# TLS 1.2 will be required for all AWS FIPS endpoints beginning March 31, 2021

Post Syndicated from Janelle Hopper original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/tls-1-2-required-for-aws-fips-endpoints/

To help you meet your compliance needs, we’re updating all AWS Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) endpoints to a minimum of Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2. We have already updated over 40 services to require TLS 1.2, removing support for TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1. Beginning March 31, 2021, if your client application cannot support TLS 1.2, it will result in connection failures. In order to avoid an interruption in service, we encourage you to act now to ensure that you connect to AWS FIPS endpoints at TLS version 1.2. This change does not affect non-FIPS AWS endpoints.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) continues to notify impacted customers directly via their Personal Health Dashboard and email. However, if you’re connecting anonymously to AWS shared resources, such as through a public Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) bucket, then you would not have received a notification, as we cannot identify anonymous connections.

## Why are you removing TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 support from FIPS endpoints?

At AWS, we’re continually expanding the scope of our compliance programs to meet the needs of customers who want to use our services for sensitive and regulated workloads. Compliance programs, including FedRAMP, require a minimum level of TLS 1.2. To help you meet compliance requirements, we’re updating all AWS FIPS endpoints to a minimum of TLS version 1.2 across all AWS Regions. Following this update, you will not be able to use TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 for connections to FIPS endpoints.

## How can I detect if I am using TLS 1.0 or TLS 1.1?

To detect the use of TLS 1.0 or 1.1, we recommend that you perform code, network, or log analysis. If you are using an AWS Software Developer Kit (AWS SDK) or Command Line Interface (CLI), we have provided hyperlinks to detailed guidance in our previous TLS blog post about how to examine your client application code and properly configure the TLS version used.

When the application source code is unavailable, you can use a network tool, such as TCPDump (Linux) or Wireshark (Linux or Windows), to analyze your network traffic to find the TLS versions you’re using when connecting to AWS endpoints. For a detailed example of using these tools, see the example, below.

If you’re using Amazon S3, you can also use your access logs to view the TLS connection information for these services and identify client connections that are not at TLS 1.2.

## What is the most common use of TLS 1.0 or TLS 1.1?

The most common client applications that use TLS 1.0 or 1.1 are Microsoft .NET Framework versions earlier than 4.6.2. If you use the .NET Framework, please confirm you are using version 4.6.2 or later. For information on how to update and configure .NET Framework to support TLS 1.2, see How to enable TLS 1.2 on clients.

## How do I know if I am using an AWS FIPS endpoint?

All AWS services offer TLS 1.2 encrypted endpoints that you can use for all API calls. Some AWS services also offer FIPS 140-2 endpoints for customers who need to use FIPS-validated cryptographic libraries to connect to AWS services. You can check our list of all AWS FIPS endpoints and compare the list to your application code, configuration repositories, DNS logs, or other network logs.

## EXAMPLE: TLS version detection using a packet capture

To capture the packets, multiple online sources, such as this article, provide guidance for setting up TCPDump on a Linux operating system. On a Windows operating system, the Wireshark tool provides packet analysis capabilities and can be used to analyze packets captured with TCPDump or it can also directly capture packets.

In this example, we assume there is a client application with the local IP address 10.25.35.243 that is making API calls to the CloudWatch FIPS API endpoint in the AWS GovCloud (US-West) Region. To analyze the traffic, first we look up the endpoint URL in the AWS FIPS endpoint list. In our example, the endpoint URL is monitoring.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com. Then we use NSLookup to find the IP addresses used by this FIPS endpoint.

Figure 1: Use NSLookup to find the IP addresses used by this FIPS endpoint

Wireshark is then used to open the captured packets, and filter to just the packets with the relevant IP address. This can be done automatically by selecting one of the packets in the upper section, and then right-clicking to use the Conversation filter/IPv4 option.

After the results are filtered to only the relevant IP addresses, the next step is to find the packet whose description in the Info column is Client Hello. In the lower packet details area, expand the Transport Layer Security section to find the version, which in this example is set to TLS 1.0 (0x0301). This indicates that the client only supports TLS 1.0 and must be modified to support a TLS 1.2 connection.

Figure 2: After the conversation filter has been applied, select the Client Hello packet in the top pane. Expand the Transport Layer Security section in the lower pane to view the packet details and the TLS version.

Figure 3 shows what it looks like after the client has been updated to support TLS 1.2. This second packet capture confirms we are sending TLS 1.2 (0x0303) in the Client Hello packet.

Figure 3: The client TLS has been updated to support TLS 1.2

## Is there more assistance available?

If you have any questions or issues, you can start a new thread on one of the AWS forums, or contact AWS Support or your technical account manager (TAM). The AWS support tiers cover development and production issues for AWS products and services, along with other key stack components. AWS Support doesn’t include code development for client applications.

Additionally, you can use AWS IQ to find, securely collaborate with, and pay AWS-certified third-party experts for on-demand assistance to update your TLS client components. Visit the AWS IQ page for information about how to submit a request, get responses from experts, and choose the expert with the right skills and experience. Log in to your console and select Get Started with AWS IQ to start a request.

Want more AWS Security how-to content, news, and feature announcements? Follow us on Twitter.

### Janelle Hopper

Janelle is a Senior Technical Program Manager in AWS Security with over 15 years of experience in the IT security field. She works with AWS services, infrastructure, and administrative teams to identify and drive innovative solutions that improve AWS’ security posture.

### Daniel Salzedo

Daniel is a Senior Specialist Technical Account Manager – Security. He has over 25 years of professional experience in IT in industries as diverse as video game development, manufacturing, banking and used car sales. He loves working with our wonderful AWS customers to help them solve their complex security challenges at scale.

# Over 40 services require TLS 1.2 minimum for AWS FIPS endpoints

In a March 2020 blog post, we told you about work Amazon Web Services (AWS) was undertaking to update all of our AWS Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) endpoints to a minimum of Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2 across all AWS Regions. Today, we’re happy to announce that over 40 services have been updated and now require TLS 1.2:

These services no longer support using TLS 1.0 or TLS 1.1 on their FIPS endpoints. To help you meet your compliance needs, we are updating all AWS FIPS endpoints to a minimum of TLS 1.2 across all Regions. We will continue to update our services to support only TLS 1.2 or later on AWS FIPS endpoints, which you can check on the AWS FIPS webpage. This change doesn’t affect non-FIPS AWS endpoints.

When you make a connection from your client application to an AWS service endpoint, the client provides its TLS minimum and TLS maximum versions. The AWS service endpoint will always select the maximum version offered.

## What is TLS?

TLS is a cryptographic protocol designed to provide secure communication across a computer network. API calls to AWS services are secured using TLS.

## What is FIPS 140-2?

The FIPS 140-2 is a US and Canadian government standard that specifies the security requirements for cryptographic modules that protect sensitive information.

## What are AWS FIPS endpoints?

All AWS services offer TLS 1.2 encrypted endpoints that can be used for all API calls. Some AWS services also offer FIPS 140-2 endpoints for customers who need to use FIPS validated cryptographic libraries to connect to AWS services.

## Why are we upgrading to TLS 1.2?

Our upgrade to TLS 1.2 across all Regions reflects our ongoing commitment to help customers meet their compliance needs.

## Is there more assistance available to help verify or update client applications?

If you’re using an AWS software development kit (AWS SDK), you can find information about how to properly configure the minimum and maximum TLS versions for your clients in the following AWS SDK topics:

You can also visit Tools to Build on AWS and browse by programming language to find the relevant SDK. AWS Support tiers cover development and production issues for AWS products and services, along with other key stack components. AWS Support doesn’t include code development for client applications.

If you have any questions or issues, you can start a new thread on one of the AWS forums, or contact AWS Support or your technical account manager (TAM).

Want more AWS Security how-to content, news, and feature announcements? Follow us on Twitter.

### Janelle Hopper

Janelle Hopper is a Senior Technical Program Manager in AWS Security with over 15 years of experience in the IT security field. She works with AWS services, infrastructure, and administrative teams to identify and drive innovative solutions that improve AWS’ security posture.

### Marta Taggart

Marta is a Seattle-native and Senior Program Manager in AWS Security, where she focuses on privacy, content development, and educational programs. Her interest in education stems from two years she spent in the education sector while serving in the Peace Corps in Romania. In her free time, she’s on a global hunt for the perfect cup of coffee.

# KEMTLS: Post-quantum TLS without signatures

Post Syndicated from Sofía Celi original https://blog.cloudflare.com/kemtls-post-quantum-tls-without-signatures/

The Transport Layer Security protocol (TLS), which secures most Internet connections, has mainly been a protocol consisting of a key exchange authenticated by digital signatures used to encrypt data at transport[1]. Even though it has undergone major changes since 1994, when SSL 1.0 was introduced by Netscape, its main mechanism has remained the same. The key exchange was first based on RSA, and later on traditional Diffie-Hellman (DH) and Elliptic-curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH). The signatures used for authentication have almost always been RSA-based, though in recent years other kinds of signatures have been adopted, mainly ECDSA and Ed25519. This recent change to elliptic curve cryptography in both at the key exchange and at the signature level has resulted in considerable speed and bandwidth benefits in comparison to traditional Diffie-Hellman and RSA.

TLS is the main protocol that protects the connections we use everyday. It’s everywhere: we use it when we buy products online, when we register for a newsletter — when we access any kind of website, IoT device, API for mobile apps and more, really. But with the imminent threat of the arrival of quantum computers (a threat that seems to be getting closer and closer), we need to reconsider the future of TLS once again. A wide-scale post-quantum experiment was carried out by Cloudflare and Google: two post-quantum key exchanges were integrated into our TLS stack and deployed at our edge servers as well as in Chrome Canary clients. The goal of that experiment was to evaluate the performance and feasibility of deployment of two post-quantum key exchanges in TLS.

Similar experiments have been proposed for introducing post-quantum algorithms into the TLS handshake itself. Unfortunately, it seems infeasible to replace both the key exchange and signature with post-quantum primitives, because post-quantum cryptographic primitives are bigger, or slower (or both), than their predecessors. The proposed algorithms under consideration in the NIST post-quantum standardization process use mathematical objects that are larger than the ones used for elliptic curves, traditional Diffie-Hellman, or RSA. As a result, the overall size of public keys, signatures and key exchange material is much bigger than those from elliptic curves, Diffie-Hellman, or RSA.

How can we solve this problem? How can we use post-quantum algorithms as part of the TLS handshake without making the material too big to be transmitted? In this blogpost, we will introduce a new mechanism for making this happen. We’ll explain how it can be integrated into the handshake and we’ll cover implementation details. The key observation in this mechanism is that, while post-quantum algorithms have bigger communication size than their predecessors, post-quantum key exchanges have somewhat smaller sizes than post-quantum signatures, so we can try to replace signatures with key exchanges in some places to save space.  We will only focus on the TLS 1.3 handshake as it is the TLS version that should be currently used.

### Past experiments: making the TLS 1.3 handshake post-quantum

TLS 1.3 was introduced in August 2018, and it brought many security and performance improvements (notably, having only one round-trip to complete the handshake). But TLS 1.3 is designed for a world with classical computers, and some of its functionality will be broken by quantum computers when they do arrive.

The primary goal of TLS 1.3 is to provide authentication (the server side of the channel is always authenticated, the client side is optionally authenticated), confidentiality, and integrity by using a handshake protocol and a record protocol. The handshake protocol, the one of interest for us today, establishes the cryptographic parameters for securing and authenticating a connection. It can be thought of as having three main phases, as defined in RFC8446:

–  The Parameter Negotiation phase (referred to as ‘Server Parameters’ in RFC8446), which establishes other handshake parameters (whether the client is authenticated, application-layer protocol support, etc).

–  The Key Exchange phase, which establishes shared keying material and selects the cryptographic parameters to be used. Everything after this phase will be encrypted.

–  The Authentication phase, which authenticates the server (and, optionally, the client) and provides key confirmation and handshake integrity.

The main idea of past experiments that introduced post-quantum algorithms into the handshake of TLS 1.3 was to use them in place of classical algorithms by advertising them as part of the supported groups[2] and key share[3] extensions, and, therefore, establishing with them the negotiated connection parameters. Key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs) are an abstraction of the basic key exchange primitive, and were used to generate the shared secrets. When using a pre-shared key, its symmetric algorithms can be easily replaced by post-quantum KEMs as well; and, in the case of password-authenticated TLS, some ideas have been proposed on how to use post-quantum algorithms with them.

Most of the above ideas only provide what is often defined as ‘transitional security’, because its main focus is to provide quantum-resistant confidentiality, and not to take quantum-resistant authentication into account. It is possible to use post-quantum signatures for TLS authentication, but the post-quantum signatures are larger than traditional ones. Furthermore, it is worth noting that using post-quantum signatures is much more expensive than using post-quantum KEMs.

We can estimate the impact of such a replacement on network traffic by simply looking at the sum of the cryptographic objects that are transmitted during the handshake. A typical TLS 1.3 handshake using elliptic curve X25519 and RSA-2048 would transmit 1,376 bytes, which would correspond to the public keys for key exchange, the certificate, the signature of the handshake, and the certificate chain. If we were to replace X25519 by the post-quantum KEM Kyber512 and RSA by the post-quantum signature Dilithium II, two of the more efficient proposals, the size transmitted data would increase to 10,036 bytes[4]. The increase is mostly due to the size of the post-quantum signature algorithm.

The question then is: how can we achieve full post-quantum security and give a handshake that is efficient to be used?

### A more efficient proposal: KEMTLS

There is a long history of other mechanisms, besides signatures, being used for authentication. Modern protocols, such as the Signal protocol, the Noise framework, or WireGuard, rely on key exchange mechanisms for authentication; but they are unsuitable for the TLS 1.3 case as they expect the long-term key material to be known in advance by the interested parties.

The OPTLS proposal by Krawczyk and Wee authenticates the TLS handshake without signatures by using a non-interactive key exchange (NIKE). However, the only somewhat efficient construction for a post-quantum NIKE is CSIDH, the security of which is the subject of an ongoing debate. But we can build on this idea, and use KEMs for authentication. KEMTLS, the current proposed experiment, replaces the handshake signature by a post-quantum KEM key exchange. It was designed and introduced by Peter Schwabe, Douglas Stebila and Thom Wiggers in the publication ‘Post-Quantum TLS Without Handshake Signatures’.

KEMTLS, therefore, achieves the same goals as TLS 1.3 (authentication, confidentiality and integrity) in the face of quantum computers. But there’s one small difference compared to the TLS 1.3 handshake. KEMTLS allows the client to send encrypted application data in the second client-to-server TLS message flow when client authentication is not required, and in the third client-to-server TLS message flow when mutual authentication is required. Note that with TLS 1.3, the server is able to send encrypted and authenticated application data in its first response message (although, in most uses of TLS 1.3, this feature is not actually used). With KEMTLS, when client authentication is not required, the client is able to send its first encrypted application data after the same number of handshake round trips as in TLS 1.3.

Intuitively, the handshake signature in TLS 1.3 proves possession of the private key corresponding to the public key certified in the TLS 1.3 server certificate. For these signature schemes, this is the straightforward way to prove possession; another way to prove possession is through key exchanges. By carefully considering the key derivation sequence, a server can decrypt any messages sent by the client only if it holds the private key corresponding to the certified public key. Therefore, implicit authentication is fulfilled. It is worth noting that KEMTLS still relies on signatures by certificate authorities to authenticate the long-term KEM keys.

With KEMTLS, application data transmitted during the handshake is implicitly authenticated rather than explicitly (as in TLS 1.3), and has slightly weaker downgrade resilience and forward secrecy; but full downgrade resilience and forward secrecy are achieved once the KEMTLS handshake completes.

By replacing the handshake signature by a KEM key exchange, we reduce the size of the data transmitted in the example handshake to 8,344 bytes, using Kyber512 and Dilithium II — a significant reduction. We can reduce the handshake size even for algorithms such as the NTRU-assumption based KEM NTRU and signature algorithm Falcon, which have a less-pronounced size gap. Typically, KEM operations are computationally much lighter than signing operations, which makes the reduction even more significant.

KEMTLS was presented at ACM CCS 2020. You can read more about its details in the paper. It was initially implemented in the RustTLS library by Thom Wiggers using optimized C/assembly implementations of the post-quantum algorithms provided by the PQClean and Open Quantum Safe projects.

### Cloudflare and KEMTLS: the implementation

As part of our effort to show that TLS can be completely post-quantum safe, we implemented the full KEMTLS handshake in Golang’s TLS 1.3 suite. The implementation was done in several steps:

1. We first needed to clone our own version of Golang, so we could add different post-quantum algorithms to it. You can find our own version here. This code gets constantly updated with every release of Golang, following these steps.
2. We needed to implement post-quantum algorithms in Golang, which we did on our own cryptographic library, CIRCL.
3. As we cannot force certificate authorities to use certificates with long-term post-quantum KEM keys, we decided to use Delegated Credentials. A delegated credential is a short-lasting key that the certificate’s owner has delegated for use in TLS. Therefore, they can be used for post-quantum KEM keys. See its implementation in our Golang code here.
4. We implemented mutual auth (client and server authentication) KEMTLS by using Delegated Credentials for the authentication process. See its implementation in our Golang code here. You can also check its test for an overview of how it works.

