Category Archives: Security

XMLDSIG and XAdES in the browser and Node

2 Replies

It is great that we have a language like Javascript that we can use in both client and server applications. With that said one of the challenges both the browser and server environments have compared to say Java or .NET is a fairly weak set of class libraries to build upon.

This is especially true when it comes to security technologies, this is the foundation of most of our OSS work at Peculiar Ventures.

Our most recent project is a XMLDSIG library we call XAdESjs, it is based on WebCrypto and as a result with an appropriate polyfill it works on Node as well as it does in the browser.

With it and a few lines of code you can now sign and verify XMLDSIG and XAdES-BES signatures on these platforms, for example a verify on Node might look like this:

var xadesjs = require(“./xadesjs/built/xades.js”);
var DOMParser = require(“xmldom”).DOMParser;
var WebCrypto = require(“./node-webcrypto-ossl”).default;

xadesjs.Application.setEngine(“OpenSSL”, new WebCrypto());

var fs = require(“fs”);
var xmlString = fs.readFileSync(“./xadesjs/test/static/valid_signature.xml”,”utf8″);

var signedDocument = new DOMParser().parseFromString(xmlString, “application/xml”);
var xmlSignature = signedDocument.getElementsByTagNameNS(“http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#”, “Signature”);

var signedXml = new xadesjs.SignedXml(signedDocument);
signedXml.LoadXml(xmlSignature[0]);
signedXml.CheckSignature()
.then(function (signedDocument) {
console.log(“Successfully Verified”);
})
.catch(function (e) {
console.error(e);
});

Though we only support the most basic forms of XAdES at this time it is enough to verify the EU Trust Service Provider List (EUTSL).

We intend to add more of XAdES to the library in the future, though we have no schedule for that at this time.

There is still lots to do so please consider contributing.

Ryan

Escaping the Same-origin Policy for PKIjs

Leave a reply

PKIjs enables you to build rich PKI-aware applications inside of the browser, that said the browser implements a security policy called the Same-origin Policy that restricts the code running on the page from accessing resources served from other locations.

There is also a related capability that allows a remote server to state what origins can interact with it, this capability is called Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS).

This background is important since the associated standards for PKI presume the client will be able to reach the Certificate Authority that issued the certificate to check revocation status (OCSP and CRL) as well as potentially fetch issuer certificates.

Unfortunately, the WebPKI CRL and OCSP responders do not set these headers, as such for a web page to fetch these resources an intermediate proxy is needed to enable your web application to access these servers.

There are lots of great resources on how to configure Nginx as forward-proxy. The problem is you do not want to be used as an open forward proxy. In this case, what we want to do is have a virtual host that will proxy request on behalf of the client to the appropriate origin server. For example sake, let’s say we have a host proxy.example.com. It is straightforward to configure Nginx as an open forward proxy and there are a lot of examples on the internet showing how to do this. That said we do not want to create an open proxy to be abused so we want some constraints:

  1. Only forward proxy to a whitelisted set of hosts,
  2. Only proxy specific methods (POST and GET),
  3. Rate limited the client to make it more difficult to abuse.

To enable this we want to be able to pass a query string to Nginx that contains the URL we want the request forwarded to, for example, https://proxy.example.com?url={urlencoded url}

A configuration that does this might look something like the following:

map "$request_method:$uri" $whitelist {
default "deny";
~^POST:/&url=http:/timestamp.globalsign.com "allow";
~^GET:/&url=http:/ocsp2.globalsign.com "allow";
}

limit_req_zone $binary_remote_addr zone=proxy:10m rate=5r/m;

server {
 resolver 8.8.8.8;
 listen 80 default_server;
 location / {
 limit_req zone=proxy burst=5;
 if ($whitelist = deny) { return 403; break; }
 if ($uri ~ \&url\=(https?):/([^\/]*)(.+)) { set $myproto $1; set $myhost $2; set $myuri $3; }
 if ($myproto = http) { proxy_pass http://$myhost$myuri; break; }
 if ($myproto = https) { proxy_pass https://$myhost$myuri; break; }
 }
}

NOTE: It seems that Nginx has a bug where when tokenizing it messes with the URL-encoded value stripping out some characters (including the /). To work around this in the above configuration we match on a single slash, this still works because this stripping appears consistent but does not effect the $uri value which is passed to the origin server.

NOTE: Unfortunately to accomplish the above we needed to use the if statement which has some downsides. If you know of how to accomplish the above without the use of them, or how to use less of them please let me know.

With this, the browser is now able to make requests to a limited set of hosts once every 12 seconds.

But what if you want this forward proxy(proxy.example.com) to exist in a different domain  from the application (pkijsapp.example.com)?  By default, the browser will not allow this but thankfully we can use  Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) to tell the clients they can send requests to our proxy, you do this by returning two additional headers to the client:

Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://pkijsapp.example.com
Access-Control-Allow-Methods: POST, GET

With these two headers set, the browser will allow the pkijsapp.example.com application to send both POST and GETs to our proxy.

But what if we want to communicate with multiple servers? Unfortunately, the CORS specification only allows the server to set a single origin in this header. It recommends that cases that require access to multiple origins set the header dynamically. This, of course, requires the server to have knowledge of what the client needs and if you are building a Single Page Application it’s quite likely the server doesn’t have that context.

Thankfully it does support a wildcard so if you have multiple application domains you want your proxy to be accessible from you can specify *:

Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *

This approach works around the multiple origin limitations of CORS but has its own issues, for example:

  1. Your server is now an unauthenticated network proxy that can be abused,
  2. If the servers you include in the whitelist can also serve active content they become useful to an attacker,
  3. Your server now has knowledge of which certificates are being validated by the client,

Neither of these approaches is perfect but they both allow you to get the information necessary to validate certificates using PKIjs within the browser.

Ryan

Understanding risks and avoiding FUD

8 Replies

Disclaimer: This post represents personal opinions and thoughts, and does not represent the views or positions of my employer Google, or Let’s Encrypt where I am a member of their advisory board.

The first step in building a complex system or protocol that has any security needs at all is to model the threats that the system is exposed to. Without a deep understanding of the system and the threats it is exposed to it is not possible to effectively secure it from a motivated attacker.

