Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/08/cryptanalysis_o_5.html
DefCon talk here.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/08/cryptanalysis_o_5.html
DefCon talk here.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/05/ann_mitchell_bl.html
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/05/denmark_sweden_.html
This paper describes a SIGINT and code-breaking alliance between Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and France called Maximator:
Abstract: This article is first to report on the secret European five-partner sigint alliance Maximator that started in the late 1970s. It discloses the name Maximator and provides documentary evidence. The five members of this European alliance are Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, and France. The cooperation involves both signals analysis and crypto analysis. The Maximator alliance has remained secret for almost fifty years, in contrast to its Anglo-Saxon Five-Eyes counterpart. The existence of this European sigint alliance gives a novel perspective on western sigint collaborations in the late twentieth century. The article explains and illustrates, with relatively much attention for the cryptographic details, how the five Maximator participants strengthened their effectiveness via the information about rigged cryptographic devices that its German partner provided, via the joint U.S.-German ownership and control of the Swiss producer Crypto AG of cryptographic devices.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/04/another_story_o.html
This one is from the Netherlands. It seems to be clever cryptanalysis rather than a backdoor.
The Dutch intelligence service has been able to read encrypted communications from dozens of countries since the late 1970s thanks to a microchip, according to research by de Volkskrant on Thursday. The Netherlands could eavesdrop on confidential communication from countries such as Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Philips, together with Siemens, built an encryption machine in the late 1970s. The device, the Aroflex, was used for secret communication between NATO allies. In addition, the companies also wanted to market the T1000CA, a commercial variant of the Aroflex with less strong cryptography.
The Volkskrant investigation shows that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Marine Intelligence Service (MARID) cracked the cryptography of this device before it was launched. Philips helped the ministry and the intelligence service.
Normally it would take at least a month and a half to crack the T1000CA encryption. “Too long to get useful information from intercepted communication,” the newspaper writes. But MARID employees, together with Philips, succeeded in accelerating this 2.500 times by developing a special microchip.
The T1000CA was then sold to numerous non-NATO countries, including the Middle East and Asia. These countries could then be overheard by the Dutch intelligence services for years.
The 1970s was a decade of really bad commercial cryptography. DES, in 1975, was an improvement with its 56-bit key. I’m sure there are lots of these stories.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/12/rsa-240_factore.html
This just in:
We are pleased to announce the factorization of RSA-240, from RSA’s challenge list, and the computation of a discrete logarithm of the same size (795 bits):
RSA-240 = 12462036678171878406583504460810659043482037465167880575481878888328 966680118821085503603957027250874750986476843845862105486553797025393057189121 768431828636284694840530161441643046806687569941524699318570418303051254959437 1372159029236099 = 509435952285839914555051023580843714132648382024111473186660296521821206469746 700620316443478873837606252372049619334517 * 244624208838318150567813139024002896653802092578931401452041221336558477095178 155258218897735030590669041302045908071447
The previous records were RSA-768 (768 bits) in December 2009 , and a 768-bit prime discrete logarithm in June 2016 .
It is the first time that two records for integer factorization and discrete logarithm are broken together, moreover with the same hardware and software.
Both computations were performed with the Number Field Sieve algorithm, using the open-source CADO-NFS software .
The sum of the computation time for both records is roughly 4000 core-years, using Intel Xeon Gold 6130 CPUs as a reference (2.1GHz). A rough breakdown of the time spent in the main computation steps is as follows.
RSA-240 sieving: 800 physical core-years
RSA-240 matrix: 100 physical core-years
DLP-240 sieving: 2400 physical core-years
DLP-240 matrix: 700 physical core-years
The computation times above are well below the time that was spent with the previous 768-bit records. To measure how much of this can be attributed to Moore’s law, we ran our software on machines that are identical to those cited in the 768-bit DLP computation , and reach the conclusion that sieving for our new record size on these old machines would have taken 25% less time than the reported sieving time of the 768-bit DLP computation.
EDITED TO ADD (12/4): News article. Dan Goodin points out that the speed improvements were more due to improvements in the algorithms than from Moore’s Law.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/11/the_nsa_warns_o.html
The NSA has released a security advisory warning of the dangers of TLS inspection:
Transport Layer Security Inspection (TLSI), also known as TLS break and inspect, is a security process that allows enterprises to decrypt traffic, inspect the decrypted content for threats, and then re-encrypt the traffic before it enters or leaves the network. Introducing this capability into an enterprise enhances visibility within boundary security products, but introduces new risks. These risks, while not inconsequential, do have mitigations.