Implementing KEMTLS was a straightforward process, although it did require changes to the way Golang handles a TLS 1.3 handshake and how the key schedule works.

A “regular” TLS 1.3 handshake in Golang (from the server perspective) looks like this:

func (hs *serverHandshakeStateTLS13) handshake() error {
c := hs.c

// For an overview of the TLS 1.3 handshake, see RFC 8446, Section 2.
if err := hs.processClientHello(); err != nil {
return err
}
if err := hs.checkForResumption(); err != nil {
return err
}
if err := hs.pickCertificate(); err != nil {
return err
}
c.buffering = true
if err := hs.sendServerParameters(); err != nil {
return err
}
if err := hs.sendServerCertificate(); err != nil {
return err
}
if err := hs.sendServerFinished(); err != nil {
return err
}
// Note that at this point we could start sending application data without
// waiting for the client's second flight, but the application might not
// expect the lack of replay protection of the ClientHello parameters.
if _, err := c.flush(); err != nil {
return err
}
if err := hs.readClientCertificate(); err != nil {
return err
}
if err := hs.readClientFinished(); err != nil {
return err
}

atomic.StoreUint32(&c.handshakeStatus, 1)

return nil
}


We had to interrupt the process when the server sends the Certificate (sendServerCertificate()) in order to send the KEMTLS specific messages. In the same way, we had to add the appropriate KEM TLS messages to the client’s handshake. And, as we didn’t want to change so much the way Golang handles TLS 1.3, we only added one new constant to the configuration that can be used by a server in order to ask for the Client’s Certificate (the constant is serverConfig.ClientAuth = RequestClientKEMCert).

The implementation is easy to work with: if a delegated credential or a certificate has a public key of a supported post-quantum KEM algorithm, the handshake will proceed with KEMTLS. If the server requests a Client KEMTLS Certificate, the handshake will use client KEMTLS authentication.

### Running the Experiment

So, what’s next? We’ll take the code we have produced and run it on actual Cloudflare infrastructure to measure how efficiently it works.

### Thanks

Many thanks to everyone involved in the project: Chris Wood, Armando Faz-Hernández, Thom Wiggers, Bas Westerbaan, Peter Wu, Peter Schwabe, Goutam Tamvada, Douglas Stebila, Thibault Meunier, and the whole Cloudflare Research team.

1It is worth noting that the RSA key transport in TLS ≤1.2 has the server only authenticated by RSA public key encryption, although the server’s RSA public key is certified using RSA signatures by Certificate Authorities.
2An extension used by the client to indicate which named groups -Elliptic Curve Groups, Finite Field Groups- it supports for key exchange.
3An extension which contains the endpoint’s cryptographic parameters.
4These numbers, as it is noted in the paper, are based on the round-2 submissions.

# Helping build the next generation of privacy-preserving protocols

Post Syndicated from Nick Sullivan original https://blog.cloudflare.com/next-generation-privacy-protocols/

Over the last ten years, Cloudflare has become an important part of Internet infrastructure, powering websites, APIs, and web services to help make them more secure and efficient. The Internet is growing in terms of its capacity and the number of people using it and evolving in terms of its design and functionality. As a player in the Internet ecosystem, Cloudflare has a responsibility to help the Internet grow in a way that respects and provides value for its users. Today, we’re making several announcements around improving Internet protocols with respect to something important to our customers and Internet users worldwide: privacy.

These initiatives are:

Each of these projects impacts an aspect of the Internet that influences our online lives and digital footprints. Whether we know it or not, there is a lot of private information about us and our lives floating around online. This is something we can help fix.

For over a year, we have been working through standards bodies like the IETF and partnering with the biggest names in Internet technology (including Mozilla, Google, Equinix, and more) to design, deploy, and test these new privacy-preserving protocols at Internet scale. Each of these three protocols touches on a critical aspect of our online lives, and we expect them to help make real improvements to privacy online as they gain adoption.

### A continuing tradition at Cloudflare

One of Cloudflare’s core missions is to support and develop technology that helps build a better Internet. As an industry, we’ve made exceptional progress in making the Internet more secure and robust. Cloudflare is proud to have played a part in this progress through multiple initiatives over the years.

Here are a few highlights:

• Universal SSL™. We’ve been one of the driving forces for encrypting the web. We launched Universal SSL in 2014 to give website encryption to our customers for free and have actively been working along with certificate authorities like Let’s Encrypt, web browsers, and website operators to help remove mixed content. Before Universal SSL launched to give all Cloudflare customers HTTPS for free, only 30% of connections to websites were encrypted. Through the industry’s efforts, that number is now 80% — and a much more significant proportion of overall Internet traffic. Along with doing our part to encrypt the web, we have supported the Certificate Transparency project via Nimbus and Merkle Town, which has improved accountability for the certificate ecosystem HTTPS relies on for trust.
• TLS 1.3 and QUIC. We’ve also been a proponent of upgrading existing security protocols. Take Transport Layer Security (TLS), the underlying protocol that secures HTTPS. Cloudflare engineers helped contribute to the design of TLS 1.3, the latest version of the standard, and in 2016 we launched support for an early version of the protocol. This early deployment helped lead to improvements to the final version of the protocol. TLS 1.3 is now the most widely used encryption protocol on the web and a vital component of the emerging QUIC standard, of which we were also early adopters.
• Securing Routing, Naming, and Time. We’ve made major efforts to help secure other critical components of the Internet. Our efforts to help secure Internet routing through our RPKI toolkit, measurement studies, and “Is BGP Safe Yet” tool have significantly improved the Internet’s resilience against disruptive route leaks. Our time service (time.cloudflare.com) has helped keep people’s clocks in sync with more secure protocols like NTS and Roughtime. We’ve also made DNS more secure by supporting DNS-over-HTTPS and DNS-over-TLS in 1.1.1.1 at launch, along with one-click DNSSEC in our authoritative DNS service and registrar.

Continuing to improve the security of the systems of trust online is critical to the Internet’s growth. However, there is a more fundamental principle at play: respect. The infrastructure underlying the Internet should be designed to respect its users.

### Building an Internet that respects users

When you sign in to a specific website or service with a privacy policy, you know what that site is expected to do with your data. It’s explicit. There is no such visibility to the users when it comes to the operators of the Internet itself. You may have an agreement with your Internet Service Provider (ISP) and the site you’re visiting, but it’s doubtful that you even know which networks your data is traversing. Most people don’t have a concept of the Internet beyond what they see on their screen, so it’s hard to imagine that people would accept or even understand what a privacy policy from a transit wholesaler or an inspection middlebox would even mean.

Without encryption, Internet browsing information is implicitly shared with countless third parties online as information passes between networks. Without secure routing, users’ traffic can be hijacked and disrupted. Without privacy-preserving protocols, users’ online life is not as private as they would think or expect. The infrastructure of the Internet wasn’t built in a way that reflects their expectations.

The good news is that the Internet is continuously evolving. One of the groups that help guide that evolution is the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). The IAB provides architectural oversight to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet’s main standard-setting body. The IAB recently published RFC 8890, which states that individual end-users should be prioritized when designing Internet protocols. It says that if there’s a conflict between the interests of end-users and the interest of service providers, corporations, or governments, IETF decisions should favor end users. One of the prime interests of end-users is the right to privacy, and the IAB published RFC 6973 to indicate how Internet protocols should take privacy into account.

Today’s technical blog posts are about improvements to the Internet designed to respect user privacy. Privacy is a complex topic that spans multiple disciplines, so it’s essential to clarify what we mean by “improving privacy.” We are specifically talking about changing the protocols that handle privacy-sensitive information exposed “on-the-wire” and modifying them so that this data is exposed to fewer parties. This data continues to exist. It’s just no longer available or visible to third parties without building a mechanism to collect it at a higher layer of the Internet stack, the application layer. These changes go beyond website encryption; they go deep into the design of the systems that are foundational to making the Internet what it is.

### The toolbox: cryptography and secure proxies

Two tools for making sure data can be used without being seen are cryptography and secure proxies.

Cryptography allows information to be transformed into a format that a very limited number of people (those with the key) can understand. Some describe cryptography as a tool that transforms data security problems into key management problems. This is a humorous but fair description. Cryptography makes it easier to reason about privacy because only key holders can view data.

Another tool for protecting access to data is isolation/segmentation. By physically limiting which parties have access to information, you effectively build privacy walls. A popular architecture is to rely on policy-aware proxies to pass data from one place to another. Such proxies can be configured to strip sensitive data or block data transfers between parties according to what the privacy policy says.

Both these tools are useful individually, but they can be even more effective if combined. Onion routing (the cryptographic technique underlying Tor) is one example of how proxies and encryption can be used in tandem to enforce strong privacy. Broadly, if party A wants to send data to party B, they can encrypt the data with party B’s key and encrypt the metadata with a proxy’s key and send it to the proxy.

Platforms and services built on top of the Internet can build in consent systems, like privacy policies presented through user interfaces. The infrastructure of the Internet relies on layers of underlying protocols. Because these layers of the Internet are so far below where the user interacts with them, it’s almost impossible to build a concept of user consent. In order to respect users and protect them from privacy issues, the protocols that glue the Internet together should be designed with privacy enabled by default.

The transition from a mostly unencrypted web to an encrypted web has done a lot for end-user privacy. For example, the “coffeeshop stalker” is no longer an issue for most sites. When accessing the majority of sites online, users are no longer broadcasting every aspect of their web browsing experience (search queries, browser versions, authentication cookies, etc.) over the Internet for any participant on the path to see. Suppose a site is configured correctly to use HTTPS. In that case, users can be confident their data is secure from onlookers and reaches only the intended party because their connections are both encrypted and authenticated.

However, HTTPS only protects the content of web requests. Even if you only browse sites over HTTPS, that doesn’t mean that your browsing patterns are private. This is because HTTPS fails to encrypt a critical aspect of the exchange: the metadata. When you make a phone call, the metadata is the phone number, not the call’s contents. Metadata is the data about the data.

To illustrate the difference and why it matters, here’s a diagram of what happens when you visit a website like an imageboard. Say you’re going to a specific page on that board (https://<imageboard>.com/room101/) that has specific embedded images hosted on <embarassing>.com.

The space inside the dotted line here represents the part of the Internet that your data needs to transit. They include your local area network or coffee shop, your ISP, an Internet transit provider, and it could be the network portion of the cloud provider that hosts the server. Users often don’t have a relationship with these entities or a contract to prevent these parties from doing anything with the user’s data. And even if those entities don’t look at the data, a well-placed observer intercepting Internet traffic could see anything sent unencrypted. It would be best if they just didn’t see it at all. In this example, the fact that the user visited <imageboard>.com can be seen by an observer, which is expected. However, though page content is encrypted, it’s possible to learn which specific page you’ve visited can be seen since <embarassing>.com is also visible.

It’s a general rule that if data is available to on-path parties on the Internet, some of these on-path parties will use this data. It’s also true that these on-path parties need some metadata in order to facilitate the transport of this data. This balance is explored in RFC 8558, which explains how protocols should be designed thoughtfully with respect to the balance between too much metadata (bad for privacy) and too little metadata (bad for operations).

In an ideal world, Internet protocols would be designed with the principle of least privilege. They would provide the minimum amount of information needed for the on-path parties (the pipes) to do the job of transporting the data to the right place and keep everything else confidential by default. Current protocols, including TLS 1.3 and QUIC, are important steps towards this ideal but fall short with respect to metadata privacy.

### Knowing both who you are and what you do online can lead to profiling

Today’s announcements reflect two metadata protection levels: the first involves limiting the amount of metadata available to third-party observers (like ISPs). The second involves restricting the amount of metadata that users share with service providers themselves.

Hostnames are an example of metadata that needs to be protected from third-party observers, which DoH and ECH intend to do. However, it doesn’t make sense to hide the hostname from the site you’re visiting. It also doesn’t make sense to hide it from a directory service like DNS. A DNS server needs to know which hostname you’re resolving to resolve it for you!

A privacy issue arises when a service provider knows about both what sites you’re visiting and who you are. Individual websites do not have this dangerous combination of information (except in the case of third party cookies, which are going away soon in browsers), but DNS providers do. Thankfully, it’s not actually necessary for a DNS resolver to know *both* the hostname of the service you’re going to and which IP you’re coming from. Disentangling the two, which is the goal of ODoH, is good for privacy.

### The Internet is part of ‘our’ Infrastructure

Roads should be well-paved, well lit, have accurate signage, and be optimally connected. They aren’t designed to stop a car based on who’s inside it. Nor should they be! Like transportation infrastructure, Internet infrastructure is responsible for getting data where it needs to go, not looking inside packets, and making judgments. But the Internet is made of computers and software, and software tends to be written to make decisions based on the data it has available to it.

Privacy-preserving protocols attempt to eliminate the temptation for infrastructure providers and others to peek inside and make decisions based on personal data. A non-privacy preserving protocol like HTTP keeps data and metadata, like passwords, IP addresses, and hostnames, as explicit parts of the data sent over the wire. The fact that they are explicit means that they are available to any observer to collect and act on. A protocol like HTTPS improves upon this by making some of the data (such as passwords and site content) invisible on the wire using encryption.

The three protocols we are exploring today extend this concept.

• ECH takes most of the unencrypted metadata in TLS (including the hostname) and encrypts it with a key that was fetched ahead of time.
• ODoH (a new variant of DoH co-designed by Apple, Cloudflare, and Fastly engineers) uses proxies and onion-like encryption to make the source of a DNS query invisible to the DNS resolver. This protects the user’s IP address when resolving hostnames.
• OPAQUE uses a new cryptographic technique to keep passwords hidden even from the server. Utilizing a construction called an Oblivious Pseudo-Random Function (as seen in Privacy Pass), the server does not learn the password; it only learns whether or not the user knows the password.

By making sure Internet infrastructure acts more like physical infrastructure, user privacy is more easily protected. The Internet is more private if private data can only be collected where the user has a chance to consent to its collection.

### Doing it together

As much as we’re excited about working on new ways to make the Internet more private, innovation at a global scale doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Each of these projects is the output of a collaborative group of individuals working out in the open in organizations like the IETF and the IRTF. Protocols must come about through a consensus process that involves all the parties that make up the interconnected set of systems that power the Internet. From browser builders to cryptographers, from DNS operators to website administrators, this is truly a global team effort.

We also recognize that sweeping technical changes to the Internet will inevitably also impact the technical community. Adopting these new protocols may have legal and policy implications. We are actively working with governments and civil society groups to help educate them about the impact of these potential changes.

We’re looking forward to sharing our work today and hope that more interested parties join in developing these protocols. The projects we are announcing today were designed by experts from academia, industry, and hobbyists together and were built by engineers from Cloudflare Research (including the work of interns, which we will highlight) with everyone’s support Cloudflare.

If you’re interested in this type of work, we’re hiring!

# Good-bye ESNI, hello ECH!

Post Syndicated from Christopher Patton original https://blog.cloudflare.com/encrypted-client-hello/

Most communication on the modern Internet is encrypted to ensure that its content is intelligible only to the endpoints, i.e., client and server. Encryption, however, requires a key and so the endpoints must agree on an encryption key without revealing the key to would-be attackers. The most widely used cryptographic protocol for this task, called key exchange, is the Transport Layer Security (TLS) handshake.

In this post we’ll dive into Encrypted Client Hello (ECH), a new extension for TLS that promises to significantly enhance the privacy of this critical Internet protocol. Today, a number of privacy-sensitive parameters of the TLS connection are negotiated in the clear. This leaves a trove of metadata available to network observers, including the endpoints’ identities, how they use the connection, and so on.

ECH encrypts the full handshake so that this metadata is kept secret. Crucially, this closes a long-standing privacy leak by protecting the Server Name Indication (SNI) from eavesdroppers on the network. Encrypting the SNI secret is important because it is the clearest signal of which server a given client is communicating with. However, and perhaps more significantly, ECH also lays the groundwork for adding future security features and performance enhancements to TLS while minimizing their impact on the privacy of end users.

ECH is the product of close collaboration, facilitated by the IETF, between academics and the tech industry leaders, including Cloudflare, our friends at Fastly and Mozilla (both of whom are the affiliations of co-authors of the standard), and many others. This feature represents a significant upgrade to the TLS protocol, one that builds on bleeding edge technologies, like DNS-over-HTTPS, that are only now coming into their own. As such, the protocol is not yet ready for Internet-scale deployment. This article is intended as a sign post on the road to full handshake encryption.

## Background

The story of TLS is the story of the Internet. As our reliance on the Internet has grown, so the protocol has evolved to address ever-changing operational requirements, use cases, and threat models. The client and server don’t just exchange a key: they negotiate a wide variety of features and parameters: the exact method of key exchange; the encryption algorithm; who is authenticated and how; which application layer protocol to use after the handshake; and much, much more. All of these parameters impact the security properties of the communication channel in one way or another.