A key part of this process is understanding the abilities, motivations and the perspective of the attacker. This not only helps you understand what it is they are looking for, but what they will do with the surface area they have access to.

I bring this up because today TrendMicro published a blog post titled “Let’s Encrypt Now Being Abused By Malvertisers” and after reading it, I am convinced the authors are not looking at this topic with that frame of mind. Additionally, it seems they either intentionally or unintentionally omit and/or misrepresent details that are imperative to understand the incident they discuss.

In this post, I try to look more critically at what happened and identify what the core issues at play actually were.

Types of certificates

Before I get to the details I want to provide some background. First it is important to understand that there are, broadly speaking, three types of SSL certificates that Certificate Authorities issue, each with increasing levels of “identity assurance”.

The first is what is referred to as a “Domain Validated” or DV certificates. To obtain a DV certificate, one must only prove that they control the host or domain to be certified.

The next is referred to as an “Organization Validated” or OV certificates. To obtain an OV certificate, one must prove control of the domain using the same mechanisms allowed for DV but must also prove two additional things. First is who the legal entity that controls the domain is. Second is that the requester is acting on behalf of that entity. Browsers do not treat these certificates any different than a DV certificate as such they offer the relying party no additional value.

Finally, there is “Extended Validation” or EV certificates. These are logically the same as OV except the requirements that must be met when verifying the legal entity and requestor affiliation are higher. Since knowing the entity that controls a given host or domain can provide useful information to a relying party browsers display a “Green Bar” with the legal entity name visible within it for these certificates.

Let’s Encrypt issues only Domain Validated certificates. To put this in context today around 5% of certificates on the Internet are EV. This is important to understand in that the certificates issued by Let’s Encrypt are effectively no less “secure” or “validated” than the DV certificates issued by other Certificate Authorities. This is because all CAs are held to the same standards for each of the certificate types they issue.

Request validation

So what exactly are the processes a Certificate Authority follows when validating a request for a Domain Validated certificate? The associated requirements document is nearly fifty pages long so to save you muddling through that I will summarize the requirement:

  • the requestor controls the key being bound to the account or key being certified,
  • the requestor controls the host or domain being certified,
  • that issuing the certificate would not give the key holder ability to assert an identity other than what has been verified,
  • the hosts or domains being certified are not currently suspected of phishing or other fraudulent usages.

It also suggests (but does not require) that CAs implement something called CA Authorization (CAA) Resource Records. These are special DNS records that let a domain owner state which Certificate Authority it legitimately uses for certificates.

Let’s Encrypt

If you want to see for yourself what Let’s Encrypt does for each of these requirements you can review their code, that said it can be summarized as:

Proof of possession: Ensure the requestor can sign a message with the key that will be associated with their account and another for the key associated with their certificate.

Domain control: They support several mechanisms but they all require someone in control of the domain or host to perform an action only a privileged user could.

They also check the Public Suffix List (PSL) on each request. They use this to rate limiting certificate issuance of subdomains not on the PSL.

They also do not issue wildcard certificates.

Domain intent: They implement strict support for CAA records, if such a record is found and Let’s Encrypt is not listed the request will be denied.

Fraudulent usage: Every host or domain requested is checked against the Google Safe Browsing service.

This is, at a high level, the same thing every CA is supposed to do for every DV, OV or EV SSL certificate they issue. If they do not, they would not pass their WebTrust audit. The only place there is any room for interpretation is:

  1. Which domain control approaches they support,
  2. How broadly in their orders they use the PSL,
  3. If they support CAA,
  4. Which data source they use for fraudulent use detection.

On fraudulent use detection I know of CAs that utilize various pre-issuance approaches. Some use private databases; others may use Google Safe Browsing, APWG, PhishTank or some combination of all of these. I should add that the Google Safe Browsing API that Let’s Encrypt uses has a reputation of being one of the best available sources for doing these kinds of checks. I know of only a few who do any post-issuance checking of these data sources.

But what about the infamous Let’s Encrypt certificate issuance automation? Contrary to popular belief Let’s Encrypt is not the first, or even the only CA that automates 100% of the issuance process. They are also not the only ones who offer client automation to request the certificate and configure SSL.

Just ask yourself how to providers like CloudFlare or Hosting Providers get and configure SSL certificates in seconds if it is done manually?

If that is the case how is Let’s Encrypt different? I would say there are two very visible differences:

  1. They are 100% free with no limitations on who can get certificates,
  2. Their practices are the most transparent of the publicly trusted CAs.

The FUD

There is a lot of FUD in the TrendMicro post so please bear with me.

The first that jumps out is that the authors essentially say they saw this coming. It’s framed this way in an attempt to convince the reader this was only possible because of Let’s Encrypt.

Unfortunately, the potential for Let’s Encrypt being abused has always been present. Because of this, we have kept an eye out for malicious sites that would use a Let’s Encrypt certificate.

The problem with this argument is that there really is nothing special about what Let’s Encrypt is doing. In fact, Netcraft recently did a post titled Certificate authorities issue SSL certificates to fraudsters where they find numerous other well-respected CAs have issued certificates to people who later used them for bad deeds.

The issue here is that fraudsters understand CAs check orders for fraud pre-issuance to avoid posts just like the one from TrendMicro we are discussing, as a result attackers wait until after a certificate is issued to perpetrate fraud with the associated hosts and domains.

Any technology that is meant for good can be abused by cybercriminals, and Let’s Encrypt is no exception. As a certificate authority ourselves we are aware of how the SSL system of trust can be abused.

This statement is supposed to suggest that if Let’s Encrypt did not issue the associated certificate the attack in question would not be possible. It again goes on to suggest that TrendMicro is somehow different. Recall however that all CAs are subject to the same requirements for verifying domain control, the core difference between Let’s Encrypt and TrendMicro as CAs is that TrendMicro only issues Organization Validation and Extended Validation certificates.

Maybe that is what they are driving at? There is a valid argument to be made the increased cost and complexity getting an OV certificate makes it harder for an attacker to get an SSL certificate because they must also prove organization details. With that said, as long as DV certificates are allowed the user’s risk is the same.