The primary risk involved with TLSI’s embedded CA is the potential abuse of the CA to issue unauthorized certificates trusted by the TLS clients. Abuse of a trusted CA can allow an adversary to sign malicious code to bypass host IDS/IPSs or to deploy malicious services that impersonate legitimate enterprise services to the hosts.
A further risk of introducing TLSI is that an adversary can focus their exploitation efforts on a single device where potential traffic of interest is decrypted, rather than try to exploit each location where the data is stored.Setting a policy to enforce that traffic is decrypted and inspected only as authorized, and ensuring that decrypted traffic is contained in an out-of-band, isolated segment of the network prevents unauthorized access to the decrypted traffic.
To minimize the risks described above, breaking and inspecting TLS traffic should only be conducted once within the enterprise network. Redundant TLSI, wherein a client-server traffic flow is decrypted, inspected, and re-encrypted by one forward proxy and is then forwarded to a second forward proxy for more of the same,should not be performed.Inspecting multiple times can greatly complicate diagnosing network issues with TLS traffic. Also, multi-inspection further obscures certificates when trying to ascertain whether a server should be trusted. In this case, the “outermost” proxy makes the decisions on what server certificates or CAs should be trusted and is the only location where certificate pinning can be performed.Finally, a single TLSI implementation is sufficient for detecting encrypted traffic threats; additional TLSI will have access to the same traffic. If the first TLSI implementation detected a threat, killed the session, and dropped the traffic, then additional TLSI implementations would be rendered useless since they would not even receive the dropped traffic for further inspection. Redundant TLSI increases the risk surface, provides additional opportunities for adversaries to gain unauthorized access to decrypted traffic, and offers no additional benefits.
Nothing surprising or novel. No operational information about who might be implementing these attacks. No classified information revealed.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/10/factoring_2048-.html
This theoretical paper shows how to factor 2048-bit RSA moduli with a 20-million qubit quantum computer in eight hours. It’s interesting work, but I don’t want overstate the risk.
We know from Shor’s Algorithm that both factoring and discrete logs are easy to solve on a large, working quantum computer. Both of those are currently beyond our technological abilities. We barely have quantum computers with 50 to 100 qubits. Extending this requires advances not only in the number of qubits we can work with, but in making the system stable enough to read any answers. You’ll hear this called “error rate” or “coherence” — this paper talks about “noise.”
Advances are hard. At this point, we don’t know if they’re “send a man to the moon” hard or “faster-than-light travel” hard. If I were guessing, I would say they’re the former, but still harder than we can accomplish with our current understanding of physics and technology.
I write about all this generally, and in detail, here. (Short summary: Our work on quantum-resistant algorithms is outpacing our work on quantum computers, so we’ll be fine in the short run. But future theoretical work on quantum computing could easily change what “quantum resistant” means, so it’s possible that public-key cryptography will simply not be possible in the long run. That’s not terrible, though; we have a lot of good scalable secret-key systems that do much the same things.)
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/10/more_cryptanaly.html
In 1999, I invented the Solitaire encryption algorithm, designed to manually encrypt data using a deck of cards. It was written into the plot of Neal Stephenson’s novel Cryptonomicon, and I even wrote an afterward to the book describing the cipher.
I don’t talk about it much, mostly because I made a dumb mistake that resulted in the algorithm not being reversible. Still, for the short message lengths you’re likely to use a manual cipher for, it’s still secure and will likely remain secure.
Here’s some new cryptanalysis:
Abstract: The Solitaire cipher was designed by Bruce Schneier as a plot point in the novel Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson. The cipher is intended to fit the archetype of a modern stream cipher whilst being implementable by hand using a standard deck of cards with two jokers. We find a model for repetitions in the keystream in the stream cipher Solitaire that accounts for the large majority of the repetition bias. Other phenomena merit further investigation. We have proposed modifications to the cipher that would reduce the repetition bias, but at the cost of increasing the complexity of the cipher (probably beyond the goal of allowing manual implementation). We have argued that the state update function is unlikely to lead to cycles significantly shorter than those of a random bijection.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/09/crown_sterling_.html
Earlier this month, I made fun of a company called Crown Sterling, for…for…for being a company that deserves being made fun of.