SNI is a prime example of a parameter that impacts the channel’s security. The SNI extension is used by the client to indicate to the server the website it wants to reach. This is essential for the modern Internet, as it’s common nowadays for many origin servers to sit behind a single TLS operator. In this setting, the operator uses the SNI to determine who will authenticate the connection: without it, there would be no way of knowing which TLS certificate to present to the client. The problem is that SNI leaks to the network the identity of the origin server the client wants to connect to, potentially allowing eavesdroppers to infer a lot of information about their communication. (Of course, there are other ways for a network observer to identify the origin — the origin’s IP address, for example. But co-locating with other origins on the same IP address makes it much harder to use this metric to determine the origin than it is to simply inspect the SNI.)

Although protecting SNI is the impetus for ECH, it is by no means the only privacy-sensitive handshake parameter that the client and server negotiate. Another is the ALPN extension, which is used to decide which application-layer protocol to use once the TLS connection is established. The client sends the list of applications it supports — whether it’s HTTPS, email, instant messaging, or the myriad other applications that use TLS for transport security — and the server selects one from this list, and sends its selection to the client. By doing so, the client and server leak to the network a clear signal of their capabilities and what the connection might be used for.

Some features are so privacy-sensitive that their inclusion in the handshake is a non-starter. One idea that has been floated is to replace the key exchange at the heart of TLS with password-authenticated key-exchange (PAKE). This would allow password-based authentication to be used alongside (or in lieu of) certificate-based authentication, making TLS more robust and suitable for a wider range of applications. The privacy issue here is analogous to SNI: servers typically associate a unique identifier to each client (e.g., a username or email address) that is used to retrieve the client’s credentials; and the client must, somehow, convey this identity to the server during the course of the handshake. If sent in the clear, then this personally identifiable information would be easily accessible to any network observer.

A necessary ingredient for addressing all of these privacy leaks is handshake encryption, i.e., the encryption of handshake messages in addition to application data. Sounds simple enough, but this solution presents another problem: how do the client and server pick an encryption key if, after all, the handshake is itself a means of exchanging a key? Some parameters must be sent in the clear, of course, so the goal of ECH is to encrypt all handshake parameters except those that are essential to completing the key exchange.

In order to understand ECH and the design decisions underpinning it, it helps to understand a little bit about the history of handshake encryption in TLS.

### Handshake encryption in TLS

TLS had no handshake encryption at all prior to the latest version, TLS 1.3. In the wake of the Snowden revelations in 2013, the IETF community began to consider ways of countering the threat that mass surveillance posed to the open Internet. When the process of standardizing TLS 1.3 began in 2014, one of its design goals was to encrypt as much of the handshake as possible. Unfortunately, the final standard falls short of full handshake encryption, and several parameters, including SNI, are still sent in the clear. Let’s take a closer look to see why.

The TLS 1.3 protocol flow is illustrated in Figure 1. Handshake encryption begins as soon as the client and server compute a fresh shared secret. To do this, the client sends a key share in its ClientHello message, and the server responds in its ServerHello with its own key share. Having exchanged these shares, the client and server can derive a shared secret. Each subsequent handshake message is encrypted using the handshake traffic key derived from the shared secret. Application data is encrypted using a different key, called the application traffic key, which is also derived from the shared secret. These derived keys have different security properties: to emphasize this, they are illustrated with different colors.

The first handshake message that is encrypted is the server’s EncryptedExtensions. The purpose of this message is to protect the server’s sensitive handshake parameters, including the server’s ALPN extension, which contains the application selected from the client’s ALPN list. Key-exchange parameters are sent unencrypted in the ClientHello and ServerHello.

All of the client’s handshake parameters, sensitive or not, are sent in the ClientHello. Looking at Figure 1, you might be able to think of ways of reworking the handshake so that some of them can be encrypted, perhaps at the cost of additional latency (i.e., more round trips over the network). However, extensions like SNI create a kind of “chicken-and-egg” problem.

The client doesn’t encrypt anything until it has verified the server’s identity (this is the job of the Certificate and CertificateVerify messages) and the server has confirmed that it knows the shared secret (the job of the Finished message). These measures ensure the key exchange is authenticated, thereby preventing monster-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks in which the adversary impersonates the server to the client in a way that allows it to decrypt messages sent by the client.  Because SNI is needed by the server to select the certificate, it needs to be transmitted before the key exchange is authenticated.

In general, ensuring confidentiality of handshake parameters used for authentication is only possible if the client and server already share an encryption key. But where might this key come from?

Full handshake encryption in the early days of TLS 1.3. Interestingly, full handshake encryption was once proposed as a core feature of TLS 1.3. In early versions of the protocol (draft-10, circa 2015), the server would offer the client a long-lived public key during the handshake, which the client would use for encryption in subsequent handshakes. (This design came from a protocol called OPTLS, which in turn was borrowed from the original QUIC proposal.) Called “0-RTT”, the primary purpose of this mode was to allow the client to begin sending application data prior to completing a handshake. In addition, it would have allowed the client to encrypt its first flight of handshake messages following the ClientHello, including its own EncryptedExtensions, which might have been used to protect the client’s sensitive handshake parameters.

Ultimately this feature was not included in the final standard (RFC 8446, published in 2018), mainly because its usefulness was outweighed by its added complexity. In particular, it does nothing to protect the initial handshake in which the client learns the server’s public key. Parameters that are required for server authentication of the initial handshake, like SNI, would still be transmitted in the clear.

Nevertheless, this scheme is notable as the forerunner of other handshake encryption mechanisms, like ECH, that use public key encryption to protect sensitive ClientHello parameters. The main problem these mechanisms must solve is key distribution.

### Before ECH there was (and is!) ESNI

The immediate predecessor of ECH was the Encrypted SNI (ESNI) extension. As its name implies, the goal of ESNI was to provide confidentiality of the SNI. To do so, the client would encrypt its SNI extension under the server’s public key and send the ciphertext to the server. The server would attempt to decrypt the ciphertext using the secret key corresponding to its public key. If decryption were to succeed, then the server would proceed with the connection using the decrypted SNI. Otherwise, it would simply abort the handshake. The high-level flow of this simple protocol is illustrated in Figure 2.

For key distribution, ESNI relied on another critical protocol: Domain Name Service (DNS). In order to use ESNI to connect to a website, the client would piggy-back on its standard A/AAAA queries a request for a TXT record with the ESNI public key. For example, to get the key for crypto.dance, the client would request the TXT record of _esni.crypto.dance:

$dig _esni.crypto.dance TXT +short "/wGuNThxACQAHQAgXzyda0XSJRQWzDG7lk/r01r1ZQy+MdNxKg/mAqSnt0EAAhMBAQQAAAAAX67XsAAAAABftsCwAAA="  The base64-encoded blob contains an ESNI public key and related parameters such as the encryption algorithm. But what’s the point of encrypting SNI if we’re just going to leak the server name to network observers via a plaintext DNS query? Deploying ESNI this way became feasible with the introduction of DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH), which enables encryption of DNS queries to resolvers that provide the DoH service (1.1.1.1 is an example of such a service.). Another crucial feature of DoH is that it provides an authenticated channel for transmitting the ESNI public key from the DoH server to the client. This prevents cache-poisoning attacks that originate from the client’s local network: in the absence of DoH, a local attacker could prevent the client from offering the ESNI extension by returning an empty TXT record, or coerce the client into using ESNI with a key it controls. While ESNI took a significant step forward, it falls short of our goal of achieving full handshake encryption. Apart from being incomplete — it only protects SNI — it is vulnerable to a handful of sophisticated attacks, which, while hard to pull off, point to theoretical weaknesses in the protocol’s design that need to be addressed. ESNI was deployed by Cloudflare and enabled by Firefox, on an opt-in basis, in 2018, an experience that laid bare some of the challenges with relying on DNS for key distribution. Cloudflare rotates its ESNI key every hour in order to minimize the collateral damage in case a key ever gets compromised. DNS artifacts are sometimes cached for much longer, the result of which is that there is a decent chance of a client having a stale public key. While Cloudflare’s ESNI service tolerates this to a degree, every key must eventually expire. The question that the ESNI protocol left open is how the client should proceed if decryption fails and it can’t access the current public key, via DNS or otherwise. Another problem with relying on DNS for key distribution is that several endpoints might be authoritative for the same origin server, but have different capabilities. For example, a request for the A record of “example.com” might return one of two different IP addresses, each operated by a different CDN. The TXT record for “_esni.example.com” would contain the public key for one of these CDNs, but certainly not both. The DNS protocol does not provide a way of atomically tying together resource records that correspond to the same endpoint. In particular, it’s possible for a client to inadvertently offer the ESNI extension to an endpoint that doesn’t support it, causing the handshake to fail. Fixing this problem requires changes to the DNS protocol. (More on this below.) The future of ESNI. In the next section, we’ll describe the ECH specification and how it addresses the shortcomings of ESNI. Despite its limitations, however, the practical privacy benefit that ESNI provides is significant. Cloudflare intends to continue its support for ESNI until ECH is production-ready. ## The ins and outs of ECH The goal of ECH is to encrypt the entire ClientHello, thereby closing the gap left in TLS 1.3 and ESNI by protecting all privacy-sensitive handshake-parameters. Similar to ESNI, the protocol uses a public key, distributed via DNS and obtained using DoH, for encryption during the client’s first flight. But ECH has improvements to key distribution that make the protocol more robust to DNS cache inconsistencies. Whereas the ESNI server aborts the connection if decryption fails, the ECH server attempts to complete the handshake and supply the client with a public key it can use to retry the connection. But how can the server complete the handshake if it’s unable to decrypt the ClientHello? As illustrated in Figure 3, the ECH protocol actually involves two ClientHello messages: the ClientHelloOuter, which is sent in the clear, as usual; and the ClientHelloInner, which is encrypted and sent as an extension of the ClientHelloOuter. The server completes the handshake with just one of these ClientHellos: if decryption succeeds, then it proceeds with the ClientHelloInner; otherwise, it proceeds with the ClientHelloOuter. The ClientHelloInner is composed of the handshake parameters the client wants to use for the connection. This includes sensitive values, like the SNI of the origin server it wants to reach (called the backend server in ECH parlance), the ALPN list, and so on. The ClientHelloOuter, while also a fully-fledged ClientHello message, is not used for the intended connection. Instead, the handshake is completed by the ECH service provider itself (called the client-facing server), signaling to the client that its intended destination couldn’t be reached due to decryption failure. In this case, the service provider also sends along the correct ECH public key with which the client can retry handshake, thereby “correcting” the client’s configuration. (This mechanism is similar to how the server distributed its public key for 0-RTT mode in the early days of TLS 1.3.) At a minimum, both ClientHellos must contain the handshake parameters that are required for a server-authenticated key-exchange. In particular, while the ClientHelloInner contains the real SNI, the ClientHelloOuter also contains an SNI value, which the client expects to verify in case of ECH decryption failure (i.e., the client-facing server). If the connection is established using the ClientHelloOuter, then the client is expected to immediately abort the connection and retry the handshake with the public key provided by the server. It’s not necessary that the client specify an ALPN list in the ClientHelloOuter, nor any other extension used to guide post-handshake behavior. All of these parameters are encapsulated by the encrypted ClientHelloInner. This design resolves — quite elegantly, I think — most of the challenges for securely deploying handshake encryption encountered by earlier mechanisms. Importantly, the design of ECH was not conceived in a vacuum. The protocol reflects the diverse perspectives of the IETF community, and its development dovetails with other IETF standards that are crucial to the success of ECH. The first is an important new DNS feature known as the HTTPS resource record type. At a high level, this record type is intended to allow multiple HTTPS endpoints that are authoritative for the same domain name to advertise different capabilities for TLS. This makes it possible to rely on DNS for key distribution, resolving one of the deployment challenges uncovered by the initial ESNI deployment. For a deep dive into this new record type and what it means for the Internet more broadly, check out Alessandro Ghedini’s recent blog post on the subject. The second is the CFRG’s Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE) standard, which specifies an extensible framework for building public key encryption schemes suitable for a wide variety of applications. In particular, ECH delegates all of the details of its handshake encryption mechanism to HPKE, resulting in a much simpler and easier-to-analyze specification. (Incidentally, HPKE is also one of the main ingredients of Oblivious DNS-over-HTTPS. ## The road ahead The current ECH specification is the culmination of a multi-year collaboration. At this point, the overall design of the protocol is fairly stable. In fact, the next draft of the specification will be the first to be targeted for interop testing among implementations. Still, there remain a number of details that need to be sorted out. Let’s end this post with a brief overview of the road ahead. ### Resistance to traffic analysis Ultimately, the goal of ECH is to ensure that TLS connections made to different origin servers behind the same ECH service provider are indistinguishable from one another. In other words, when you connect to an origin behind, say, Cloudflare, no one on the network between you and Cloudflare should be able to discern which origin you reached, or which privacy-sensitive handshake-parameters you and the origin negotiated. Apart from an immediate privacy boost, this property, if achieved, paves the way for the deployment of new features for TLS without compromising privacy. Encrypting the ClientHello is an important step towards achieving this goal, but we need to do a bit more. An important attack vector we haven’t discussed yet is traffic analysis. This refers to the collection and analysis of properties of the communication channel that betray part of the ciphertext’s contents, but without cracking the underlying encryption scheme. For example, the length of the encrypted ClientHello might leak enough information about the SNI for the adversary to make an educated guess as to its value (this risk is especially high for domain names that are either particularly short or particularly long). It is therefore crucial that the length of each ciphertext is independent of the values of privacy-sensitive parameters. The current ECH specification provides some mitigations, but their coverage is incomplete. Thus, improving ECH’s resistance to traffic analysis is an important direction for future work. ### The spectre of ossification An important open question for ECH is the impact it will have on network operations. One of the lessons learned from the deployment of TLS 1.3 is that upgrading a core Internet protocol can trigger unexpected network behavior. Cloudflare was one of the first major TLS operators to deploy TLS 1.3 at scale; when browsers like Firefox and Chrome began to enable it on an experimental basis, they observed a significantly higher rate of connection failures compared to TLS 1.2. The root cause of these failures was network ossification, i.e., the tendency of middleboxes — network appliances between clients and servers that monitor and sometimes intercept traffic — to write software that expects traffic to look and behave a certain way. Changing the protocol before middleboxes had the chance to update their software led to middleboxes trying to parse packets they didn’t recognize, triggering software bugs that, in some instances, caused connections to be dropped completely. This problem was so widespread that, instead of waiting for network operators to update their software, the design of TLS 1.3 was altered in order to mitigate the impact of network ossification. The ingenious solution was to make TLS 1.3 “look like” another protocol that middleboxes are known to tolerate. Specifically, the wire format and even the contents of handshake messages were made to resemble TLS 1.2. These two protocols aren’t identical, of course — a curious network observer can still distinguish between them — but they look and behave similar enough to ensure that the majority of existing middleboxes don’t treat them differently. Empirically, it was found that this strategy significantly reduced the connection failure rate enough to make deployment of TLS 1.3 viable. Once again, ECH represents a significant upgrade for TLS for which the spectre of network ossification looms large. The ClientHello contains parameters, like SNI, that have existed in the handshake for a long time, and we don’t yet know what the impact will be of encrypting them. In anticipation of the deployment issues ossification might cause, the ECH protocol has been designed to look as much like a standard TLS 1.3 handshake as possible. The most notable difference is the ECH extension itself: if middleboxes ignore it — as they should, if they are compliant with the TLS 1.3 standard — then the rest of the handshake will look and behave very much as usual. It remains to be seen whether this strategy will be enough to ensure the wide-scale deployment of ECH. If so, it is notable that this new feature will help to mitigate the impact of future TLS upgrades on network operations. Encrypting the full handshake reduces the risk of ossification since it means that there are less visible protocol features for software to ossify on. We believe this will be good for the health of the Internet overall. ## Conclusion The old TLS handshake is (unintentionally) leaky. Operational requirements of both the client and server have led to privacy-sensitive parameters, like SNI, being negotiated completely in the clear and available to network observers. The ECH extension aims to close this gap by enabling encryption of the full handshake. This represents a significant upgrade to TLS, one that will help preserve end-user privacy as the protocol continues to evolve. The ECH standard is a work-in-progress. As this work continues, Cloudflare is committed to doing its part to ensure this important upgrade for TLS reaches Internet-scale deployment. # Round 2 post-quantum TLS is now supported in AWS KMS Post Syndicated from Alex Weibel original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/round-2-post-quantum-tls-is-now-supported-in-aws-kms/ AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) now supports three new hybrid post-quantum key exchange algorithms for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2 encryption protocol that’s used when connecting to AWS KMS API endpoints. These new hybrid post-quantum algorithms combine the proven security of a classical key exchange with the potential quantum-safe properties of new post-quantum key exchanges undergoing evaluation for standardization. The fastest of these algorithms adds approximately 0.3 milliseconds of overheard compared to a classical TLS handshake. The new post-quantum key exchange algorithms added are Round 2 versions of Kyber, Bit Flipping Key Encapsulation (BIKE), and Supersingular Isogeny Key Encapsulation (SIKE). Each organization has submitted their algorithms to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as part of NIST’s post-quantum cryptography standardization process. This process spans several rounds of evaluation over multiple years, and is likely to continue beyond 2021. In our previous hybrid post-quantum TLS blog post, we announced that AWS KMS had launched hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2 with Round 1 versions of BIKE and SIKE. The Round 1 post-quantum algorithms are still supported by AWS KMS, but at a lower priority than the Round 2 algorithms. You can choose to upgrade your client to enable negotiation of Round 2 algorithms. ## Why post-quantum TLS is important A large-scale quantum computer would be able to break the current public-key cryptography that’s used for key exchange in classical TLS connections. While a large-scale quantum computer isn’t available today, it’s still important to think about and plan for your long-term security needs. TLS traffic using classical algorithms recorded today could be decrypted by a large-scale quantum computer in the future. If you’re developing applications that rely on the long-term confidentiality of data passed over a TLS connection, you should consider a plan to migrate to post-quantum cryptography before the lifespan of the sensitivity of your data would be susceptible to an unauthorized user with a large-scale quantum computer. As an example, this means that if you believe that a large-scale quantum computer is 25 years away, and your data must be secure for 20 years, you should migrate to post-quantum schemes within the next 5 years. AWS is working to prepare for this future, and we want you to be prepared too. We’re offering this feature now instead of waiting for standardization efforts to be complete so you have a way to measure the potential performance impact to your applications. Offering this feature now also gives you the protection afforded by the proposed post-quantum schemes today. While we believe that the use of this feature raises the already high security bar for connecting to AWS KMS endpoints, these new cipher suites will impact bandwidth utilization and latency. However, using these new algorithms could also create connection failures for intermediate systems that proxy TLS connections. We’d like to get feedback from you on the effectiveness of our implementation or any issues found so we can improve it over time. ## Hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2 Hybrid post-quantum TLS is a feature that provides the security protections of both the classical and post-quantum key exchange algorithms in a single TLS handshake. Figure 1 shows the differences in the connection secret derivation process between classical and hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2. Hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2 has three major differences from classical TLS 1.2: • The negotiated post-quantum key is appended to the ECDHE key before being used as the hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) key. • The text hybrid in its ASCII representation is prepended to the beginning of the HMAC message. • The entire client key exchange message from the TLS handshake is appended to the end of the HMAC message. Figure 1: Differences in the connection secret derivation process between classical and hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2 ## Some background on post-quantum TLS Today, all requests to AWS KMS use TLS with key exchange algorithms that provide perfect forward secrecy and use one of the following classical schemes: While existing FFDHE and ECDHE schemes use perfect forward secrecy to protect against the compromise of the server’s long-term secret key, these schemes don’t protect against large-scale quantum computers. In the future, a sufficiently capable large-scale quantum computer could run Shor’s Algorithm to recover the TLS session key of a recorded classical session, and thereby gain access to the data inside. Using a post-quantum key exchange algorithm during the TLS handshake protects against attacks from a large-scale quantum computer. The possibility of large-scale quantum computing has spurred the development of new quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms. NIST has started the process of standardizing post-quantum key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs). A KEM is a type of key exchange that’s used to establish a shared symmetric key. AWS has chosen three NIST KEM submissions to adopt in our post-quantum efforts: Hybrid mode ensures that the negotiated key is as strong as the weakest key agreement scheme. If one of the schemes is broken, the communications remain confidential. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Hybrid Post-Quantum Key Encapsulation Methods for Transport Layer Security 1.2 draft describes how to combine post-quantum KEMs with ECDHE to create new cipher suites for TLS 1.2. These cipher suites use a hybrid key exchange that performs two independent key exchanges during the TLS handshake. The key exchange then cryptographically combines the keys from each into a single TLS session key. This strategy combines the proven security of a classical key exchange with the potential quantum-safe properties of new post-quantum key exchanges being analyzed by NIST. ## The effect of hybrid post-quantum TLS on performance Post-quantum cipher suites have a different performance profile and bandwidth usage from traditional cipher suites. AWS has measured bandwidth and latency across 2,000 TLS handshakes between an Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) C5n.4xlarge client and the public AWS KMS endpoint, which were both in the us-west-2 Region. Your own performance characteristics might differ, and will depend on your environment, including your: • Hardware–CPU speed and number of cores. • Existing workloads–how often you call AWS KMS and what other work your application performs. • Network–location and capacity. The following graphs and table show latency measurements performed by AWS for all newly supported Round 2 post-quantum algorithms, in addition to the classical ECDHE key exchange algorithm currently used by most customers. Figure 2 shows the latency differences of all hybrid post-quantum algorithms compared with classical ECDHE alone, and shows that compared to ECDHE alone, SIKE adds approximately 101 milliseconds of overhead, BIKE adds approximately 9.5 milliseconds of overhead, and Kyber adds approximately 0.3 milliseconds of overhead. Figure 2: TLS handshake latency at varying percentiles for four key exchange algorithms Figure 3 shows the latency differences between ECDHE with Kyber, and ECDHE alone. The addition of Kyber adds approximately 0.3 milliseconds of overhead. Figure 3: TLS handshake latency at varying percentiles, with only top two performing key exchange algorithms The following table shows the total amount of data (in bytes) needed to complete the TLS handshake for each cipher suite, the average latency, and latency at varying percentiles. All measurements were gathered from 2,000 TLS handshakes. The time was measured on the client from the start of the handshake until the handshake was completed, and includes all network transfer time. All connections used RSA authentication with a 2048-bit key, and ECDHE used the secp256r1 curve. All hybrid post-quantum tests used the NIST Round 2 versions. The Kyber test used the Kyber-512 parameter, the BIKE test used the BIKE-1 Level 1 parameter, and the SIKE test used the SIKEp434 parameter.  Item Bandwidth(bytes) Totalhandshakes Average(ms) p0(ms) p50(ms) p90(ms) p99(ms) ECDHE (classic) 3,574 2,000 3.08 2.07 3.02 3.95 4.71 ECDHE + Kyber R2 5,898 2,000 3.36 2.38 3.17 4.28 5.35 ECDHE + BIKE R2 12,456 2,000 14.91 11.59 14.16 18.27 23.58 ECDHE + SIKE R2 4,628 2,000 112.40 103.22 108.87 126.80 146.56 By default, the AWS SDK client performs a TLS handshake once to set up a new TLS connection, and then reuses that TLS connection for multiple requests. This means that the increased cost of a hybrid post-quantum TLS handshake is amortized over multiple requests sent over the TLS connection. You should take the amortization into account when evaluating the overall additional cost of using post-quantum algorithms; otherwise performance data could be skewed. AWS KMS has chosen Kyber Round 2 to be KMS’s highest prioritized post-quantum algorithm, with BIKE Round 2, and SIKE Round 2 next in priority order for post-quantum algorithms. This is because Kyber’s performance is closest to the classical ECDHE performance that most AWS KMS customers are using today and are accustomed to. ## How to use hybrid post-quantum cipher suites To use the post-quantum cipher suites with AWS KMS, you need the preview release of the AWS Common Runtime (CRT) HTTP client for the AWS SDK for Java 2.x. Also, you will need to configure the AWS CRT HTTP client to use the s2n post-quantum hybrid cipher suites. Post-quantum TLS for AWS KMS is available in all AWS Regions except for AWS GovCloud (US-East), AWS GovCloud (US-West), AWS China (Beijing) Region operated by Beijing Sinnet Technology Co. Ltd (“Sinnet”), and AWS China (Ningxia) Region operated by Ningxia Western Cloud Data Technology Co. Ltd. (“NWCD”). Since NIST has not yet standardized post-quantum cryptography, connections that require Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) compliance cannot use the hybrid key exchange. For example, kms.<region>.amazonaws.com supports the use of post-quantum cipher suites, while kms-fips.