It is worth noting though that it is quite possible to spoof the material necessary to get a OV certificate. In fact, there are numerous ways one can (very inexpensively) produce “false” but “verifiable” documentation that would meet the OV verification bar. But the argument they are making here is a red herring, I will explain why in a bit

Maybe then the issue is that Let’s Encrypt is somehow at fault because they issue certificates via a fully automated mechanism?

A certificate authority that automatically issues certificates specific to these subdomains may inadvertently help cybercriminals, all with the domain owner being unaware of the problem and unable to prevent it.

If so, the core issue is one that touches TrendMicro also. This is because they also issue certificates “in minutes”, something only possible with automation. This too is a red herring though.

Maybe the issue is a result of Let’s Encrypt not meeting the same requirements of other CAs?

Let’s Encrypt only checks domains that it issues against the Google safe browsing API;

As I have called out above, that is simply not true and all you need to do is check their public source repository to confirm yourself.

So maybe the problem is Let’s Encrypt just is not playing an active role in keeping you safe on the internet. 

Security on the infrastructure is only possible when all critical players – browsers, CAs, and anti-virus companies – play an active role in weeding out bad actors.

There is a word for this sort of argument it is ‘specious’. The reality is when you look at the backers of Let’s Encrypt (which in full disclosure includes my employer) you see the who’s who of privacy and security.

Well then if the issue is not Let’s Encrypt, maybe it is Domain Validated certificates? Their post does not directly make this claim but by suggesting TrendMicro would not have issued the attacker a certificate they may be trying to subtly suggest as much since they don’t issue DV certificates.

The problem is even if DV did not exist I am confident a motivated attacker could easily produce the necessary documentation to get an OV certificate. It is also worth noting that today that 70% of all certificates in use only offer the user the assurance of a Domain Validated certificate.

OK so maybe the core issue is that SSL was available to the attacker at all? The rationale being if the site hosting the ad was served over SSL and the attacker did not serve their content over SSL the users would have seen the mixed content indicator which might have clued the user into the fact something afoot. The problem with this argument is that study after study has shown that the subtle changes in the lock icon are simply not noticeable by users, even to those who have been taught to look for them.

So if the the above points were not the issue what was?

How was this attack carried out? The malvertisers used a technique called “domain shadowing”. Attackers who have gained the ability to create subdomains under a legitimate domain do so, but the created subdomain leads to a server under the control of the attackers. In this particular case, the attackers created ad.{legitimate domain}.com under the legitimate site. Note that we are disguising the name of this site until its webmasters are able to fix this problem appropriately.

There you go. The attacker was able to register a subdomain under a parent domain and as such was able to prove control of any hosts associated with it. It had nothing to do with SSL, the attacker had full control of a subdomain and the attack would have still worked without SSL.

Motivations

With this post TrendMicro is obviously trying to answer a questions their customers must be asking: Why should I buy your product when I can get theirs for free?

DigiCert, GoDaddy, Namecheap as well as others have done their own variation of FUD pieces like this trying to discourage the use of “Free Certificates” and discredit their issuers. They do this, I assume, in response to the fear that the availability of free certificates will somehow hurt their business. The reality is there are a lot of things Let’s Encrypt is not, and will probably never be.

Most of these things are the things commercial Certificate Authorities already do and do well. I could also go on for hours on different ways they could further improve their offerings and better differentiate their products to grow their businesses.

They should, instead of trying to sell fear and uncertainty, focus on how they can make their products better, stickier, and more valuable to their customers.

That said, so far it looks like they do not have much to worry about. Even though Let’s Encrypt has issued over 250,000 certificates in just a few months almost 75% of the hosts the associated with them did not have certificates before. The 25% who may have moved to Let’s Encrypt from another CA were very likely customers of the other free certificates providers and resellers, where certificates are commonly sold for only a few dollars.

In short, it looks like Let’s Encrypt’s is principally serving the long tail of users that existing CAs have historically failed to engage.

Threat Model

When we look critically at what happened in the incident TrendMicro discusses can clearly identify two failures:

  1. The attacker was able to register a legitimate subdomain due to a misconfiguration or vulnerability,
  2. A certificate was issued for a domain and the domain owner was not aware of it.

The first problem would have potentially been prevented if a formal security program was in place and the system managing the domain registration process had been threat modeled and reviewed for vulnerabilities.

The second issue could have also been caught through the same process. I say “could”, because  not everyone is aware of Certificate Transparency (CT) and CAA which are the tools one would use to mitigate this risk.

At this time CT is is not mandated by WebTrust but Chrome does require it for EV certificates as a condition of showing the “Green Bar”. That said even though it is not a requirement Let’s Encrypt chooses to publish all of the certificates they issue into the logs. In fact, they are the only Certificate Authority I am aware of who does this for DV certificates.

This enables site owners, like the one in question to register with log monitoring services, like the free and professional one offered by DigiCert, and get notified when such a certificate is issued.

As mentioned earlier CAA is a pre-issuance check designed for this specific case, namely how to I tell a CA I do not want them issuing certificates for my domain.

Until all CAs are required to log all of the SSL certificates they issue into CT Logs and are required to use CAA these are not reliable tools to catch mississuances. That said since Let’s Encrypt does both they would have caught this particular case and that is a step in the right direction.

 

[Edited January 9th 2016 to fix typos and make link to trend article point to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine]

The PKCS#12 standard needs another update

8 Replies

PKCS#12 is the defacto file format for moving private keys and certificates around. It was defined by RSA and Microsoft in the late 90s and is used by Windows extensively. It was also recently added to KIMP as a means to export key material.

As an older format, it was designed with support for algorithms like MD2, MD5, SHA1, RC2, RC4, DES and 3DES. It was recently standardized by IETF RFC 7292 and the IETF took this opportunity to add support for SHA2 but have not made an accommodation for any mode of AES.

Thankfully PKCS #12 is based on CMS which does support AES (see RFC 3565 and RFC 5959). In theory, even though RFC 7292 doesn’t specify a need to support AES,  there is enough information to use it in an interoperable way.