This morning, the company announced that they “decrypted two 256-bit asymmetric public keys in approximately 50 seconds from a standard laptop computer.” Really. They did. This keylength is so small it has never been considered secure. It was too small to be part of the RSA Factoring Challenge when it was introduced in 1991. In 1977, when Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Len Adelman first described RSA, they included a challenge with a 426-bit key. (It was factored in 1994.)
The press release goes on: “Crown Sterling also announced the consistent decryption of 512-bit asymmetric public key in as little as five hours also using standard computing.” They didn’t demonstrate it, but if they’re right they’ve matched a factoring record set in 1999. Five hours is significantly less than the 5.2 months it took in 1999, but slower than would be expected if Crown Sterling just used the 1999 techniques with modern CPUs and networks.
Is anyone taking this company seriously anymore? I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if this was a hoax press release. It’s not currently on the company’s website. (And, if it is a hoax, I apologize to Crown Sterling. I’ll post a retraction as soon as I hear from you.)
EDITED TO ADD: First, the press release is real. And second, I forgot to include the quote from CEO Robert Grant: “Today’s decryptions demonstrate the vulnerabilities associated with the current encryption paradigm. We have clearly demonstrated the problem which also extends to larger keys.”
People, this isn’t hard. Find an RSA Factoring Challenge number that hasn’t been factored yet and factor it. Once you do, the entire world will take you seriously. Until you do, no one will. And, bonus, you won’t have to reveal your super-secret world-destabilizing cryptanalytic techniques.
EDITED TO ADD (9/21): Others are laughing at this, too.
EDITED TO ADD (9/24): More commentary.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/05/cryptanalysis_o_4.html
A weird paper was posted on the Cryptology ePrint Archive (working link is via the Wayback Machine), claiming an attack against the NSA-designed cipher SIMON. You can read some commentary about it here. Basically, the authors claimed an attack so devastating that they would only publish a zero-knowledge proof of their attack. Which they didn’t. Nor did they publish anything else of interest, near as I can tell.
The paper has since been deleted from the ePrint Archive, which feels like the correct decision on someone’s part.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/05/cryptanalyzing_.html
A pair of Russia-designed cryptographic algorithms — the Kuznyechik block cipher and the Streebog hash function — have the same flawed S-box that is almost certainly an intentional backdoor. It’s just not the kind of mistake you make by accident, not in 2014.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/03/enigma_typex_an.html
GCHQ has put simulators for the Enigma, Typex, and Bombe on the Internet.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/09/evidence_for_th.html
This is interesting research: “On the Security of the PKCS#1 v1.5 Signature Scheme“:
Abstract: The RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature algorithm is the most widely used digital signature scheme in practice. Its two main strengths are its extreme simplicity, which makes it very easy to implement, and that verification of signatures is significantly faster than for DSA or ECDSA. Despite the huge practical importance of RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures, providing formal evidence for their security based on plausible cryptographic hardness assumptions has turned out to be very difficult. Therefore the most recent version of PKCS#1 (RFC 8017) even recommends a replacement the more complex and less efficient scheme RSA-PSS, as it is provably secure and therefore considered more robust. The main obstacle is that RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures use a deterministic padding scheme, which makes standard proof techniques not applicable.
We introduce a new technique that enables the first security proof for RSA-PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures. We prove full existential unforgeability against adaptive chosen-message attacks (EUF-CMA) under the standard RSA assumption. Furthermore, we give a tight proof under the Phi-Hiding assumption. These proofs are in the random oracle model and the parameters deviate slightly from the standard use, because we require a larger output length of the hash function. However, we also show how RSA-PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures can be instantiated in practice such that our security proofs apply.
In order to draw a more complete picture of the precise security of RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures, we also give security proofs in the standard model, but with respect to weaker attacker models (key-only attacks) and based on known complexity assumptions. The main conclusion of our work is that from a provable security perspective RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 can be safely used, if the output length of the hash function is chosen appropriately.