<region>.amazonaws.com does not. 1. If you’re using the AWS SDK for Java 2.x, you must add the preview release of the AWS Common Runtime client to your Maven dependencies. <dependency> <groupId>software.amazon.awssdk</groupId> <artifactId>aws-crt-client</artifactId> <version>2.14.13-PREVIEW</version> </dependency>  2. You then must configure the new SDK and cipher suite in the existing initialization code of your application: if(!TLS_CIPHER_PREF_KMS_PQ_TLSv1_0_2020_07.isSupported()){ throw new RuntimeException("Post Quantum Ciphers not supported on this Platform"); } SdkAsyncHttpClient awsCrtHttpClient = AwsCrtAsyncHttpClient.builder() .tlsCipherPreference(TLS_CIPHER_PREF_KMS_PQ_TLSv1_0_2020_07) .build(); KmsAsyncClient kms = KmsAsyncClient.builder() .httpClient(awsCrtHttpClient) .build(); ListKeysResponse response = kms.listKeys().get();  Now, all connections made to AWS KMS in supported Regions will use the new hybrid post-quantum cipher suites! To see a complete example of everything set up, check out the example application here. ## Things to try Here are some ideas about how to use this post-quantum-enabled client: • Run load tests and benchmarks. These new cipher suites perform differently than traditional key exchange algorithms. You might need to adjust your connection timeouts to allow for the longer handshake times or, if you’re running inside an AWS Lambda function, extend the execution timeout setting. • Try connecting from different locations. Depending on the network path your request takes, you might discover that intermediate hosts, proxies, or firewalls with deep packet inspection (DPI) block the request. This could be due to the new cipher suites in the ClientHello or the larger key exchange messages. If this is the case, you might need to work with your security team or IT administrators to update the relevant configuration to unblock the new TLS cipher suites. We’d like to hear from you about how your infrastructure interacts with this new variant of TLS traffic. If you have questions or feedback, please start a new thread on the AWS KMS discussion forum. ## Conclusion In this blog post, I announced support for Round 2 hybrid post-quantum algorithms in AWS KMS, and showed you how to begin experimenting with hybrid post-quantum key exchange algorithms for TLS when connecting to AWS KMS endpoints. ## More info If you’d like to learn more about post-quantum cryptography check out: If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below. Want more AWS Security how-to content, news, and feature announcements? Follow us on Twitter. ### Alex Weibel Alex is a Senior Software Engineer on the AWS Crypto Algorithms team. He’s one of the maintainers for Amazon’s TLS Library s2n. Previously, Alex worked on TLS termination and request proxying for S3 and the Elastic Load Balancing Service developing new features for customers. Alex holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from the University of Texas at Austin. # Automated Origin CA for Kubernetes Post Syndicated from Terin Stock original https://blog.cloudflare.com/automated-origin-ca-for-kubernetes/ In 2016, we launched the Cloudflare Origin CA, a certificate authority optimized for making it easy to secure the connection between Cloudflare and an origin server. Running our own CA has allowed us to support fast issuance and renewal, simple and effective revocation, and wildcard certificates for our users. Out of the box, managing TLS certificates and keys within Kubernetes can be challenging and error prone. The secret resources have to be constructed correctly, as components expect secrets with specific fields. Some forms of domain verification require manually rotating secrets to pass. Once you’re successful, don’t forget to renew before the certificate expires! cert-manager is a project to fill this operational gap, providing Kubernetes resources that manage the lifecycle of a certificate. Today we’re releasing origin-ca-issuer, an extension to cert-manager integrating with Cloudflare Origin CA to easily create and renew certificates for your account’s domains. ## Origin CA Integration ### Creating an Issuer After installing cert-manager and origin-ca-issuer, you can create an OriginIssuer resource. This resource creates a binding between cert-manager and the Cloudflare API for an account. Different issuers may be connected to different Cloudflare accounts in the same Kubernetes cluster. apiVersion: cert-manager.k8s.cloudflare.com/v1 kind: OriginIssuer metadata: name: prod-issuer namespace: default spec: signatureType: OriginECC auth: serviceKeyRef: name: service-key key: key  This creates a new OriginIssuer named “prod-issuer” that issues certificates using ECDSA signatures, and the secret “service-key” in the same namespace is used to authenticate to the Cloudflare API. ### Signing an Origin CA Certificate After creating an OriginIssuer, we can now create a Certificate with cert-manager. This defines the domains, including wildcards, that the certificate should be issued for, how long the certificate should be valid, and when cert-manager should renew the certificate. apiVersion: cert-manager.io/v1 kind: Certificate metadata: name: example-com namespace: default spec: # The secret name where cert-manager # should store the signed certificate. secretName: example-com-tls dnsNames: - example.com # Duration of the certificate. duration: 168h # Renew a day before the certificate expiration. renewBefore: 24h # Reference the Origin CA Issuer you created above, # which must be in the same namespace. issuerRef: group: cert-manager.k8s.cloudflare.com kind: OriginIssuer name: prod-issuer  Once created, cert-manager begins managing the lifecycle of this certificate, including creating the key material, crafting a certificate signature request (CSR), and constructing a certificate request that will be processed by the origin-ca-issuer. When signed by the Cloudflare API, the certificate will be made available, along with the private key, in the Kubernetes secret specified within the secretName field. You’ll be able to use this certificate on servers proxied behind Cloudflare. ### Extra: Ingress Support If you’re using an Ingress controller, you can use cert-manager’s Ingress support to automatically manage Certificate resources based on your Ingress resource. apiVersion: networking/v1 kind: Ingress metadata: annotations: cert-manager.io/issuer: prod-issuer cert-manager.io/issuer-kind: OriginIssuer cert-manager.io/issuer-group: cert-manager.k8s.cloudflare.com name: example namespace: default spec: rules: - host: example.com http: paths: - backend: serviceName: examplesvc servicePort: 80 path: / tls: # specifying a host in the TLS section will tell cert-manager # what DNS SANs should be on the created certificate. - hosts: - example.com # cert-manager will create this secret secretName: example-tls  ## Building an External cert-manager Issuer An external cert-manager issuer is a specialized Kubernetes controller. There’s no direct communication between cert-manager and external issuers at all; this means that you can use any existing tools and best practices for developing controllers to develop an external issuer. We’ve decided to use the excellent controller-runtime project to build origin-ca-issuer, running two reconciliation controllers. ### OriginIssuer Controller The OriginIssuer controller watches for creation and modification of OriginIssuer custom resources. The controllers create a Cloudflare API client using the details and credentials referenced. This client API instance will later be used to sign certificates through the API. The controller will periodically retry to create an API client; once it is successful, it updates the OriginIssuer’s status to be ready. ### CertificateRequest Controller The CertificateRequest controller watches for the creation and modification of cert-manager’s CertificateRequest resources. These resources are created automatically by cert-manager as needed during a certificate’s lifecycle. The controller looks for Certificate Requests that reference a known OriginIssuer, this reference is copied by cert-manager from the origin Certificate resource, and ignores all resources that do not match. The controller then verifies the OriginIssuer is in the ready state, before transforming the certificate request into an API request using the previously created clients. On a successful response, the signed certificate is added to the certificate request, and which cert-manager will use to create or update the secret resource. On an unsuccessful request, the controller will periodically retry. ## Learn More Up-to-date documentation and complete installation instructions can be found in our GitHub repository. Feedback and contributions are greatly appreciated. If you’re interested in Kubernetes at Cloudflare, including building controllers like these, we’re hiring. # The importance of encryption and how AWS can help Post Syndicated from Ken Beer original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/importance-of-encryption-and-how-aws-can-help/ Encryption is a critical component of a defense-in-depth strategy, which is a security approach with a series of defensive mechanisms designed. It means if one security mechanism fails, there’s at least one more still operating. As more organizations look to operate faster and at scale, they need ways to meet critical compliance requirements and improve data security. Encryption, when used correctly, can provide an additional layer of protection above basic access control. ## How and why does encryption work? Encryption works by using an algorithm with a key to convert data into unreadable data (ciphertext) that can only become readable again with the right key. For example, a simple phrase like “Hello World!” may look like “1c28df2b595b4e30b7b07500963dc7c” when encrypted. There are several different types of encryption algorithms, all using different types of keys. A strong encryption algorithm relies on mathematical properties to produce ciphertext that can’t be decrypted using any practically available amount of computing power without also having the necessary key. Therefore, protecting and managing the keys becomes a critical part of any encryption solution. ## Encryption as part of your security strategy An effective security strategy begins with stringent access control and continuous work to define the least privilege necessary for persons or systems accessing data. AWS requires that you manage your own access control policies, and also supports defense in depth to achieve the best possible data protection. Encryption is a critical component of a defense-in-depth strategy because it can mitigate weaknesses in your primary access control mechanism. What if an access control mechanism fails and allows access to the raw data on disk or traveling along a network link? If the data is encrypted using a strong key, as long as the decryption key is not on the same system as your data, it is computationally infeasible for an attacker to decrypt your data. To show how infeasible it is, let’s consider the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) with 256-bit keys (AES-256). It’s the strongest industry-adopted and government-approved algorithm for encrypting data. AES-256 is the technology we use to encrypt data in AWS, including Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3) server-side encryption. It would take at least a trillion years to break using current computing technology. Current research suggests that even the future availability of quantum-based computing won’t sufficiently reduce the time it would take to break AES encryption. But what if you mistakenly create overly permissive access policies on your data? A well-designed encryption and key management system can also prevent this from becoming an issue, because it separates access to the decryption key from access to your data. ## Requirements for an encryption solution To get the most from an encryption solution, you need to think about two things: 1. Protecting keys at rest: Are the systems using encryption keys secured so the keys can never be used outside the system? In addition, do these systems implement encryption algorithms correctly to produce strong ciphertexts that cannot be decrypted without access to the right keys? 2. Independent key management: Is the authorization to use encryption independent from how access to the underlying data is controlled? There are third-party solutions that you can bring to AWS to meet these requirements. However, these systems can be difficult and expensive to operate at scale. AWS offers a range of options to simplify encryption and key management. ### Protecting keys at rest When you use third-party key management solutions, it can be difficult to gauge the risk of your plaintext keys leaking and being used outside the solution. The keys have to be stored somewhere, and you can’t always know or audit all the ways those storage systems are secured from unauthorized access. The combination of technical complexity and the necessity of making the encryption usable without degrading performance or availability means that choosing and operating a key management solution can present difficult tradeoffs. The best practice to maximize key security is using a hardware security module (HSM). This is a specialized computing device that has several security controls built into it to prevent encryption keys from leaving the device in a way that could allow an adversary to access and use those keys. One such control in modern HSMs is tamper response, in which the device detects physical or logical attempts to access plaintext keys without authorization, and destroys the keys before the attack succeeds. Because you can’t install and operate your own hardware in AWS datacenters, AWS offers two services using HSMs with tamper response to protect customers’ keys: AWS Key Management Service (KMS), which manages a fleet of HSMs on the customer’s behalf, and AWS CloudHSM, which gives customers the ability to manage their own HSMs. Each service can create keys on your behalf, or you can import keys from your on-premises systems to be used by each service. The keys in AWS KMS or AWS CloudHSM can be used to encrypt data directly, or to protect other keys that are distributed to applications that directly encrypt data. The technique of encrypting encryption keys is called envelope encryption, and it enables encryption and decryption to happen on the computer where the plaintext customer data exists, rather than sending the data to the HSM each time. For very large data sets (e.g., a database), it’s not practical to move gigabytes of data between the data set and the HSM for every read/write operation. Instead, envelope encryption allows a data encryption key to be distributed to the application when it’s needed. The “master” keys in the HSM are used to encrypt a copy of the data key so the application can store the encrypted key alongside the data encrypted under that key. Once the application encrypts the data, the plaintext copy of data key can be deleted from its memory. The only way for the data to be decrypted is if the encrypted data key, which is only a few hundred bytes in size, is sent back to the HSM and decrypted. The process of envelope encryption is used in all AWS services in which data is encrypted on a customer’s behalf (which is known as server-side encryption) to minimize performance degradation. If you want to encrypt data in your own applications (client-side encryption), you’re encouraged to use envelope encryption with AWS KMS or AWS CloudHSM. Both services offer client libraries and SDKs to add encryption functionality to their application code and use the cryptographic functionality of each service. The AWS Encryption SDK is an example of a tool that can be used anywhere, not just in applications running in AWS. Because implementing encryption algorithms and HSMs is critical to get right, all vendors of HSMs should have their products validated by a trusted third party. HSMs in both AWS KMS and AWS CloudHSM are validated under the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s FIPS 140-2 program, the standard for evaluating cryptographic modules. This validates the secure design and implementation of cryptographic modules, including functions related to ports and interfaces, authentication mechanisms, physical security and tamper response, operational environments, cryptographic key management, and electromagnetic interference/electromagnetic compatibility (EMI/EMC). Encryption using a FIPS 140-2 validated cryptographic module is often a requirement for other security-related compliance schemes like FedRamp and HIPAA-HITECH in the U.S., or the international payment card industry standard (PCI-DSS). ### Independent key management While AWS KMS and AWS CloudHSM can protect plaintext master keys on your behalf, you are still responsible for managing access controls to determine who can cause which encryption keys to be used under which conditions. One advantage of using AWS KMS is that the policy language you use to define access controls on keys is the same one you use to define access to all other AWS resources. Note that the language is the same, not the actual authorization controls. You need a mechanism for managing access to keys that is different from the one you use for managing access to your data. AWS KMS provides that mechanism by allowing you to assign one set of administrators who can only manage keys and a different set of administrators who can only manage access to the underlying encrypted data. Configuring your key management process in this way helps provide separation of duties you need to avoid accidentally escalating privilege to decrypt data to unauthorized users. For even further separation of control, AWS CloudHSM offers an independent policy mechanism to define access to keys. Even with the ability to separate key management from data management, you can still verify that you have configured access to encryption keys correctly. AWS KMS is integrated with AWS CloudTrail so you can audit who used which keys, for which resources, and when. This provides granular vision into your encryption management processes, which is typically much more in-depth than on-premises audit mechanisms. Audit events from AWS CloudHSM can be sent to Amazon CloudWatch, the AWS service for monitoring and alarming third-party solutions you operate in AWS. ## Encrypting data at rest and in motion All AWS services that handle customer data encrypt data in motion and provide options to encrypt data at rest. All AWS services that offer encryption at rest using AWS KMS or AWS CloudHSM use AES-256. None of these services store plaintext encryption keys at rest — that’s a function that only AWS KMS and AWS CloudHSM may perform using their FIPS 140-2 validated HSMs. This architecture helps minimize the unauthorized use of keys. When encrypting data in motion, AWS services use the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to provide encryption between your application and the AWS service. Most commercial solutions use an open source project called OpenSSL for their TLS needs. OpenSSL has roughly 500,000 lines of code with at least 70,000 of those implementing TLS. The code base is large, complex, and difficult to audit. Moreover, when OpenSSL has bugs, the global developer community is challenged to not only fix and test the changes, but also to ensure that the resulting fixes themselves do not introduce new flaws. AWS’s response to challenges with the TLS implementation in OpenSSL was to develop our own implementation of TLS, known as s2n, or signal to noise. We released s2n in June 2015, which we designed to be small and fast. The goal of s2n is to provide you with network encryption that is easier to understand and that is fully auditable. We released and licensed it under the Apache 2.0 license and hosted it on GitHub. We also designed s2n to be analyzed using automated reasoning to test for safety and correctness using mathematical logic. Through this process, known as formal methods, we verify the correctness of the s2n code base every time we change the code. We also automated these mathematical proofs, which we regularly re-run to ensure the desired security properties are unchanged with new releases of the code. Automated mathematical proofs of correctness are an emerging trend in the security industry, and AWS uses this approach for a wide variety of our mission-critical software. Implementing TLS requires using encryption keys and digital certificates that assert the ownership of those keys. AWS Certificate Manager and AWS Private Certificate Authority are two services that can simplify the issuance and rotation of digital certificates across your infrastructure that needs to offer TLS endpoints. Both services use a combination of AWS KMS and AWS CloudHSM to generate and/or protect the keys used in the digital certificates they issue. ## Summary At AWS, security is our top priority and we aim to make it as easy as possible for you to use encryption to protect your data above and beyond basic access control. By building and supporting encryption tools that work both on and off the cloud, we help you secure your data and ensure compliance across your entire environment. We put security at the center of everything we do to make sure that you can protect your data using best-of-breed security technology in a cost-effective way. If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below. If you have questions about this post, start a new thread on the AWS KMS forum or the AWS CloudHSM forum, or contact AWS Support. Want more AWS Security how-to content, news, and feature announcements? Follow us on Twitter. ### Ken Beer Ken is the General Manager of the AWS Key Management Service. Ken has worked in identity and access management, encryption, and key management for over 7 years at AWS. Before joining AWS, Ken was in charge of the network security business at Trend Micro. Before Trend Micro, he was at Tumbleweed Communications. Ken has spoken on a variety of security topics at events such as the RSA Conference, the DoD PKI User’s Forum, and AWS re:Invent. # How Netflix brings safer and faster streaming experience to the living room on crowded networks… ### How Netflix brings safer and faster streaming experience to the living room on crowded networks using TLS 1.3 By Sekwon Choi At Netflix, we are obsessed with the best streaming experiences. We want playback to start instantly and to never stop unexpectedly in any network environment. We are also committed to protecting users’ privacy and service security without sacrificing any part of the playback experience. To achieve that, we are efficiently using ABR (adaptive bitrate streaming) for a better playback experience, DRM (Digital Right Management) to protect our service and TLS (Transport Layer Security) to protect customer privacy and to create a safer streaming experience. Netflix on consumer electronics devices such as TVs, set-top boxes and streaming sticks was until recently using TLS 1.2 for streaming traffic. Now we support TLS 1.3 for safer and faster experiences. ### What is TLS? For two parties to communicate securely, a secure channel is necessary. This needs to have the following three properties. • Authentication: Identity of the communicating party is verified. • Confidentiality: Data sent over the channel is only visible to the endpoints. • Integrity: Data sent over the channel cannot be modified by attackers without detection. The TLS protocol is designed to provide a secure channel between two peers by providing tools and methods to achieve the above properties. ### TLS 1.3 TLS 1.3 is the latest version of the Transport Layer Security protocol. It is simpler, more secure and more efficient than its predecessor. #### Perfect Forward Secrecy One thing we believe is very important at Netflix is providing PFS (Perfect Forward Secrecy). PFS is a feature of the key exchange algorithm that assures that session keys will not be compromised, even if the server’s private key is compromised. By generating new keys for each session, PFS protects past sessions against the future compromise of secret keys. TLS 1.2 supports key exchange algorithms with PFS, but it also allows key exchange algorithms that do not support PFS. Even with the previous version of TLS 1.2, Netflix has always selected a key exchange algorithm that provides PFS such as ECDHE (Elliptic Curve Diffie Hellman Ephemeral). TLS 1.3, however, enforces this concept even more by removing all the key exchange algorithms that do not provide PFS, such as static RSA. #### Authenticated Encryption For encryption, TLS 1.3 removes all weak ciphers and uses only Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD). This assures the confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of the data. We use AES Galois/Counter Mode, as it also provides good performance and high throughput. #### Secure Handshake While the above changes are important, the most important change in TLS 1.3 is perhaps its redesign of the handshake protocol. The TLS 1.2 handshake was not designed to protect the integrity of the entire handshake. It protected only the part of the handshake after the cipher suite negotiation and this opened up the possibility of downgrade attacks which may allow the attackers to force the use of insecure cipher suites. With TLS 1.3, the server signs the entire handshake including the cipher suite negotiation and thus prevents the attacker from downgrading the cipher suite. Also in TLS 1.2, extensions were sent in the clear in the ServerHello. Now with TLS 1.3, even extensions are encrypted and all handshake messages after ServerHello are now encrypted. #### Reduced Handshake TLS 1.2 supports numerous key exchange algorithms, cipher suites and digital signatures, including weak and vulnerable ones. Therefore, it requires more messages to perform a handshake and two network round trips. In contrast, the handshake in TLS 1.3 now requires only one round trip, with a simplified design and with all weak and vulnerable algorithms removed. In addition, it has a new feature called 0-RTT, or TLS early data, for the resumed handshake. This allows an application to include application data with its initial handshake message, instead of having to wait until the handshake completes. At Netflix, by the efficient resumption of the TLS session and careful use of 0-RTT for the streaming data, we can reduce the play delay. ### A/B Testing Result We were pretty confident that TLS 1.3 would bring us better security from the analysis of its protocol composition, but we did not know how it would perform in the context of streaming. Since TLS 1.3’s performance-related feature is the 0-RTT mode with the resumed handshake, our hypothesis is that TLS 1.3 would reduce play delay, as we are no longer required to wait for the handshake to finish and we can instead issue the HTTP request for media data and receive the HTTP response for media data earlier. To see the actual performance of TLS 1.3 in the field, we performed an experiment with • User accounts: half-million user accounts per cell. • Device type: mid-performance device with Quad ARM core @ 1.7GHz. • Control cell: TLS 1.2 • Treatment cell: TLS 1.3 #### Play Delay Play Delay is defined by how long it takes for playback to start. Below are the results of the play delay measured in the experiment. The results imply that on slower or congested networks, which can be represented by the quantiles of at least 0.75, TLS 1.3 achieves the largest gains, with improvements across all network conditions. Below is the time series median play delay graph for this mid-performance device in the field. It also shows that playback starts earlier with TLS 1.3. #### Media Rebuffer At Netflix, we define a media rebuffer as a non-network originated rebuffer. It typically occurs when media data is not processed quickly enough by the device due to the high load on the CPU. Comparing the control cell with TLS 1.2, the experiment cell with TLS 1.3 showed about a 7.4% improvement in media rebuffers. This result implies that using TLS 1.3 with 0-RTT is more efficient and can reduce the CPU load. ### Conclusion From the security analysis, we are confident that TLS 1.3 improves communication security over TLS 1.2. From the field test, we are confident that TLS 1.3 provides us a better streaming experience. At the time of writing this article, the Internet is experiencing higher than usual traffic and congestion. We believe saving even small amounts of data and round trips can be meaningful and even better if it also provides a more secure and efficient