Another standard used by PKCS#12 is PKCS #5 (RFC 2898), this specifies the mechanics of password-based encryption. It provides two ways to do this PBES1 and PBES2, more on this later.

Despite these complexities and constraints, we wanted to see if we could provide a secure and interoperable implementation of PKCS#12 in PKIjs since it is one of the most requested features. This post documents our findings.

Observations

Lots of unused options

PKCS#12 is the swiss army knife of certificate and key transport. It can carry keys, certificates, CRLs and other metadata. The specification offers both password and certificate-based schemes for privacy and integrity protection.

This is accomplished by having an outer “integrity envelope” that may contain many “privacy envelopes”.

When using certificates to protect the integrity of its contents, the specification uses the CMS SignedData message to represent this envelope.

When using passwords it uses an HMAC placed into its own data structure.

The use of an outer envelope containing many different inner envelopes enables the implementor to mix and match various types of protection approaches into a single file. It also enables implementers to use different secrets for integrity and privacy protection.

Despite this flexibility, most implementations only support the following combination:

  1. Optionally using the HMAC mechanism for integrity protection of certificates
  2. Using password-based privacy protection for keys
  3. Using the same password for privacy protection of keys

NOTE: OpenSSL was the only implementation we found that supports the ability to use a different password for the “integrity envelope” and  “privacy envelope”. This is done using the “twopass” option of the pkcs12 command.

The formats flexibility is great. We can envision a few different types of scenarios one might be able to create with it, but there appears to be no documented profile making it clear what is necessary to interoperate with other implementations.

It would be ideal if a future incarnation of the specification provided this information for implementers.

Consequences of legacy

As mentioned earlier there are two approaches for password based encryption defined in PKCS#5 (RFC 2989).

The first is called PBES1, according to the RFC :

PBES1 is recommended only for compatibility with existing
applications, since it supports only two underlying encryption
schemes, each of which has a key size (56 or 64 bits) that may not be
large enough for some applications.

The PKCS#12 RFC reinforces this by saying:

The procedures and algorithms
defined in PKCS #5 v2.1 should be used instead.
Specifically, PBES2 should be used as encryption scheme, with PBKDF2
as the key derivation function.

With that said it seems, there is no indication in the format on which scheme is used which leaves an implementor forced with trying both options to “just see which one works”.

Additionally it seems none of the implementations we have encountered followed this advice and only support the PBES1 approach.

Cryptographic strength

When choosing cryptographic algorithm one of the things you need to be mindful of is the minimum effective strength. There are differing opinions on what each algorithm’s minimum effective strength is at different key lengths, but normally the difference not significant. These opinions also change as computing power increases along with our ability to break different algorithms.

When choosing which algorithms to use together you want to make sure all algorithms you use in the construction offer similar security properties If you do not do this the weakest algorithm is the weakest link in the construction. It seems there is no guidance in the standard for topic, as a result we have found:

  1. Files that use weak algorithms protection of strong  keys,
  2. Files that use a weaker algorithm for integrity than they do for privacy.

This first point is particularly important. The most recently available guidance for minimum effective key length comes from the German Federal Office for Information Security, BSI. These guidelines, when interpreted in the context of PKCS #12, recommend that a 2048-bit RSA key protection happens using SHA2-256 and a 128-bit symmetric key.

The strongest symmetric algorithm specified in the PKCS #12 standard is 3DES which only offers an effective strength of 112-bits.  This means, if you believe the BSI, it is not possible to create a standards compliant PKCS#12 that offer the effective security necessary to protect a 2048-bit RSA key.

ANSI on the other hand, currently recommends that 100-bit symmetric key is an acceptable minimum strength to protect a 2048-bit RSA key (though this recommendation was made a year earlier than the BSI recommendation).

So if you believe ANSI, the strongest suite offered by RFC 7292 is strong enough to “adequately” protect such a key, just not a larger one.

The unfortunate situation we are left with in is that it is not possible to create a “standards compliant” PKCS12 that support modern cryptographic recommendations.

Implementations

OpenSSL

A while ago OpenSSL was updated to support AES-CBC in PKCS#8 which is the format that PKCS#12 uses to represent keys.  In an ideal world, we would be using AES-GCM for our interoperability target but we will take what we can get.

To create such a file you would use a command similar to this:

rmh$ openssl genrsa 2048|openssl pkcs8 -topk8 -v2 aes-256-cbc -out key.pem

Generating RSA private key, 2048 bit long modulus

……………+++

……………….+++

e is 65537 (0x10001)

Enter Encryption Password:

Verifying – Enter Encryption Password:
rmh$ cat key.pem

—–BEGIN ENCRYPTED PRIVATE KEY—–

…

…

…

—–END ENCRYPTED PRIVATE KEY—–

If you look at the resulting file with an ASN.1 parser you will see the file says the Key Encryption Key (KEK) is aes-256-cbc.

It seems the latest OpenSSL (1.0.2d) will even let us do this with a PKCS#12, those commands would look something like this:

openssl genrsa 2048|openssl pkcs8 -topk8 -v2 aes-256-cbc -out key.pem

openssl req -new -key key.pem -out test.csr

openssl x509 -req -days 365 -in test.csr -signkey key.pem -out test.cer

openssl pkcs12 -export -inkey key.pem -in test.cer -out test.p12 -certpbe AES-256-CBC -keypbe AES-256-CBC

NOTE: If you do not specify explicitly specify the certpbe and keypbe algorithm this version defaults to using pbewithSHAAnd40BitRC2-CBC to protect the certificate and pbeWithSHAAnd3-KeyTripleDES-CBC to protect the key.

RC2 was designed in 1987 and has been considered weak for a very long time. 3DES is still considered by many to offer 112-bits of security though in 2015 it is clearly not an algorithm that should still be in use.

Since it supports it OpenSSL should really be updated to use aes-cbc-256 by default and it would be nice if  support for AES-GCM was also added.

NOTE: We also noticed if you specify “-certpbe NONE and -keypbe NONE” (which we would not recommend) that OpenSSL will create a PKCS#12 that uses password-based integrity protection and no privacy protection.