I don’t think the protocol is “provably secure,” meaning that it cannot have any vulnerabilities. What this paper demonstrates is that there are no vulnerabilities under the model of the proof. And, more importantly, that PKCS #1 v1.5 is as secure as any of its successors like RSA-PSS and RSA Full-Domain.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/09/new_findings_ab.html
Lots of people are e-mailing me about this new result on the distribution of prime numbers. While interesting, it has nothing to do with cryptography. Cryptographers aren’t interested in how to find prime numbers, or even in the distribution of prime numbers. Public-key cryptography algorithms like RSA get their security from the difficulty of factoring large composite numbers that are the product of two prime numbers. That’s completely different.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/07/defeating_the_i.html
Recently, Apple introduced restricted mode to protect iPhones from attacks by companies like Cellebrite and Greyshift, which allow attackers to recover information from a phone without the password or fingerprint. Elcomsoft just announced that it can easily bypass it.
There is an important lesson in this: security is hard. Apple Computer has one of the best security teams on the planet. This feature was not tossed out in a day; it was designed and implemented with a lot of thought and care. If this team could make a mistake like this, imagine how bad a security feature is when implemented by a team without this kind of expertise.
This is the reason actual cryptographers and security engineers are very skeptical when a random company announces that their product is “secure.” We know that they don’t have the requisite security expertise to design and implement security properly. We know they didn’t take the time and care. We know that their engineers think they understand security, and designed to a level that they couldn’t break.
Getting security right is hard for the best teams on the world. It’s impossible for average teams.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/05/critical_pgp_vu.html
We’ll publish critical vulnerabilities in PGP/GPG and S/MIME email encryption on 2018-05-15 07:00 UTC. They might reveal the plaintext of encrypted emails, including encrypted emails sent in the past. There are currently no reliable fixes for the vulnerability. If you use PGP/GPG or S/MIME for very sensitive communication, you should disable it in your email client for now.
This sounds like a protocol vulnerability, but we’ll learn more tomorrow.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/05/lc4_another_pen.html
Interesting symmetric cipher: LC4:
Abstract: ElsieFour (LC4) is a low-tech cipher that can be computed by hand; but unlike many historical ciphers, LC4 is designed to be hard to break. LC4 is intended for encrypted communication between humans only, and therefore it encrypts and decrypts plaintexts and ciphertexts consisting only of the English letters A through Z plus a few other characters. LC4 uses a nonce in addition to the secret key, and requires that different messages use unique nonces. LC4 performs authenticated encryption, and optional header data can be included in the authentication. This paper defines the LC4 encryption and decryption algorithms, analyzes LC4’s security, and describes a simple appliance for computing LC4 by hand.
Almost two decades ago I designed Solitaire, a pen-and-paper cipher that uses a deck of playing cards to store the cipher’s state. This algorithm uses specialized tiles. This gives the cipher designer more options, but it can be incriminating in a way that regular playing cards are not.
Still, I like seeing more designs like this.
Hacker News thread.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/two_nsa_algorit.html
The ISO has rejected two symmetric encryption algorithms: SIMON and SPECK. These algorithms were both designed by the NSA and made public in 2013. They are optimized for small and low-cost processors like IoT devices.
The risk of using NSA-designed ciphers, of course, is that they include NSA-designed backdoors. Personally, I doubt that they’re backdoored. And I always like seeing NSA-designed cryptography (particularly its key schedules). It’s like examining alien technology.
Post Syndicated from Eben Upton original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/why-raspberry-pi-isnt-vulnerable-to-spectre-or-meltdown/
Over the last couple of days, there has been a lot of discussion about a pair of security vulnerabilities nicknamed Spectre and Meltdown. These affect all modern Intel processors, and (in the case of Spectre) many AMD processors and ARM cores. Spectre allows an attacker to bypass software checks to read data from arbitrary locations in the current address space; Meltdown allows an attacker to read arbitrary data from the operating system kernel’s address space (which should normally be inaccessible to user programs).
Both vulnerabilities exploit performance features (caching and speculative execution) common to many modern processors to leak data via a so-called side-channel attack. Happily, the Raspberry Pi isn’t susceptible to these vulnerabilities, because of the particular ARM cores that we use.