streaming experience. Therefore, we have started deploying TLS 1.3 on newer consumer electronics devices and we are expecting even more devices to be deployed with TLS 1.3 capability in the near future. How Netflix brings safer and faster streaming experience to the living room on crowded networks… was originally published in Netflix TechBlog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story. # Round 2 Hybrid Post-Quantum TLS Benchmarks Post Syndicated from Alex Weibel original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/round-2-hybrid-post-quantum-tls-benchmarks/ AWS Cryptography has completed benchmarks of Round 2 Versions of the Bit Flipping Key Encapsulation (BIKE) and Supersingular Isogeny Key Encapsulation (SIKE) hybrid post-quantum Transport Layer Security (TLS) Algorithms. Both of these algorithms have been submitted to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as part of NIST’s Post-Quantum Cryptography standardization process. In the first hybrid post-quantum TLS blog, we announced that AWS Key Management Service (KMS) had launched support for hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2 using Round 1 versions of BIKE and SIKE. In this blog, we are announcing AWS Cryptography’s benchmark results of using Round 2 versions of BIKE and SIKE with hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2 against an HTTP webservice. Round 2 versions of BIKE and SIKE include performance improvements, parameter tuning, and algorithm updates in response to NIST’s comments on Round 1 versions. I’ll give a refresher on hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2, go over our Round 2 hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2 benchmark results, and then describe our benchmarking methodology. This blog post is intended to inform software developers, AWS customers, and cryptographic researchers about the potential upcoming performance differences between classical and hybrid post-quantum TLS. ## Refresher on Hybrid Post-Quantum TLS 1.2 Some of this section is repeated from the previous hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2 launch announcement for KMS. If you are already familiar with hybrid post-quantum TLS, feel free to skip to the Benchmark Results section. ### What is Hybrid Post-Quantum TLS 1.2? Hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2 is a proposed extension to the TLS 1.2 Protocol implemented by Amazon’s open source TLS library s2n that provides the security protections of both the classical and post-quantum schemes. It does this by performing two independent key exchanges (one classical and one post-quantum), and then cryptographically combining both keys into a single TLS master secret. ### Why is Post-Quantum TLS Important? Hybrid post-quantum TLS allows connections to remain secure even if one of the key exchanges (either classical or post-quantum) performed during the TLS Handshake is compromised in the future. For example, if a sufficiently large-scale quantum computer were to be built, it could break the current classical public-key cryptography that is used for key exchange in every TLS connection today. Encrypted TLS traffic recorded today could be decrypted in the future with a large-scale quantum computer if post-quantum TLS is not used to protect it. ### Round 2 Hybrid Post-Quantum TLS Benchmark Results Figure 2: Latency in relation to HTTP request count for four key exchange algorithms  Key Exchange Algorithm Server PQ Implementation TLS Handshake + 1 HTTP Request TLS Handshake + 2 HTTP Requests TLS Handshake + 10 HTTP Requests TLS Handshake + 25 HTTP Requests ECDHE Only N/A 10.8 ms 15.1 ms 52.6 ms 124.2 ms ECDHE + BIKE1‑CCA‑L1‑R2 C 19.9 ms 24.4 ms 61.4 ms 133.2 ms ECDHE + SIKE‑P434‑R2 C 169.6 ms 180.3 ms 219.1 ms 288.1 ms ECDHE + SIKE‑P434‑R2 x86-64 Assembly 20.1 ms 24.5 ms 62.0 ms 133.3 ms Table 1 shows the time (in milliseconds) that a client and server in the same region take to complete a TCP Handshake, a TLS Handshake, and complete varying numbers of HTTP Requests sent to an HTTP web service running on an i3en.12xlarge host.  Key Exchange Algorithm Client Hello Server Key Exchange Client Key Exchange Other TLS Handshake Total ECDHE Only 218 338 75 2430 3061 ECDHE + BIKE1‑CCA‑L1‑R2 220 3288 3023 2430 8961 ECDHE + SIKE‑P434‑R2 214 672 423 2430 3739 Table 2 shows the amount of data (in bytes) used by different messages in the TLS Handshake for each Key Exchange algorithm.  1 HTTP Request 2 HTTP Requests 10 HTTP Requests 25 HTTP Requests HTTP Request Bytes 878 1,761 8,825 22,070 HTTP Response Bytes 698 1,377 6,809 16,994 Total HTTP Bytes 1576 3,138 15,634 39,064 Table 3 shows the amount of data (in bytes) sent and received through each TLS connection for varying numbers of HTTP requests. ## Benchmark Results Analysis In general, we find that the major trade off between BIKE and SIKE is data usage versus processing time, with BIKE needing to send more bytes but requiring less time processing them, and SIKE making the opposite trade off of needing to send fewer bytes but requiring more time processing them. At the time of integration for our benchmarks, an x86-64 assembly optimized implementation of BIKE1-CCA-L1-R2 was not available in s2n. Our results show that when only a single HTTP request is sent, completing a BIKE1-CCA-L1-R2 hybrid TLS 1.2 handshake takes approximately 84% more time compared to a non-hybrid TLS connection, and completing an x86-64 assembly optimized SIKE-P434-R2 hybrid TLS 1.2 handshake takes approximately 86% more time than non-hybrid. However, at 25 HTTP Requests per TLS connection, when using the fastest available implementation for both BIKE and SIKE, the increased TLS Handshake latency is amortized, and only 7% more total time is needed for both BIKE and SIKE compared to a classical TLS connection. Our results also show that BIKE1-CCA-L1-R2 hybrid TLS Handshakes used 5900 more bytes than a classical TLS Handshake, while SIKE-P434-R2 hybrid TLS Handshakes used 678 more bytes than classical TLS. In the AWS EC2 network, using modern x86-64 CPU’s with the fastest available algorithm implementations, we found that BIKE and SIKE performed similarly, with their maximum latency difference being only 0.6 milliseconds apart, and BIKE being the faster of the two in every benchmark. However when compared to SIKE’s C implementation, which would be used on hosts without the ADX and MULX x86-64 instructions used by SIKE’s assembly implementation, BIKE performed significantly better, seeing a maximum improvement of 157 milliseconds over SIKE. ## Hybrid Post-Quantum TLS Benchmark Details and Methodology ### Hybrid Post-Quantum TLS Client Figure 3: Architecture diagram of the AWS SDK Java Client using Java Native Interface (JNI) to communicate with the native AWS Common Runtime (CRT) Our post-quantum TLS Client is using the aws-crt-dev-preview branch of the AWS SDK Java v2 Client, that has Java Native Interface Bindings to the AWS Common Runtime (AWS CRT) written in C. The AWS Common Runtime uses s2n for TLS negotiation on Linux platforms. Our client was a single EC2 i3en.6xlarge host, using v0.5.1 of the AWS Common Runtime (AWS CRT) Java Bindings, with commit f3abfaba of s2n and used the x86-64 Assembly implementation for all SIKE-P434-R2 benchmarks. ### Hybrid Post-Quantum TLS Server Our server was a single EC2 i3en.12xlarge host running a REST-ful HTTP web service which used s2n to terminate TLS connections. In order to measure the latency of the SIKE-P434-R2 C implementation on these hosts, we used an s2n compile time flag to build a 2nd version of s2n with SIKE’s x86-64 assembly optimization disabled, and reran our benchmarks with that version. We chose i3en.12xlarge as our host type because it is optimized for high IO usage, provides high levels of network bandwidth, has a high number of vCPU’s that is typical for many web service endpoints, and has a modern x86-64 CPU with the ADX and MULX instructions necessary to use the high performance Round 2 SIKE x86-64 assembly implementation. Additional TLS Handshake benchmarks performed on other modern types of EC2 hosts, such as the C5 family and M5 family of EC2 instances, also showed similar latency results to those generated on i3en family of EC2 instances. ## Post-Quantum Algorithm Implementation Details The implementations of the post-quantum algorithms used in these benchmarks can be found in the pq-crypto directory of the s2n GitHub Repository. Our Round 2 BIKE implementation uses portable optimized C code, and our Round 2 SIKE implementation uses an optimized implementation in x86-64 assembly when available, and falls back to a portable optimized C implementation otherwise.  Key Exchange Algorithm s2n Client Cipher Preference s2n Server Cipher Preference Negotiated Cipher ECDHE Only ELBSecurityPolicy-TLS-1-1-2017-01 KMS-PQ-TLS-1-0-2020-02 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 ECDHE + BIKE1‑CCA‑L1‑R2 KMS-PQ-TLS-1-0-2020-02 KMS-PQ-TLS-1-0-2020-02 ECDHE-BIKE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 ECDHE + SIKE‑P434‑R2 PQ-SIKE-TEST-TLS-1-0-2020-02 KMS-PQ-TLS-1-0-2020-02 ECDHE-SIKE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 Table 4 shows the Clients and Servers TLS Cipher Config name used in order to negotiate each Key Exchange Algorithm. ## Hybrid Post-Quantum TLS Benchmark Methodology Figure 4: Benchmarking Methodology Client/Server Architecture Diagram Our Benchmarks were run with a single client host connecting to a single host running a HTTP web service in a different availability zone within the same AWS Region (us-east-1), through a TCP Load Balancer. We chose to include varying numbers of HTTP requests in our latency benchmarks, rather than TLS Handshakes alone, because customers are unlikely to establish a secure TLS connection and let the connection sit idle performing no work. Customers use TLS connections in order to send and receive data securely, and HTTP web services are one of the most common types of data being secured by TLS. We also chose to place our EC2 server behind a TCP Load Balancer to more closely approximate how an HTTP web service would be deployed in a typical setup. Latency was measured at the client in Java starting from before a TCP connection was established, until after the final HTTP Response was received, and includes all network transfer time. All connections used RSA Certificate Authentication with a 2048-bit key, and ECDHE Key Exchange used the secp256r1 curve. All latency values listed in Tables 1 above were calculated from the median value (50th percentile) from 60 minutes of continuous single-threaded measurements between the EC2 Client and Server. ## More Info If you’re interested to learn more about post-quantum cryptography check out the following links: ## Conclusion In this blog post, I gave a refresher on hybrid post-quantum TLS, I went over our hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2 benchmark results, and went over our hybrid post-quantum benchmarking methodology. Our benchmark results found that BIKE and SIKE performed similarly when using s2n’s fastest available implementation on modern CPU’s, but that BIKE performed better than SIKE when both were using their generic C implementation. If you have feedback about this blog post, submit comments in the Comments section below. Want more AWS Security how-to content, news, and feature announcements? Follow us on Twitter. ### Alex Weibel Alex is a Senior Software Development Engineer on the AWS Crypto Algorithms team. He’s one of the maintainers for Amazon’s TLS Library s2n. Previously, Alex worked on TLS termination and request proxying for S3 and the Elastic Load Balancing Service developing new features for customers. Alex holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from the University of Texas at Austin. # Internship Experience: Cryptography Engineer Post Syndicated from Watson Ladd original https://blog.cloudflare.com/internship-experience-cryptography-engineer/ Back in the summer of 2017 I was an intern at Cloudflare. During the scholastic year I was a graduate student working on automorphic forms and computational Langlands at Berkeley: a part of number theory with deep connections to representation theory, aimed at uncovering some of the deepest facts about number fields. I had also gotten involved in Internet standardization and security research, but much more on the applied side. While I had published papers in computer security and had coded for my dissertation, building and deploying new protocols to production systems was going to be new. Going from the academic environment of little day to day supervision to the industrial one of more direction; from greenfield code that would only ever be run by one person to large projects that had to be understandable by a team; from goals measured in years or even decades, to goals measured in days, weeks, or quarters; these transitions would present some challenges. Cloudflare at that stage was a very different company from what it is now. Entire products and offices simply did not exist. Argo, now a mainstay of our offering for sophisticated companies, was slowly emerging. Access, which has been helping safeguard employees working from home these past weeks, was then experiencing teething issues. Workers was being extensively developed for launch that autumn. Quicksilver was still in the slow stages of replacing KyotoTycoon. Lisbon wasn’t on the map, and Austin was very new. ### Day 1 My first job was to get my laptop working. Quickly I discovered that despite the promise of using either Mac or Linux, only Mac was supported as a local development environment. Most Linux users would take a good part of a month to tweak all the settings and get the local development environment up. I didn’t have months. After three days, I broke down and got a Mac. Needless to say I asked for some help. Like a drowning man in quicksand, I managed to attract three engineers to this near insoluble problem of the edge dev stack, and after days of hacking on it, fixing problems that had long been ignored, we got it working well enough to test a few things. That development environment is now gone and replaced with one built Kubernetes VMs, and works much better that way. When things work on your machine, you can now send everyone your machine. ### Speeding up With setup complete enough, it was on to the problem we needed to solve. Our goal was to implement a set of three interrelated Internet drafts, one defining secondary certificates, one defining external authentication with TLS certificates, and a third permitting servers to advertise the websites they could serve. External authentication is a TLS feature that permits a server or a client on an already opened connection to prove its possession of the private key of another certificate. This proof of possession is tied to the TLS connection, avoiding attacks on bearer tokens caused by the lack of this binding. Secondary certificates is an HTTP/2 feature enabling clients and servers to send certificates together with proof that they actually know the private key. This feature has many applications such as certificate-based authentication, but also enables us to prove that we are permitted to serve the websites we claim to serve. The last draft was the HTTP/2 ORIGIN frame. The ORIGIN frame enables a website to advertise other sites that it could serve, permitting more connection reuse than allowed under the traditional rules. Connection reuse is an important part of browser performance as it avoids much of the setup of a connection. These drafts solved an important problem for Cloudflare. Many resources such as JavaScript, CSS, and images hosted by one website can be used by others. Because Cloudflare proxies so many different websites, our servers have often cached these resources as well. Browsers though, do not know that these different websites are made faster by Cloudflare, and as a result they repeat all the steps to request the subresources again. This takes unnecessary time since there is an established and usable perfectly good connection already. If the browser could know this, it could use the connection again. We could only solve this problem by getting browsers and the broader community of TLS implementers on board. Some of these drafts such as external authentication and secondary certificates had a broader set of motivations, such as getting certificate based authentication to work with HTTP/2 and TLS 1.3. All of these needs had to be addressed in the drafts, even if we were only implementing a subset of the uses. Successful standards cover the use cases that are needed while being simple enough to implement and achieve interoperability. Implementation experience is essential to achieving this success: a standard with no implementations fails to incorporate hard won lessons. Computers are hard. ### Prototype My first goal was to set up a simple prototype to test the much more complex production implementation, as well as to share outside of Cloudflare so that others could have confidence in their implementations. But these drafts that had to be implemented in the prototype were incremental improvements to an already massive stack of TLS and HTTP standards. I decided it would be easiest to build on top of an already existing implementation of TLS and HTTP. I picked the Go standard library as my base: it’s simple, readable, and in a language I was already familiar with. There was already a basic demo showcasing support in Firefox for the ORIGIN frame, and it would be up to me to extend it. Using that as my starting point I was able in 3 weeks to set up a demonstration server and a client. This showed good progress, and that nothing in the specification was blocking implementation. But without integrating it into our servers for further experimentation so that we might discover rare issues that could be showstoppers. This was a bitter lesson learned from TLS 1.3, where it took months to track down a single brand of printer that was incompatible with the standard, and forced a change. ### From Prototype to Production We also wanted to understand the benefits with some real world data, to convince others that this approach was worthwhile. Our position as a provider to many websites globally gives us diverse, real world data on performance that we use to make our products better, and perhaps more important, to learn lessons that help everyone make the Internet better. As a result we had to implement this in production: the experimental framework for TLS 1.3 development had been removed and we didn’t have an environment for experimentation. At the time everything at Cloudflare was based on variants of NGINX. We had extended it with modules to implement features like Keyless and customized certificate handling to meet our needs, but much of the business logic was and is carried out in Lua via OpenResty. Lua has many virtues, but at the time both the TLS termination and the core business logic lived in the same repo despite being different processes at runtime. This made it very difficult to understand what code was running when, and changes to basic libraries could create problems for both. The build system for this creation had the significant disadvantage of building the same targets with different settings. Lua also is a very dynamic language, but unlike the dynamic languages I was used to, there was no way to interact with the system as it was running on requests. The first step was implementing the ORIGIN frame. In implementing this, we had to figure out which sites hosted the subresources used by the page we were serving. Luckily, we already had this logic to enable server push support driven by Link headers. Building on this let me quickly get ORIGIN working. This work wasn’t the only thing I was up to as an intern. I was also participating in weekly team meetings, attending our engineering presentations, and getting a sense of what life was like at Cloudflare. We had an excursion for interns to the Computer History Museum in Mountain View and Moffett Field, where we saw the base museum. The next challenge was getting the CERTIFICATE frame to work. This was a much deeper problem. NGINX processes a request in phases, and some of the phases, like the header processing phase, do not permit network I/O without locking up the event loop. Since we are parsing the headers to determine what to send, the frame is created in the header processing phase. But finding a certificate and telling Keyless to sign it required network I/O. The standard solution to this problem is to have Lua execute a timer callback, in which network I/O is possible. But this context doesn’t have any data from the request: some serious refactoring was needed to create a way to get the keyless module to function outside the context of a request. Once the signature was created, the battle was half over. Formatting the CERTIFICATE frame was simple, but it had to be stuck into the connection associated with the request that had demanded it be created. And there was no reason to expect the request was still alive, and no way to know what state it was in when the request was handled by the Keyless module. To handle this issue I made a shared btree indexed by a number containing space for the data to be passed back and forth. This enabled the request to record that it was ready to send the CERTIFICATE frame and Keyless to record that it was ready with a frame to send. Whichever of these happened second would do the work to enqueue the frame to send out. This was not an easy solution: the Keyless module had been written years before and largely unmodified. It fundamentally assumed it could access data from the request, and changing this assumption opened the door to difficult to diagnose bugs. It integrates into BoringSSL callbacks through some pretty tricky mechanisms. However, I was able to test it using the client from the prototype and it worked. Unfortunately when I pushed the commit in which it worked upstream, the CI system could not find the git repo where the client prototype was due to a setting I forgot to change. The CI system unfortunately didn’t associate this failure with the branch, but attempted to check it out whenever it checked out any other branch people were working on. Murphy ensured my accomplishment had happened on a Friday afternoon Pacific time, and the team that manages the SSL server was then exclusively in London… Monday morning the issue was quickly fixed, and whatever tempers had frayed were smoothed over when we discovered the deficiency in the CI system that had enabled a single branch to break every build. It’s always tricky to work in a global team. Later Alessandro flew to San Francisco for a number of projects with the team here and we worked side by side trying to get a demonstration working on a test site. Unfortunately there was some difficulty tracking down a bug that prevented it working in production. We had run out of time, and my internship was over. Alessandro flew back to London, and I flew to Idaho to see the eclipse. ### The End Ultimately we weren’t able to integrate this feature into the software at our edge: the risks of such intrusive changes for a very experimental feature outweighed the benefits. With not much prospect of support by clients, it would be difficult to get the real savings in performance promised. There also were nontechnical issues in standardization that have made this approach more difficult to implement: any form of traffic direction that doesn’t obey DNS creates issues for network debugging, and there were concerns about the impact of certificate misissuance. While the project was less successful than I hoped it would be, I learned a lot of important skills: collaborating on large software projects, working with git, and communicating with other implementers about issues we found. I also got a taste of what it would be like to be on the Research team at Cloudflare and turning research from idea into practical reality and this ultimately confirmed my choice to go into industrial research. I’ve now returned to Cloudflare full-time, working on extensions for TLS as well as time synchronization. These drafts have continued to progress through the standardization process, and we’ve contributed some of the code I wrote as a starting point for other implementers to use. If we knew all our projects would work out, they wouldn’t be ambitious enough to be research worth doing. If this sort of research experience appeals to you, we’re hiring. # TLS 1.2 to become the minimum for all AWS FIPS endpoints Post Syndicated from Janelle Hopper original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/tls-1-2-to-become-the-minimum-for-all-aws-fips-endpoints/ To improve security for data in transit, AWS will update all of our AWS Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) endpoints to a minimum Transport Layer Security (TLS) version TLS 1.2 over the next year. This update will deprecate the ability to use TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 on all FIPS endpoints across all AWS Regions by March 31, 2021. No other AWS endpoints are affected by this change. As outlined in the AWS Shared Responsibility Model, security and compliance is a shared responsibility between AWS and our customers. When a customer makes a connection from their client application to an AWS service endpoint, the client provides its TLS minimum and TLS maximum version. The AWS service endpoint selects the maximum version offered. ## What should customers do to prepare for this update? Customers should confirm that their client applications support TLS 1.2 by verifying it is encapsulated between the clients’ minimum and the maximum TLS versions. We encourage customers to be proactive with security standards in order to avoid any impact to availability and to protect the integrity of their data in transit. Also, we recommend configuration changes should be tested in a staging environment, before introduction into production workloads. ## When will these changes