Another unfortunate realization is OpenSSL uses an iteration count of 2048 when deriving a key from a password, by today’s standards is far too small.

We also noticed the OpenSSL output of the pkcs12 command does not indicate what algorithms were used to protect the key or the certificate, this may be one reason why the defaults were never changed — users simply did not notice:

rmh$ openssl pkcs12 -in windows10_test.pfx

Enter Import Password:

MAC verified OK

Bag Attributes

   localKeyID: 01 00 00 00

   friendlyName: {4BC68C1A-28E3-41DA-BFDF-07EB52C5D72E}

   Microsoft CSP Name: Microsoft Base Cryptographic Provider v1.0

Key Attributes

   X509v3 Key Usage: 10

Enter PEM pass phrase:

Bag Attributes

   localKeyID: 01 00 00 00

subject=/CN=Test/O=2/OU=1/[email protected]/C=<\xD0\xBE

issuer=/CN=Test/O=2/OU=1/[email protected]/C=<\xD0\xBE

—–BEGIN CERTIFICATE—–

…

…

—–END CERTIFICATE—–

Windows

Unfortunately, it seems that all versions of Windows (even Windows 10) still produces PKCS #12’s using pbeWithSHAAnd3-KeyTripleDES-CBC for “privacy” of keys and privacy of certificates it uses pbeWithSHAAnd40BitRC2-CBC. It then relies on the HMAC scheme for integrity.

Additionally it seems it only supports PBES1 and not PBES2.

Windows also uses an iteration count of 2048 when deriving keys from passwords which is far too small.

It also seems unlike OpenSSL, Windows is not able to work with files produced with more secure encryption schemes and ciphers.

PKIjs

PKIjs has two, arguably conflicting goals, the first of which is to enable modern web applications to interoperate with traditional X.509 based applications. The second of which is to use modern and secure options when doing this.

WebCrypto has a similar set of guiding principles, this is why it does not support weaker algorithms like RC2, RC4 and 3DES.

Instead of bringing in javascript based implementations of these weak algorithms into PKIjs we have decided to only support the algorithms supported by webCrypto (aes-256-cbc, aes-256-gcm with SHA1 or SHA2 using PBES2.

This represents a tradeoff. The keys and certificates and exported by PKIjs will be protected with the most interoperable and secure pairing of algorithms available but the resulting files will still not work in any version of Windows (even the latest Windows 10 1511 build).

The profile of PKCS#12 PKIjs creates that will work with OpenSSL will only do so if you the -nomacver option:

openssl pkcs12 -in pkijs_pkcs12.pfx -nomacver


This is because OpenSSL uses the older PBKDF1 for integrity protection and PKIjs is using the newer PBKDF2, as a result of this command integrity will not be checked on the PKCS#12.

With that caveat, here is an example of how one would generate a PKCS#12 with PKIjs.

Summary

Despite its rocky start, PKCS#12 is still arguably one of the most important cryptographic message formats. An attempt has been made to modernize it somewhat, but they did not go far enough.

It also seems OpenSSL has made an attempt to work around this gap by adding support for AES-CBC to their implementation.

Windows on the other hand still only appear to support only the older encryption construct with the weaker ciphers.

That said even when strong, modern cryptography are in use we must remember any password-based encryption scheme will only be as secure as the password that is used with it. As a proof point, consider these tools for PKCS#12 and PKCS#8 that make password cracking trivial for these formats.

We believe the storage and transport of encrypted private keys is an important enough topic that it deserves a modern and secure standard. With that in mind recommend the following changes to RFC 7292 be made:

  • Deprecate the use of all weaker algorithms,
  • Make it clear both AES-CBC and AES-GCM should be supported,
  • Make it clear what the minimal profile of this fairly complex standard is,
  • Require the support of PBES2,
  • Be explicit and provide modern key stretching guidance for use with PBKDF2,
  • Clarify how one uses PBMAC1 for integrity protection,
  • Require that the certificates and the keys are both protected with the same or equally secure mechanisms.

As for users, there are a few things you can do to protect yourself from the associated issues discussed here, some of which include:

  • Do not use passwords to protect your private keys. Instead generated symmetric keys or generated passwords of an appropriate lengths (e.g. “openssl rand -base64 32”),
  • When using OpenSSL always specify which algorithms are being used when creating your PKCS#12 files and double check those are actually the algorithms being used,
  • Ensure that the algorithms you are choosing to protect your keys offer a minimum effective key length equal to or greater than the keys you will protect,
  • Securely delete any intermediate copies of keys or inputs to the key generation or export process.

Ryan & Yury

 

Graphene CLI

Leave a reply

A few weeks ago we released Graphene, a PKCS #11 binding for NodeJS. Today we are releasing a CLI based on the same library.

Our goal was to make it easy for you to work with PKCS#11 devices in a vendor neutral way without the complexity of installing and configuring a bunch of miscellaneous packages.

Using the tool itself is pretty straight forward, load the PKCS#11 module and open a session to a slot then you are ready to go:

[email protected]:/home/graphene# graphene 

> module load -l /usr/safenet/lunaclient/lib/libCryptoki2_64.so -n test


Module info

==============================

  Library: /usr/safenet/lunaclient/lib/libCryptoki2_64.so

  Name: test

  Description: Chrystoki                      

  Cryptoki version: 2.20


> slot open --slot 0 -p {YourPin}


Session is started


>

Once logged in you can always find help with the ‘?’ command:

> ?

  Commands:

    ?         output usage information
    exit      exit from the application
    module    load and retrieve information from the PKCS#11 module
    slot      open a session to a slot and work with its contents
    object    manage objects on the device
    hash      compute a hash for a given file
    test      benchmark device performance for common algorithms

  Note:

    all commands require you to first load the PKCS #11 module

      > module load -l /path/to/pkcs11/lib/name.so -n LibName

Some things you can do with the tool:

  • Enumerate the supported algorithms of your device
  • Enumerate and manage the objects on your device
  • Benchmark the performance of your device
  • Hash a file utilizing your device

We recently benchmarked the capabilities of a SafeNet G5, you can see the results here.
We hope you find it useful.

