applications of the
actual key exchange protocol.

Regards,
Christian

[1] Especially if this is to be run in browsers, with
different JITs etc. Designing algorithms in pure JS
for these environments that are timing-safe looks rather
daunting to me.

[calvinmetcalf]

I replied on the list, but basically for actual secure key exchange the performance of this is so terrible you or anyone is probably not going to use it for anything secure in the browser and it's mainly maintained for compatibility. That being said there isn't any reason we can't add a blinding step like we do for the RSA signature computations.

[dcousens]

this is so terrible you or anyone is probably not going to use it for anything secure in the browser and it's mainly maintained for compatibility

@calvinmetcalf if that is the standard its to be held to... why bother at all?

[calvinmetcalf]

well I didn't know the performance was going to be that bad until after I wrote it

[bastien-roucaries]

We do not know where the code will be used... So please be secure

[calvinmetcalf]

as I said in my reply to the list, you can probably be safe removing the package from debian and replacing it with a stub.

[bastien-roucaries]

browserify need it and we do not want to be too far upstream

[calvinmetcalf]

ok we can add a blind, do you have a link to the function you were talking about in openssl?

…

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:59 AM bastien-roucaries ***@***.***> wrote: browserify need it and we do not want to be too far upstream — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#22 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABE4n6xKt2ZFqlRjlHJQ_v_8wzw37nNjks5rzKrKgaJpZM4NFD4v> .

[bastien-roucaries]

Same than RSA On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Calvin Metcalf <[email protected]> wrote:

…

ok we can add a blind, do you have a link to the function you were talking about in openssl? On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:59 AM bastien-roucaries < ***@***.***> wrote: > browserify need it and we do not want to be too far upstream > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/crypto-browserify/diffie-hellman/ issues/22#issuecomment-296677288>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe- auth/ABE4n6xKt2ZFqlRjlHJQ_v_8wzw37nNjks5rzKrKgaJpZM4NFD4v> > . > — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#22 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEnaHCe4Rt_WIvOyVr0cjyQwxzRnUgvWks5rzLTRgaJpZM4NFD4v> .

[calvinmetcalf]

from what I can tell libressl at least does something different for dh vs rsa, rsa uses a blind (like we do in our rsa implementation) while dh uses a different constant time technique which may be interesting to convert to JS.

[bastien-roucaries]

Any progress ?

[calvinmetcalf]

honestly not really, though pull requests would be accepted

[pravi]

@calvinmetcalf if we can't implement it, can't we disable it in crypto-browserify module itself?

[calvinmetcalf]

yeah if this is such a worry for debian disabling this module in your release is probably what you want to do