happen? To minimize the impact to our customers who use TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1, AWS is rolling out changes on a service-by-service basis between now and the end of March 2021. For each service, after a 30-day period during which no connections are detected, AWS will deploy a configuration change to remove support for them. After March 31, 2021, AWS may update the endpoint configuration to remove TLS 1.0 and 1.1, even if we detect customer connections. Additional reminders will be provided before these updates are final. ## What are AWS FIPS endpoints? All AWS services offer Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2 encrypted endpoints that can be used for all API calls. Some AWS services also offer FIPS 140-2 endpoints for customers that require use of FIPS validated cryptographic libraries. ## What is Transport Layer Security (TLS)? Transport Layer Security (TLS) is a cryptographic protocol designed to provide secure communication across a computer network. API calls to AWS services are secured using TLS. ## Is there more assistance available to help verify or update client applications? Customers using an AWS Software Development Kit (AWS SDK) can find information about how to properly configure their client’s minimum and maximum TLS versions on the following topics in the AWS SDKs: Or see Tools to Build on AWS, and browse by programming language to find the relevant SDK. Additionally, AWS IQ enables customers to find, securely collaborate with, and pay AWS Certified third-party experts for on-demand project work. Visit the AWS IQ page for information about how to submit a request, get responses from experts, and choose the expert with the right skills and experience. Log into your console and select Get Started with AWS IQ to start a request. The AWS Technical Support tiers cover development and production issues for AWS products and services, along with other key stack components. AWS Support does not include code development for client applications. If you have any questions or issues, please start a new thread on one of the AWS Forums, or contact AWS Support or your Technical Account Manager (TAM). If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below. Want more AWS Security how-to content, news, and feature announcements? Follow us on Twitter. Sincerely, Amazon Web Services ### Janelle Hopper Janelle Hopper is a Senior Technical Program Manager in AWS Security with over 15 years of experience in the IT security field. She works with AWS services, infrastructure, and administrative teams to identify and drive innovative solutions that improve AWS’ security posture. # How to improve LDAP security in AWS Directory Service with client-side LDAPS You can now better protect your organization’s identity data by encrypting Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) communications between AWS Directory Service products (AWS Directory Service for Microsoft Active Directory, also known as AWS Managed Microsoft AD, and AD Connector) and self-managed Active Directory. Client-side secure LDAP (LDAPS) support enables applications that integrate with AWS Directory Service, such as Amazon WorkSpaces and AWS Single Sign-On, to connect to AD using Secure Sockets Layer/Transport Layer Security (SSL/TLS). Note: In 2017, AWS Directory Service released server-side LDAPS support in AWS Managed Microsoft AD. This update adds client-side LDAPS support to both AWS Managed Microsoft AD and AD Connector. In this post, I’ll step through configuring client-side LDAPS to enable encrypted communications between Amazon WorkSpaces and an Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2)-based self-managed AD. ## Solution architecture When you have completed the steps outlined in this post, your solution will look like Figure 1: Figure 1: Solution architecture To build the solution, you will follow a three step process: 1. Prepare all prerequisites, including the setup of certificate-based security in the self-managed AD environment. 2. Register your certificate authority (CA) certificate into AWS Directory Service and enable client-side LDAPS (purple arrow in diagram above). 3. Test client-side LDAPS using Amazon WorkSpaces and AWS Directory Service (yellow arrows in diagram above). ## Step one: Set up prerequisites To follow the steps described in this blog, you will need: 1. A self-managed AD deployment to store your user identities. You can find setup guidance in “Step 1: Set Up Your Environment for Trusts” of the Tutorial: Creating a Trust from AWS Managed Microsoft AD to a Self-Managed Active Directory Installation on Amazon EC2. 2. A server authentication certificate installed on your self-managed AD domain controller. Creating the certificate is typically done one of two ways: 1. Using Active Directory Certificate Services (AD CS) in Windows Server to deploy an in-house CA for issuing server certificates. For help with setting up an AD CS deployment that supports LDAPS, see Microsoft’s LDAP over SSL (LDAPS) Certificate. 2. Purchasing SSL certificates from a commercial CA like Verisign or AWS Certificate Manager. For help using commercial certificates with AD, see How to enable LDAP over SSL with a third-party certification authority. 3. An AWS Directory Service directory, either AWS Managed Microsoft AD or AD Connector, to act as a bridge from AWS to your self-managed AD. See the documentation for AWS Managed Microsoft AD or AD Connector for detailed steps and tutorials. If you’re using AWS Managed Microsoft AD, also set up a two-way trust with your self-managed AD using Tutorial: Creating a Trust from AWS Managed Microsoft AD to a Self-Managed Active Directory Installation on Amazon EC2. 4. Amazon WorkSpaces connected to your AWS Directory Service directory to look up and authenticate users. See the WorkSpaces documentation for detailed steps on using AWS Managed Microsoft AD with a Trusted Domain or AD Connector. The remainder of this post assumes you have: 1. Created an AWS Managed Microsoft AD instance called corp.example.com 2. Connected corp.example.com via two-way trust to an EC2-based self-managed AD called example.local 3. Deployed an AD CS enterprise root certificate authority in example.local with the common name Example SelfManaged CA. When you perform the steps described below, you should replace these names with the names you selected. ## Step two: Configure client-side LDAPS in AWS Directory Service Now, you’ll retrieve the CA certificate — which represents the issuing certificate authority — from your self-managed AD and use it to enable client-side LDAPS in AWS Directory Service. To review CA certificate requirements for AWS Directory Service, see the client-side LDAPS documentation for AWS Managed Microsoft AD or AD Connector. 1. Export the CA certificate from the example.local CA: 1. To open the Certification Authority MMC snap-in, on the example.local server hosting AD CS, right-click the Windows icon, select Run, type certsrv.msc, and select OK. 2. Right-click the name of the CA (in this case, Example SelfManaged CA) and select Properties. 3. In the Properties window, on the General tab, under CA certificates, select the CA certificate listed, and then select View Certificate. Figure 2: View the CA certificate 4. In the Certificate window, on the Details tab, select Copy to File. 5. In the Certificate Export Wizard, select Next. 6. In the Export File Format screen, select Base-64 encoded X.509 (.CER), and then select Next. This saves the file in the format required by AWS. Figure 3: Select the base-64 encoded export file format 7. Select Browse, and then select a file name and save location for the CA certificate. 8. Select Save, and then click Next. 9. Select Finish, then select OK to complete the export process. 10. Copy the file to a location accessible by the machine where you will be performing the AWS Directory Service configuration. 2. Register the example.local CA certificate in AWS Directory Service: 1. In the AWS Management Console, select Directory Service, and then select the Directory ID link for the AWS Directory Service directory connected to example.local (in this case, corp.example.com). Figure 4: Select the Directory ID 2. On the Directory details page, in the Networking & security tab, in the Client-side LDAPS section (shown in Figure 5), select the Actions menu, and then select Register certificate. Figure 5: Select “Register certificate” 3. In the Register a CA certificate dialog box, select Browse, navigate to the location where you stored the CA certificate for your AD CS certificate authority, select Open, and then select Register certificate. Figure 6: Register a CA certificate 3. Enable client-side LDAPS in AWS Directory Service: 1. In the Client-side LDAPS section, once the Registration status field for the certificate reads Registered, select the Enable button. Click the Refresh button for updated status. Figure 7: Check the “Registration status” and then select “Enable” 2. In the Enable client-side LDAPS dialog box, select Enable. 3. In the Client-side LDAPS section, under Status, when the status field changes to Enabled, LDAPS is successfully configured. Click the Refresh button for updated status. Figure 8: LDAPS successfully configured ## Step three: Test client-side LDAPS with Amazon WorkSpaces The last step is to test client-side LDAPS with an AWS application. Now that client-side LDAPS has been configured, all LDAP traffic to the self-managed AD will be encrypted and travel over port 636. Note: Ensure that AWS security group, network firewall, and Windows firewall settings applied to the AWS Directory Service directory (outbound) and self-managed AD (inbound) allow TCP communications on port 636. To test your client-side LDAPS configuration, perform a WorkSpaces user look up: 1. In the AWS Management Console, choose WorkSpaces, and then click Launch WorkSpaces. 2. On the Select a Directory screen, pick corp.example.com and then select Next Step. 3. On the Identify Users screen, In the Select trust from forest menu, select example.local, and then select Show All Users (see Figure 9 for an example). This search will be executed over LDAPS. Figure 9: Searching users from a trusted domain with client-side LDAPS ## Summary In this post, we’ve explored how client-side LDAPS support in AWS Managed Microsoft AD and AD Connector improves LDAP security for AWS applications and services like Amazon WorkSpaces, AWS Single Sign-On, and Amazon QuickSight by encrypting sensitive network traffic between AWS and Active Directory. To learn more about using AWS Managed Microsoft AD or AD Connector, visit the AWS Directory Service documentation. For general information and pricing, see the AWS Directory Service home page. If you have comments about this blog post, submit a comment in the Comments section below. If you have implementation or troubleshooting questions, start a new thread on the Directory Service forum or contact AWS Support. Want more AWS Security how-to content, news, and feature announcements? Follow us on Twitter. ### Dave Martinez Dave is a Senior Product Manager working on AWS Directory Service. Outside of work he enjoys Seattle sports and coaching his son’s Little League baseball team. # The NSA Warns of TLS Inspection 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. News article. # Even faster connection establishment with QUIC 0-RTT resumption Post Syndicated from Alessandro Ghedini original https://blog.cloudflare.com/even-faster-connection-establishment-with-quic-0-rtt-resumption/ One of the more interesting features introduced by TLS 1.3, the latest revision of the TLS protocol, was the so called “zero roundtrip time connection resumption”, a mode of operation that allows a client to start sending application data, such as HTTP requests, without having to wait for the TLS handshake to complete, thus reducing the latency penalty incurred in establishing a new connection. The basic idea behind 0-RTT connection resumption is that if the client and server had previously established a TLS connection between each other, they can use information cached from that session to establish a new one without having to negotiate the connection’s parameters from scratch. Notably this allows the client to compute the private encryption keys required to protect application data before even talking to the server. However, in the case of TLS, “zero roundtrip” only refers to the TLS handshake itself: the client and server are still required to first establish a TCP connection in order to be able to exchange TLS data. ### Zero means zero QUIC goes a step further, and allows clients to send application data in the very first roundtrip of the connection, without requiring any other handshake to be completed beforehand. After all, QUIC already shaved a full round-trip off of a typical connection’s handshake by merging the transport and cryptographic handshakes into one. By reducing the handshake by an additional roundtrip, QUIC achieves real 0-RTT connection establishment. It literally can’t get any faster! ### Attack of the clones Unfortunately, 0-RTT connection resumption is not all smooth sailing, and it comes with caveats and risks, which is why Cloudflare does not enable 0-RTT connection resumption by default. Users should consider the risks involved and decide whether to use this feature or not. For starters, 0-RTT connection resumption does not provide forward secrecy, meaning that a compromise of the secret parameters of a connection will trivially allow compromising the application data sent during the 0-RTT phase of new connections resumed from it. Data sent after the 0-RTT phase, meaning after the handshake has been completed, would still be safe though, as TLS 1.3 (and QUIC) will still perform the normal key exchange algorithm (which is forward secret) for data sent after the handshake completion. More worryingly, application data sent during 0-RTT can be captured by an on-path attacker and then replayed multiple times to the same server. In many cases this is not a problem, as the attacker wouldn’t be able to decrypt the data, which is why 0-RTT connection resumption is useful, but in some cases this can be dangerous. For example, imagine a bank that allows an authenticated user (e.g. using HTTP cookies, or other HTTP authentication mechanisms) to send money from their account to another user by making an HTTP request to a specific API endpoint. If an attacker was able to capture that request when 0-RTT connection resumption was used, they wouldn’t be able to see the plaintext and get the user’s credentials, because they wouldn’t know the secret key used to encrypt the data; however they could still potentially drain that user’s bank account by replaying the same request over and over: Of course this problem is not specific to banking APIs: any non-idempotent request has the potential to cause undesired side effects, ranging from slight malfunctions to serious security breaches. In order to help mitigate this risk, Cloudflare will always reject 0-RTT requests that are obviously not idempotent (like POST or PUT requests), but in the end it’s up to the application sitting behind Cloudflare to decide which requests can and cannot be allowed with 0-RTT connection resumption, as even innocuous-looking ones can have side effects on the origin server. To help origins detect and potentially disallow specific requests, Cloudflare also follows the techniques described in RFC8470. Notably, Cloudflare will add the Early-Data: 1 HTTP header to requests received during 0-RTT resumption that are forwarded to origins. Origins able to understand this header can then decide to answer the request with the 425 (Too Early) HTTP status code, which will instruct the client that originated the request to retry sending the same request but only after the TLS or QUIC handshake have fully completed, at which point there is no longer any risk of replay attacks. This could even be implemented as part of a Cloudflare Worker. This makes it possible for origins to allow 0-RTT requests for endpoints that are safe, such as a website’s index page which is where 0-RTT is most useful, as that is typically the first request a browser makes after establishing a connection, while still protecting other endpoints such as APIs and form submissions. But if an origin does not provide any of those non-idempotent endpoints, no action is required. ### One stop shop for all your 0-RTT needs Just like we previously did for TLS 1.3, we now support 0-RTT resumption for QUIC as well. In honor of this event, we have dusted off the user-interface controls that allow Cloudflare users to enable this feature for their websites, and introduced a dedicated toggle to control whether 0-RTT connection resumption is enabled or not, which can be found under the “Network” tab on the Cloudflare dashboard: When TLS 1.3 and/or QUIC (via the HTTP/3 toggle) are enabled, 0-RTT connection resumption will be automatically offered to clients that support it, and the replay mitigation mentioned above will also be applied to the connections making use of this feature. In addition, if you are a user of our open-source HTTP/3 patch for NGINX, after updating the patch to the latest version, you’ll be able to enable support for 0-RTT connection resumption in your own NGINX-based HTTP/3 deployment by using the built-in “ssl_early_data” option, which will work for both TLS 1.3 and QUIC+HTTP/3. # Post-quantum TLS now supported in AWS KMS Post Syndicated from Andrew Hopkins original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/post-quantum-tls-now-supported-in-aws-kms/ AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) now supports post-quantum hybrid key exchange for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) network encryption protocol that is used when connecting to KMS API endpoints. In this post, I’ll tell you what post-quantum TLS is, what hybrid key exchange is, why it’s important, how to take advantage of this new feature, and how to give us feedback. ## What is post-quantum TLS? Post-quantum TLS is a feature that adds new, post-quantum cipher suites to the protocol. AWS implements TLS using s2n, a streamlined open source implementation of TLS. In June, 2019, AWS introduced post-quantum s2n, which implements two proposed post-quantum hybrid cipher suites specified in this IETF draft. The cipher suites specify a key exchange that provides the security protections of both the classical and post-quantum schemes. ## Why is this important? A large-scale quantum computer would break the current public key cryptography that is used for key exchange in every TLS connection. While a large-scale quantum computer is not available today, it’s still important to think about and plan for your long-term security needs. TLS traffic recorded today could be decrypted by a large-scale quantum computer in the future. If you’re developing applications that rely on the long-term confidentiality of data passed over a TLS connection, you should consider a plan to migrate to post-quantum cryptography before a large-scale quantum computer is available for use by potential adversaries. AWS is working to prepare for this future, and we want you to be well-prepared, too. We’re offering this feature now instead of waiting so you’ll have a way to measure the potential performance impact to your applications, and you’ll have the additional benefit of the protection afforded by the proposed post-quantum schemes today. While we believe the use of this feature raises the already high security bar for connecting to KMS endpoints, these new cipher suites will have an impact on bandwidth utilization, latency, and could also create issues for intermediate systems that proxy TLS connections. We’d like to get feedback from you on the effectiveness of our implementation so we can improve it over time. ### Some background on post-quantum TLS Today, all requests to AWS KMS use TLS with one of two key exchange schemes: FFDHE and ECDHE are industry standards for secure key exchange. KMS uses only ephemeral keys for TLS key negotiation; this ensures every connection uses a unique key and the compromise of one connection does not affect the security of another connection. They are secure today against known cryptanalysis techniques which use classic computers; however, they’re not secure against known attacks which use a large-scale quantum computer. In the future a sufficiently capable large-scale quantum computer could run Shor’s Algorithm to recover the TLS session key of a recorded session, and therefore gain access to the data inside. Protecting against a large-scale quantum computer requires using a post-quantum key exchange algorithm during the TLS handshake. The possibility of large-scale quantum computing has spurred the development of new quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms. The National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) has started the process of standardizing post-quantum cryptographic algorithms. AWS contributed to two NIST submissions: BIKE and SIKE are Key Encapsulation Mechanisms (KEMs); a KEM is a type of key exchange used to establish a shared symmetric key. Post-quantum s2n only uses ephemeral BIKE and SIKE keys. The NIST standardization process isn’t expected to complete until 2024. Until then, there is a risk that the exclusive use of proposed algorithms like BIKE and SIKE could expose data in TLS connections to security vulnerabilities not yet discovered. To mitigate this risk and use these new post-quantum schemes safely today, we need a way to combine classical algorithms with the expected post-quantum security of the new algorithms submitted to NIST. The Hybrid Post-Quantum Key Encapsulation Methods for Transport Layer Security 1.2 IETF draft describes how to combine BIKE and SIKE with ECDHE to create two new cipher suites for TLS. These two cipher suites use a hybrid key exchange that performs two independent key exchanges during the TLS handshake and then cryptographically combines the keys into a single TLS session key. This strategy combines the high assurance of a classical key exchange with the security of the proposed post-quantum key exchanges. ## The effect of hybrid post-quantum TLS on performance Post-quantum cipher suites have a different performance profile and bandwidth requirements than traditional cipher suites. We measured the latency and bandwidth for a single handshake on an EC2 C5 2x.large. This provides a baseline for what to expect when you connect to KMS with the SDK. Your exact results will depend on your hardware (CPU speed and number of cores), existing workloads (how often you call KMS and what other work your application performs), and your network (location and capacity). BIKE and SIKE have different performance tradeoffs: BIKE has faster computations and large keys, and SIKE has slower computations and smaller keys. The tables below show the results of the AWS measurements. ECDHE, a classic cryptographic key exchange algorithm, is included by itself for comparison. Table 1 TLS Message ECDHE (bytes) ECDHE w/ BIKE (bytes) ECDHE w/SIKE (bytes) ClientHello 139 147 147 ServerKeyExchange 329 2,875 711 ClientKeyExchange 66 2,610 470 Table 1 shows the amount of data (in bytes) sent in each TLS message. The ClientHello message is larger for post-quantum cipher suites because they include a new ClientHello extension. The key exchange messages are larger because they include BIKE or SIKE messages. Table 2 Item ECDHE (ms) ECDHE w/ BIKE (ms) ECDHE w/SIKE (ms) Server processing time 0.11 20.26 95.53 Client processing time 0.10 0.39 57.05 Total handshake time 1.19 25.58 155.08 Table 2 shows the time (in milliseconds) a client and server in the same region take to complete a handshake. Server processing time includes: key generation, signing the server key exchange message, and processing the client key exchange message. The client processing time includes: verifying the server’s certificate, processing the server key exchange message, and generating the client key exchange message. The total time was measured on the client from the start of the handshake to the end and includes network transfer time. All connections used RSA authentication with a 2048-bit key, and ECDHE used the secp256r1 curve. The BIKE test used the BIKE-1 Level 1 parameter and the SIKE test used the SIKEp503 parameter. A TLS handshake is only performed once to setup a new connection. The SDK will reuse connections for multiple KMS requests when possible. This means that you don’t want to include measurements of subsequent round-trips under an existing TLS session, otherwise you will skew your performance data. ## How to use hybrid post-quantum cipher suites Note: The “AWS CRT HTTP Client” in the aws-crt-dev-preview branch of the aws-sdk-java-v2 repository is a beta release. This beta release and your use are subject to Section 1.10 (“Beta Service Participation”) of the AWS Service Terms. To use the post-quantum cipher suites with AWS KMS, you’ll need the Developer Previews of the Java SDK 2.0 and the AWS Common Runtime. You’ll need to configure the AWS Common Runtime HTTP client to use s2n’s post-quantum hybrid cipher suites, and configure the AWS Java SDK 2.0 to use that HTTP client. This client can then be used when connecting to any KMS endpoints, but only those endpoints that are not using FIPS 140-2 validated crypto for the TLS termination. For example, kms.<region>.amazonaws.com supports the use of post-quantum cipher suites, while kms-fips.<region>.amazonaws.com does not. To see a complete example of everything setup check out the example application here. Figure 1: GitHub and package layout Figure 1 shows the GitHub and package layout. The steps below will walk you through building and configuring the SDK. 1. Download the Java SDK v2 Common Runtime Developer Preview: $ git clone [email protected]:aws/aws-sdk-java-v2.git --branch aws-crt-dev-preview
$cd aws-sdk-java-v2  2. Build the aws-crt-client JAR: $ mvn install -Pquick