Certificate based Encryption in PDFs

1 Reply

The PDF format is the most used file format on the internet but unfortunately, the specification that documents it leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to producing signed and encrypted documents.

PDF is still the only truly cross-platform “paper like” experience available to users. It also has a number great of features that many are not aware of, one of which is the ability to encrypt the PDFs so they are not readable without having access to the appropriate secrets.

It supports two approaches to this encryption, one based on passwords and one based on digital certificates. In a later post I will discuss the issues in password based encryption but here I want to talk about the second approach as it offers the potential for the most security.

When looking at our findings it’s important to keep in mind the history and timeline of the PDF format. It was released as a free to implement specification in 1993 and then was standardized by ISO in 2008. It has been left largely unchanged since then. This is important because much of the practices and approaches in the standard were considered state-of-the-art in the 90s but are no longer considered strong today.

NOTE: The below is based on our findings while reading a pre-release of ISO 32000-2 that was approximately one-year-old. It is notably more readable  than its predecessor, 32000-1, in many areas but it seems little change has been made to how signing and encryption is handled. Unfortunately the ISO standardization process does not produce public “intermediate” documents and this was the freshest document we could find.

Message Format

The granddaddy of signature formats is something called PKCS #7. This was defined by RSA in the mid-90s and later handed off to the IETF when they republished in as Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) in 1999. CMS is now a superset of PKCS #7 where additional attributes and cryptographic algorithms are also supported. The PDF specification however still references signature format as being PKCS #7 but its references are to the at least one CMS RFC and not the PKCS#7 one. Most implementations, however, such as Adobe Acrobat, have added support for algorithms and options that are available in the latest CMS specifications so we can assume this is what they mean. This is not a security issue, but it does create a mess when it comes to interoperability.

This inconsistency in the specification makes it harder for an implementer to know which bits and pieces to implicitly pull in from different unreferenced specifications. This not only makes interoperability more challenging, but it also results in a lack of common capabilities across implementations.  

Padding

The most popular asymmetric cryptographic algorithm of all time is clearly RSA, it serves as the foundation of most key management and distributions solutions in use today. When encrypting data with RSA you need to “pad” the data you are encrypting. In the 90’s you would pad using a scheme called RSA PKCS v1.5. The problem is that in the late 90s it became clear this scheme was attackable.

These attacks are most relevant to systems that are online, for example, a website or API applying verifying electronic signatures or decrypting documents. As a result of these weaknesses, in 2001 the world started moving to something called OAEP that addressed the identified risks in PKCS v1.5. It takes a decade or more to depreciate a cryptographic technique that is broadly in use, and thankfully we now see cryptographic libraries (such as the new WebCrypto) deprecating these weaker constructs to prevent future scenarios from accidentally supporting them.

Unfortunately, it seems the PDF specification was never updated to use the more secure OAEP padding scheme. While there is nothing stopping a client that implements the standard from also using the more modern padding algorithm also (just as many have adopted features in the latest CMS specification even though not part of the PDF specification) it seems the most popular client, Adobe Acrobat, has not decided to do that. This means if people want to encrypt documents using the more secure approach they won’t be able to work with Adobe Acrobat.

It is about time the standard incorporated OAEP and thankfully doing so is almost as easy as “search and replace”.

Content Encryption

The PDF specification states that AES should be used in Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) mode. There is nothing wrong with CBC per-se, with that said it is “easy to get it wrong” and for this reason, most practitioners will tell you to use a mode called Galois Counter Mode (GCM). This mode of encryption is an “authenticated” mode where you can easily tell if a message has been modified when decrypting.

It is true that the PDF format includes an MD5 as an integrity mechanism, but unless special care is given one could still easily expose the associated attack vectors.

The ability to verify the integrity of an encrypted message before decryption is materially important to systems that handle lots of documents. Doing so as part of the encryption mechanism, as is done with GCM, ensures this happens. GCM has been around since 2005, three years before the ISO standard for PDF was published — It is about time the standard incorporated it.

Key Strength

In the certificate based PDF encryption scheme there are two “secrets” that need to be protected, the first is called a “seed” by the specification. This seed is used to derive the content encryption key (CEK) that is used to encrypt the actual PDF content.

This “seed” is a 20-byte random value. The 20-bytes was more than sufficient when working with shorter key lengths like those used in 3DES but with AES-256 it is not sufficient. When deriving the key in accordance with the specification this “seed” is mixed with a hash of portions of the document. It is possible the authors thought the use of the hash was sufficient to provide the additional entropy, but it is not. These inputs are not random, they may be unique to a given document, but all instances of that document would have the same values. As a result, there is insufficient entropy to get all the security benefits of AES-256.

The specification should be updated to indicate that for a 128-bit AES key you use at least 16-bytes, for a 256-bit AES key you use at least 32-bytes of entropy.

ECC Support

ECC represents an important cryptographic tool with lots of great security properties. Several PDF clients, including Acrobat Reader, support signing and verifying signatures based on ECC.  There would probably be even more, but again, the PDF specification we have states the format is PKCS #7 even though it links to an older copy of the CMS standard.

Those clients that do this do support ECC do so via ECDSA (this was specified in 2002 for CMS and later updated in 2010). 

It is also possible to encrypt with ECC. This would be done using ECDH and is also documented in the same RFCs. Adding support into the specification would make sense since many cryptographic guidelines across the world mandate the use of ECC based algorithms. Additionally signing and encryption go hand-in-hand and if one signs with ECC they surely would also like to encrypt the same document and today that’s not possible, at least in Adobe Reader, without also being enrolled for an RSA certificate.

Long story short, it is about time both ECC signing and encryption are supported by the PDF standard.

Implementation Guidance

The specification as written offers essentially no implementation guidance. There are numerous cases of this, but one of the more glaring implications comes up when we think about the key hierarchy used in encryption.

While the specifications use of two keys in the key hierarchy is a convoluted approach, if done correctly it can work fine. One of the larger issues here an implementor needs to be mindful of is the “effective key strength” they are offering the users of their products. For example, if you encrypt the “seed” using 3DES and the “content” with AES then the content is only as secure as the 3DES key. We have encountered at least one client that does exactly this. Another variant we have seen is a client that encrypts the “seed” with AES-128 and the content with “AES-256”, of course, the client tells the users the file was protected with the larger key length.