To help us understand why, here’s a little primer on some concepts in modern processor design. We’ll illustrate these concepts using simple programs in Python syntax like this one:
t = a+b u = c+d v = e+f w = v+g x = h+i y = j+k
While the processor in your computer doesn’t execute Python directly, the statements here are simple enough that they roughly correspond to a single machine instruction. We’re going to gloss over some details (notably pipelining and register renaming) which are very important to processor designers, but which aren’t necessary to understand how Spectre and Meltdown work.
For a comprehensive description of processor design, and other aspects of modern computer architecture, you can’t do better than Hennessy and Patterson’s classic Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach.
The simplest sort of modern processor executes one instruction per cycle; we call this a scalar processor. Our example above will execute in six cycles on a scalar processor.
Examples of scalar processors include the Intel 486 and the ARM1176 core used in Raspberry Pi 1 and Raspberry Pi Zero.
The obvious way to make a scalar processor (or indeed any processor) run faster is to increase its clock speed. However, we soon reach limits of how fast the logic gates inside the processor can be made to run; processor designers therefore quickly began to look for ways to do several things at once.
An in-order superscalar processor examines the incoming stream of instructions and tries execute more than one at once, in one of several “pipes”, subject to dependencies between the instructions. Dependencies are important: you might think that a two-way superscalar processor could just pair up (or dual-issue) the six instructions in our example like this:
t, u = a+b, c+d v, w = e+f, v+g x, y = h+i, j+k
But this doesn’t make sense: we have to compute
v before we can compute
w, so the third and fourth instructions can’t be executed at the same time. Our two-way superscalar processor won’t be able to find anything to pair with the third instruction, so our example will execute in four cycles:
t, u = a+b, c+d v = e+f # second pipe does nothing here w, x = v+g, h+i y = j+k
Examples of superscalar processors include the Intel Pentium, and the ARM Cortex-A7 and Cortex-A53 cores used in Raspberry Pi 2 and Raspberry Pi 3 respectively. Raspberry Pi 3 has only a 33% higher clock speed than Raspberry Pi 2, but has roughly double the performance: the extra performance is partly a result of Cortex-A53’s ability to dual-issue a broader range of instructions than Cortex-A7.
Going back to our example, we can see that, although we have a dependency between
w, we have other independent instructions later in the program that we could potentially have used to fill the empty pipe during the second cycle. An out-of-order superscalar processor has the ability to shuffle the order of incoming instructions (again subject to dependencies) in order to keep its pipelines busy.
An out-of-order processor might effectively swap the definitions of
x in our example like this:
t = a+b u = c+d v = e+f x = h+i w = v+g y = j+k
allowing it to execute in three cycles:
t, u = a+b, c+d v, x = e+f, h+i w, y = v+g, j+k
Examples of out-of-order processors include the Intel Pentium 2 (and most subsequent Intel and AMD x86 processors), and many recent ARM cores, including Cortex-A9, -A15, -A17, and -A57.
Reordering sequential instructions is a powerful way to recover more instruction-level parallelism, but as processors become wider (able to triple- or quadruple-issue instructions) it becomes harder to keep all those pipes busy. Modern processors have therefore grown the ability to speculate. Speculative execution lets us issue instructions which might turn out not to be required (because they are branched over): this keeps a pipe busy, and if it turns out that the instruction isn’t executed, we can just throw the result away.
To demonstrate the benefits of speculation, let’s look at another example:
t = a+b u = t+c v = u+d if v: w = e+f x = w+g y = x+h
Now we have dependencies from
v, and from
y, so a two-way out-of-order processor without speculation won’t ever be able to fill its second pipe. It spends three cycles computing
v, after which it knows whether the body of the
if statement will execute, in which case it then spends three cycles computing
y. Assuming the
if (a branch instruction) takes one cycle, our example takes either four cycles (if
v turns out to be zero) or seven cycles (if
v is non-zero).
Speculation effectively shuffles the program like this:
t = a+b u = t+c v = u+d w_ = e+f x_ = w_+g y_ = x_+h if v: w, x, y = w_, x_, y_
so we now have additional instruction level parallelism to keep our pipes busy:
t, w_ = a+b, e+f u, x_ = t+c, w_+g v, y_ = u+d, x_+h if v: w, x, y = w_, x_, y_
Cycle counting becomes less well defined in speculative out-of-order processors, but the branch and conditional update of
y are (approximately) free, so our example executes in (approximately) three cycles.
In the good old days*, the speed of processors was well matched with the speed of memory access. My BBC Micro, with its 2MHz 6502, could execute an instruction roughly every 2µs (microseconds), and had a memory cycle time of 0.25µs. Over the ensuing 35 years, processors have become very much faster, but memory only modestly so: a single Cortex-A53 in a Raspberry Pi 3 can execute an instruction roughly every 0.5ns (nanoseconds), but can take up to 100ns to access main memory.
At first glance, this sounds like a disaster: every time we access memory, we’ll end up waiting for 100ns to get the result back. In this case, this example:
a = mem b = mem
would take 200ns.
In practice, programs tend to access memory in relatively predictable ways, exhibiting both temporal locality (if I access a location, I’m likely to access it again soon) and spatial locality (if I access a location, I’m likely to access a nearby location soon). Caching takes advantage of these properties to reduce the average cost of access to memory.
A cache is a small on-chip memory, close to the processor, which stores copies of the contents of recently used locations (and their neighbours), so that they are quickly available on subsequent accesses. With caching, the example above will execute in a little over 100ns:
a = mem # 100ns delay, copies mem[0:15] into cache b = mem # mem is in the cache
From the point of view of Spectre and Meltdown, the important point is that if you can time how long a memory access takes, you can determine whether the address you accessed was in the cache (short time) or not (long time).
“… a side-channel attack is any attack based on information gained from the physical implementation of a cryptosystem, rather than brute force or theoretical weaknesses in the algorithms (compare cryptanalysis). For example, timing information, power consumption, electromagnetic leaks or even sound can provide an extra source of information, which can be exploited to break the system.”
Spectre and Meltdown are side-channel attacks which deduce the contents of a memory location which should not normally be accessible by using timing to observe whether another location is present in the cache.
Now let’s look at how speculation and caching combine to permit the Meltdown attack. Consider the following example, which is a user program that sometimes reads from an illegal (kernel) address:
t = a+b u = t+c v = u+d if v: w = kern_mem[address] # if we get here crash x = w&0x100 y = user_mem[x]
Now our out-of-order two-way superscalar processor shuffles the program like this:
t, w_ = a+b, kern_mem[address] u, x_ = t+c, w_&0x100 v, y_ = u+d, user_mem[x_] if v: # crash w, x, y = w_, x_, y_ # we never get here
Even though the processor always speculatively reads from the kernel address, it must defer the resulting fault until it knows that
v was non-zero. On the face of it, this feels safe because either:
vis zero, so the result of the illegal read isn’t committed to
vis non-zero, so the program crashes before the read is committed to
However, suppose we flush our cache before executing the code, and arrange
d so that
v is zero. Now, the speculative load in the third cycle:
v, y_ = u+d, user_mem[x_]
will read from either address
0x000 or address
0x100 depending on the eighth bit of the result of the illegal read. Because
v is zero, the results of the speculative instructions will be discarded, and execution will continue. If we time a subsequent access to one of those addresses, we can determine which address is in the cache. Congratulations: you’ve just read a single bit from the kernel’s address space!
The real Meltdown exploit is more complex than this, but the principle is the same. Spectre uses a similar approach to subvert software array bounds checks.
Modern processors go to great lengths to preserve the abstraction that they are in-order scalar machines that access memory directly, while in fact using a host of techniques including caching, instruction reordering, and speculation to deliver much higher performance than a simple processor could hope to achieve. Meltdown and Spectre are examples of what happens when we reason about security in the context of that abstraction, and then encounter minor discrepancies between the abstraction and reality.
The lack of speculation in the ARM1176, Cortex-A7, and Cortex-A53 cores used in Raspberry Pi render us immune to attacks of the sort.
* days may not be that old, or that good
The post Why Raspberry Pi isn’t vulnerable to Spectre or Meltdown appeared first on Raspberry Pi.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/12/the_extended_ra.html
Matthew Green wrote a fascinating blog post about the NSA’s efforts to increase the amount of random data exposed in the TLS protocol, and how it interacts with the NSA’s backdoor into the DUAL_EC_PRNG random number generator to weaken TLS.
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.