The specification should be updated to make it clear that both keys need to be protected with algorithms that offer the same effective security, and in fact, should simply be protected using the same algorithm.

Backward Compatibility

Another example of missing implementation guidance is that of backwards compatibility. While I am sure there are examples outside of how documents are signed and encrypted what is directly obvious to us is that the specification includes support for many algorithms that are weak and/or broken (for example MD2, MD5, DES, and 3DES).

The text really should be updated to make it clear that no new documents should be created using these algorithms and recommend that clients warn when viewing documents that have been produced with them since the guarantees of privacy, integrity and authentication the user expects are likely not being met.

Conclusion

The PDF format uses cryptographic approaches from the 90s and implementers have pulled in, on an as needed basis of more modern cryptographic approaches. Today algorithms that would be used to build such a standard would be AES-GCM, ECDSA, ECDH, and RSA-OAEP almost all of which are not supported by PDF as specified.

Thankfully the ISO 32000-2 specification is not yet complete, it is my hope that it will be soon, and that the editors of this specification read this and update the draft to incorporate this feedback.  If they do then we will all be better off.

Ryan & Yury

PKIjs and trust lists

Leave a reply

As you probably know Yury and I think Same Origin Certificates (or Browser Bound Certificates) are the way PKI enabled applications will be built in the future. This is why we have been working on PKIjs for so long.

One of the issues you have when building applications that use this concept is deciding what Certificate Authorities you should trust. The answer to that question is pretty nuanced but the short version is only as many as you absolutely need to.

There are four trust stores that I personally think are interesting when thinking about digital signatures these include Mozilla’s, Microsoft’s, Adobe’s and the EUTL.

If you want to work with these lists you need to be able to parse them and get the CA certificates that are meaningful to you.

This is why we have created tl-create, it can (at the time of this post) parse the Mozilla list and the EUTL list.*

* At this time the EUTL trust list does no signature verification and should only be used for experimentation.

The output of which is either a PEM bag of certificates or Javascript array that you can import into your PKIjs based applications as trust anchors.

Hopefully you will find this interesting and useful, pull requests are welcomed.

ECC, NSA and Crypto Agility

1 Reply

Matthew Green, someone I admire, recently did a wonderful post on the NSA announcement deprecating secp256r1 and letting people know they are no longer encouraging further adoption of the Suite B.

As always Mr. Green has put together a well researched article that is a joy to read. I won’t rehash it more than necessary, but I think he missed an angle that deserves some discussion.

Over the last decade (Suite B is over 10 years old) we have seen more improvements in cryptanalysis than you can shake a stick at. This, as his post points out, is important since ECC doesn’t offer much of a margin for error.

“But while the ability to use (relatively) tiny elliptic curve points is wonderful for implementers, it leaves no room for error. If NSA’s mathematicians began to make even modest, but sustained advances in the state of the art for solving the ECDLP, it would put the entire field at risk. Beginning with the smallest of the standard curves, P-256, which would now provide less than the required 128-bit security.”

With hindsight, we can probably say those who advocated its adoption did not fully appreciate this, or how easy and cheap it it is today to get access to massive amounts computing power.

“Did I mention that as part of the recent announcement, NSA also deprecated P-256?”

If I were a betting man, I would say this is why they have deprecated P-256, not due to some conspiracy theory, instead consider, maybe they are simply playing it safe?

But why then stop encouraging the adoption of Suite B all together? I think the answer to this lays, not in some secret knowledge about advancements in quantum computing, but instead is rooted in the reality that after a decade of pushing ECC it’s still seldom used (when compared to RSA).

If the NSA were to spend the next decade pushing Suite B (or more at the current adoption rates)  they will have spent tons (of the governments and others) of money along with their credibility. This would also be a more difficult task given the IETFs push for Curve25519. All of which would just be thrown out once they pick their “winner” for a quantum computing resistant algorithm.

The reality is getting the world to upgrade its crypto is hard and takes time. Operating systems applications and protocols are simply not designed for it. Additionally, with the way things are designed today it works out to be mostly an all or nothing process. Just look at how difficult the relatively simple  deprecation of SHA1 has been.

I am often the the one who says “You’re not paranoid if they really are out to get you” but in this case I think we’re likely looking at the NSA’s version of pragmatism and not a nefarious plan.

On the other hand, as a friend pointed out this could be a way for them to derail Curve25519, either maliciously or benevolently.

WebCrypto and the modern web app

Leave a reply

There is a famous Mark Zuckerberg quote from 2012 where he states Facebook’s biggest mistake period (in mobile) was their focus on HTML5. It’s been over three years since that statement and a lot has changed. Despite that I still think if I were making a daily use application like Facebook I would do so as a traditional mobile application but let’s face it mobile apps are horrible for infrequent use.

What has changed? today we have browsers that can run Javascript at near-native speeds and the majority of browsers support enough HTML5 to build beautiful and touch friendly “app” experiences without the overhead of an actual application. But there is more to an “app” like experience than a fast touch friendly user user interface, apps also work when there is no network connection and historically web pages have not.

This might seem like a trivial point but consider how many times you have been in a building or location where there was no WiFi and your cellular coverage just didn’t cut it (sorry T-Mobile customers).

Service Workers go a long way to address this problem, and until they are better supported, Polyfills based on App Cache serve as a reasonable substitute, but the problem doesn’t stop there. You also have the problem of how you authenticate entities and protect data while offline; this is where WebCrypto comes in.

The security issues associated with using crypto in Javascript have been covered in great detail but I think Tony Arcieri does the best covering the topic. Long story short you have to be careful to mitigate all the traditional web risks along with following cryptographic best practices, but even when you do that you don’t have cryptographic keys that are in the sole control of the user.

This is because the code that has access to the client side keys is downloaded by the browser frequently and each time that happens the server has a chance to modify the code so it does what it sees fit. In-fact this is exactly what happened in 2007 with a mail provider called Hushmail.

With all that said it is important to keep in mind that the same argument can be made of the browser and and operating system you are using to read this. Like most things it ends up being a trade off, the most obvious example is that of updates. With a desktop application it can take ages to get a security patch deployed en-mass but with a web application it happens automatically and seamlessly (…and doesn’t require a reboot or restart).

The other end of that argument is that the attacker gets to use every one of those seamless updates as an opportunity to attack the core logic of the application. In operating system terms this attack would this would be a library injection. In a web application you would use Content Security Policy (CSP) to mitigate the risk just as you might customize library load paths on an operating system.

OK, so even though you can do crypto in the browser and the security risks can be managed to the same basic profile as performing the cryptography on the server why would you? The answer to that question really depends on the application but if we think about a modern web application the same way we do a mobile app you start to see lots of ways you might apply cryptography locally. Some examples include:

  • Protecting data at rest;
  • Authenticating the user to the offline application;
  • Protecting from a passive attacker with read access;
  • Mixed content sites where a trusted site gates access to a protected resource (via iframes and PostMessage).

It is also important to remember that cryptography is not a panacea. Even by encrypting data  (in your mobile app or web app) or by using signing with client side keys you have no guarantees how the those keys are protected by your applications host (browser or os), and even if you did there is very little anyone can do against physical attacks.

“If you think cryptography can solve your problem, then you don’t understand your problem and you don’t understand cryptography.” – Bruce Schneier

So what should your take away be? I want you to see that even though WebCrypto is not perfect, mobile and desktop applications have many of the same risks. I also believe despite its imperfection WebCrypto does have a place in the modern web stack and this is particularly true for infrequent tasks where the friction of app acquisition and other associated tasks prove to be a barrier to adoption.

Additionally I want to encourage you to carefully to consider the mistakes mobile application developers make so you you don’t repeat the them when you build these modern web based applications.

P.S. If you have not read Adam Shostack’s “Threat Modeling – Designing for Security” you should give it a look.

Wet, Dry, Electronic, Digital and Hybrid Signatures

1 Reply

When talking about signatures there are several different styles of signatures people refer to. The first is the one we are all the familiar with – wet signatures.

A wet signature is created when a person physically puts their mark a document. In some cultures this is done by writing a name in a stylized cursive format or using a seal. The name wet implies that the signature was made with ink or wax, it might also indicate that the signature is “fresh” and the ink has not yet dried. Probably the most recognizable wet signature is that of John Hancock.

john hanko

These sorts of signatures have been in use for as long as we have had a written language (and maybe even before). We do know that since the sixth century forensic document analysis has been used to verify the authenticity of these signatures.

Dry signature is a term used as a way to describe both a wet signature where the “ink has dried” and as a higher level description that captures many other forms of non-ink based signatures (such as electronic and digital signatures).

Electronic signatures for the most part can be thought of as a “synthetic wet signature”. These signatures are produced as their name implies electronically and most commonly try to look as much like a wet signature as possible. Services such as HelloSign and Pandadoc are examples of services that leverage these synthetic wet signatures. With these services you upload a document, they convert it to a PDF and then you insert what is ultimately a picture of something that resembles your wet signature. These pictures of your signature are typically produced by digitizing your signature, uploading a copy of your signature or by the use of varied cursive typography.

With electronic signatures this “picture” intended to make both the signer and recipient of a signed document “feel” like the ritual they are undergoing is equivalent to that of the the traditional paper process that is traditionally used.

That said ones synthetic wet signature very rarely reflect a person’s real wet signature so this is really more about symbolism than anything else. One’s ability to prove a that it was really “you” who signed with an electronic signature is really limited to a statement from the facilitator of the signing that essentially says:

“I saw someone on this IP address who was able to access this email address and they asked us to insert this picture in this document – trust us.”

There is no concept of legal identity involved. For most “electronic signatures” there is also no verifiable proof of the claims from the facilitator about the signature. Anyone could trivially re-create a document or log that says something entirely different and it would be very difficult to prove which one represented the truth.

In this log the question of what was signed is captured by embedding a hash of the document that is being “signed”. It is important to understand that this hash alone does not capture what was seen by the user, it simply captures a fingerprint of a binary file. To understand this point just consider how the same website renders differently on Chrome vs Internet Explorer..

If the document were to be modified by someone after the fact one would need to rely on the database of the facilitator to determine what really happened.

In the event such a signature were to be questioned in a court of law it is for the most part left to a case of he-said-she-said. At best you could ask the facilitator to be a witness in the court case to attest to their operational practices and why their logs associated with the activity are most likely true.

Digital signatures are also technically “electronic signatures” but they are notably different in that they leverage strong cryptographic techniques to make it so that any changes to the document are detectable. If only the signer holds the private key that is used to sign the document it is mathematically provable that only the signer could have placed that signature on the document.

For the same symbolism reasons above these signatures will often also contain a synthetic signature.

The question of identity in electronic signatures is most commonly handled via X.509 certificates where a certificate authority goes through a process to verify the identity of the signer and issues them a digital certificate that states “I verified the following information about the holder of this private key”. The information in the certificate may be as little as their email address or as much as their legal identity and physical address.

The nice thing about this approach is that neither the document signing facilitator nor the certificate issuer can pretend to have signed a document — they do not have the private key.

It is still important to ensure adequate logs are maintained to prove what was presented to the user when they placed their digital signature on the document but this defense of this signature is much easier given there is less trust being put on the facilitator to act responsibly.

Hybrid signatures or notarized electronic signatures represent a mix of “electronic signatures” and “digital signatures”. This is what DocuSign and EchoSign do. They apply a the synthetic wet signature for the user and append a log saying “trust us this is what we saw happen” but they sign the document and that log with their own digital signature acting as a notary of sorts.

This is far superior to what the pure electronic signature providers provide because it in the event there is a question about the validity of the signature there is less question of the integrity of the logs.

For example consider the case where a pure electronic signature was put into question; one could simply argue the service provider’s database was compromised and any data within it was suspect.

With that said it is far better to use a pure digital signature approach as it removes even more arguments about the validity of the signature.