<dependency>
<groupId>software.amazon.awssdk</groupId>
<artifactId>aws-crt-client</artifactId>
<version>2.10.7-SNAPSHOT</version>
</dependency>


4. Configure the new SDK and cipher suite in your application’s existing initialization code:

if(!TLS_CIPHER_KMS_PQ_TLSv1_0_2019_06.isSupported()){
throw new RuntimeException("Post Quantum Ciphers not supported on this Platform");
}
SdkAsyncHttpClient awsCrtHttpClient = AwsCrtAsyncHttpClient.builder()
.tlsCipherPreference(TLS_CIPHER_KMS_PQ_TLSv1_0_2019_06)
.build();
KmsAsyncClient kms = KmsAsyncClient.builder()
.httpClient(awsCrtHttpClient)
.build();
ListKeysResponse response = kms.listKeys().get();


Now, all connections made to AWS KMS in supported regions will use the new hybrid post-quantum cipher suites.

## Things to try

Here are some ideas about how to use this post-quantum-enabled client:

• Run load tests and benchmarks. These new cipher suites perform differently than traditional key exchange algorithms. You might need to adjust your connection timeouts to allow for the longer handshake times or, if you’re running inside an AWS Lambda function, extend the execution timeout setting.
• Try connecting from different locations. Depending on the network path your request takes, you might discover that intermediate hosts, proxies, or firewalls with deep packet inspection (DPI) block the request. This could be due to the new cipher suites in the ClientHello or the larger key exchange messages. If this is the case, you might need to work with your Security team or IT administrators to update the relevant configuration to unblock the new TLS cipher suites. We’d like to hear from your about how your infrastructure interacts with this new variant of TLS traffic.

## Conclusion

In this blog post, I introduced you to the topic of post-quantum security and covered what AWS and NIST are doing to address the issue. I also showed you how to begin experimenting with hybrid post-quantum key exchange algorithms for TLS when connecting to KMS endpoints.

# The TLS Post-Quantum Experiment

Post Syndicated from Kris Kwiatkowski original https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-tls-post-quantum-experiment/

In June, we announced a wide-scale post-quantum experiment with Google. We implemented two post-quantum (i.e., not yet known to be broken by quantum computers) key exchanges, integrated them into our TLS stack and deployed the implementation on our edge servers and in Chrome Canary clients. The goal of the experiment was to evaluate the performance and feasibility of deployment in TLS of two post-quantum key agreement ciphers.

In our previous blog post on post-quantum cryptography, we described differences between those two ciphers in detail. In case you didn’t have a chance to read it, we include a quick recap here. One characteristic of post-quantum key exchange algorithms is that the public keys are much larger than those used by “classical” algorithms. This will have an impact on the duration of the TLS handshake. For our experiment, we chose two algorithms: isogeny-based SIKE and lattice-based HRSS. The former has short key sizes (~330 bytes) but has a high computational cost; the latter has larger key sizes (~1100 bytes), but is a few orders of magnitude faster.

During NIST’s Second PQC Standardization Conference, Nick Sullivan presented our approach to this experiment and some initial results. Quite accurately, he compared NTRU-HRSS to an ostrich and SIKE to a turkey—one is big and fast and the other is small and slow.

## Setup & Execution

We based our experiment on TLS 1.3. Cloudflare operated the server-side TLS connections and Google Chrome (Canary and Dev builds) represented the client side of the experiment. We enabled both CECPQ2 (HRSS + X25519) and CECPQ2b (SIKE/p434 + X25519) key-agreement algorithms on all TLS-terminating edge servers. Since the post-quantum algorithms are considered experimental, the X25519 key exchange serves as a fallback to ensure the classical security of the connection.

Clients participating in the experiment were split into 3 groups—those who initiated TLS handshake with post-quantum CECPQ2, CECPQ2b or non post-quantum X25519 public keys. Each group represented approximately one third of the Chrome Canary population participating in the experiment.

In order to distinguish between clients participating in or excluded from the experiment, we added a custom extension to the TLS handshake. It worked as a simple flag sent by clients and echoed back by Cloudflare edge servers. This allowed us to measure the duration of TLS handshakes only for clients participating in the experiment.

For each connection, we collected telemetry metrics. The most important metric was a TLS server-side handshake duration defined as the time between receiving the Client Hello and Client Finished messages. The diagram below shows details of what was measured and how post-quantum key exchange was integrated with TLS 1.3.

The experiment ran for 53 days in total, between August and October. During this time we collected millions of data samples, representing 5% of (anonymized) TLS connections that contained the extension signaling that the client was part of the experiment. We carried out the experiment in two phases.

In the first phase of the experiment, each client was assigned to use one of the three key exchange groups, and each client offered the same key exchange group for every connection. We collected over 10 million records over 40 days.

In the second phase of the experiment, client behavior was modified so that each client randomly chose which key exchange group to offer for each new connection, allowing us to directly compare the performance of each algorithm on a per-client basis. Data collection for this phase lasted 13 days and we collected 270 thousand records.

## Results

We now describe our server-side measurement results. Client-side results are described at https://www.imperialviolet.org/2019/10/30/pqsivssl.html.

### What did we find?

The primary metric we collected for each connection was the server-side handshake duration. The below histograms show handshake duration timings for all client measurements gathered in the first phase of the experiment, as well as breakdowns into the top five operating systems. The operating system breakdowns shown are restricted to only desktop/laptop devices except for Android, which consists of only mobile devices.

It’s clear from the above plots that for most clients, CECPQ2b performs worse than CECPQ2 and CONTROL. Thus, the small key size of CECPQ2b does not make up for its large computational cost—the ostrich outpaces the turkey.

### Digging a little deeper

This means we’re done, right? Not quite. We are interested in determining if there are any populations of TLS clients for which CECPQ2b consistency outperforms CECPQ2. This requires taking a closer look at the long tail of handshake durations. The below plots show cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of handshake timings zoomed in on the 80th percentile (e.g., showing the top 20% of slowest handshakes).

Here, we start to see something interesting. For Android, Linux, and Windows devices, there is a crossover point where CECPQ2b actually starts to outperform CECPQ2 (Android: ~94th percentile, Linux: ~92nd percentile, Windows: ~95th percentile). macOS and ChromeOS do not appear to have these crossover points.

These effects are small but statistically significant in some cases. The below table shows approximate 95% confidence intervals for the 50th (median), 95th, and 99th percentiles of handshake durations for each key exchange group and device type, calculated using Maritz-Jarrett estimators. The numbers within square brackets give the lower and upper bounds on our estimates for each percentile of the “true” distribution of handshake durations based on the samples collected in the experiment. For example, with a 95% confidence level we can say that the 99th percentile of handshake durations for CECPQ2 on Android devices lies between 4057ms and 4478ms, while the 99th percentile for CECPQ2b lies between 3276ms and 3646ms. Since the intervals do not overlap, we say that with statistical significance, the experiment indicates that CECPQ2b performs better than CECPQ2 for the slowest 1% of Android connections. Configurations where CECPQ2 or CECPQ2b outperforms the other with statistical significance are marked with green in the table.

### Per-client comparison

A second phase of the experiment directly examined the performance of each key exchange algorithm for individual clients, where a client is defined to be a unique (anonymized) IP address and user agent pair. Instead of choosing a single key exchange algorithm for the duration of the experiment, clients randomly selected one of the experiment configurations for each new connection. Although the duration and sample size were limited for this phase of the experiment, we collected at least three handshake measurements for each group configuration from 3900 unique clients.

The plot below shows for each of these clients the difference in latency between CECPQ2 and CECPQ2b, taking the minimum latency sample for each key exchange group as the representative value. The CDF plot shows that for 80% of clients, CECPQ2 outperformed or matched CECPQ2b, and for 99% of clients, the latency gap remained within 70ms. At a high level, this indicates that very few clients performed significantly worse with CECPQ2 over CECPQ2b.

### Do other factors impact the latency gap?

We looked at a number of other factors—including session resumption, IP version, and network location—to see if they impacted the latency gap between CECPQ2 and CECPQ2b. These factors impacted the overall handshake latency, but we did not find that any made a significant impact on the latency gap between post-quantum ciphers. We share some interesting observations from this analysis below.

#### Session resumption

Approximately 53% of all connections in the experiment were completed with TLS handshake resumption. However, the percentage of resumed connections varied significantly based on the device configuration. Connections from mobile devices were only resumed ~25% of the time, while between 40% and 70% of connections from laptop/desktop devices were resumed. Additionally, resumption provided between a 30% and 50% speedup for all device types.

#### IP version

We also examined the impact of IP version on handshake latency. Only 12.5% of the connections in the experiment used IPv6. These connections were 20-40% faster than IPv4 connections for desktop/laptop devices, but ~15% slower for mobile devices. This could be an artifact of IPv6 being generally deployed on newer devices with faster processors. For Android, the experiment was only run on devices with more modern processors, which perhaps eliminated the bias.

#### Network location

The slow connections making up the long tail of handshake durations were not isolated to a few countries, Autonomous Systems (ASes), or subnets, but originated from a globally diverse set of clients. We did not find a correlation between the relative performance of the two post-quantum key exchange algorithms based on these factors.

## Discussion

We found that CECPQ2 (the ostrich) outperformed CECPQ2 (the turkey) for the majority of connections in the experiment, indicating that fast algorithms with large keys may be more suitable for TLS than slow algorithms with small keys. However, we observed the opposite—that CECPQ2b outperformed CECPQ2—for the slowest connections on some devices, including Windows computers and Android mobile devices. One possible explanation for this is packet fragmentation and packet loss. The maximum size of TCP packets that can be sent across a network is limited by the maximum transmission unit (MTU) of the network path, which is often ~1400 bytes. During the TLS handshake the server responds to the client with its public key and ciphertext, the combined size of which exceeds the MTU, so it is likely that handshake messages must be split across multiple TCP packets. This increases the risk of lost packets and delays due to retransmission. A repeat of this experiment that includes collection of fine-grained TCP telemetry could confirm this hypothesis.

A somewhat surprising result of this experiment is just how fast HRSS performs for the majority of connections. Recall that the CECPQ2 cipher performs key exchange operations for both X25519 and HRSS, but the additional overhead of HRSS is barely noticeable. Comparing benchmark results, we can see that HRSS will be faster than X25519 on the server side and slower on the client side.

In our design, the client side performs two operations—key generation and KEM decapsulation. Looking at those two operations we can see that the key generation is a bottleneck here.

Key generation: 	3553.5 [ops/sec]
KEM decapsulation: 	17186.7 [ops/sec]
`

In algorithms with quotient-style keys (like NTRU), the key generation algorithm performs an inversion in the quotient ring—an operation that is quite computationally expensive. Alternatively, a TLS implementation could generate ephemeral keys ahead of time in order to speed up key exchange. There are several other lattice-based key exchange candidates that may be worth experimenting with in the context of TLS key exchange, which are based on different underlying principles than the HRSS construction. These candidates have similar key sizes and faster key generation algorithms, but have their own drawbacks. For now, HRSS looks like the more promising algorithm for use in TLS.

In the case of SIKE, we implemented the most recent version of the algorithm, and instantiated it with the most performance-efficient parameter set for our experiment. The algorithm is computationally expensive, so we were required to use assembly to optimize it. In order to ensure best performance on Intel, most performance-critical operations have two different implementations; the library detects CPU capabilities and uses faster instructions if available, but otherwise falls back to a slightly slower generic implementation. We developed our own optimizations for 64-bit ARM CPUs. Nevertheless, our results show that SIKE incurred a significant overhead for every connection, especially on devices with weaker processors. It must be noted that high-performance isogeny-based public key cryptography is arguably much less developed than its lattice-based counterparts. Some ideas to develop this are floating around, and we hope to see performance improvements in the future.

# New Reductor Nation-State Malware Compromises TLS

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/10/new_reductor_na.html

Kaspersky has a detailed blog post about a new piece of sophisticated malware that it’s calling Reductor. The malware is able to compromise TLS traffic by infecting the computer with hacked TLS engine substituted on the fly, “marking” infected TLS handshakes by compromising the underlining random-number generator, and adding new digital certificates. The result is that the attacker can identify, intercept, and decrypt TLS traffic from the infected computer.

The Kaspersky Attribution Engine shows strong code similarities between this family and the COMPfun Trojan. Moreover, further research showed that the original COMpfun Trojan most probably is used as a downloader in one of the distribution schemes. Based on these similarities, we’re quite sure the new malware was developed by the COMPfun authors.

The COMpfun malware was initially documented by G-DATA in 2014. Although G-DATA didn’t identify which actor was using this malware, Kaspersky tentatively linked it to the Turla APT, based on the victimology. Our telemetry indicates that the current campaign using Reductor started at the end of April 2019 and remained active at the time of writing (August 2019). We identified targets in Russia and Belarus.

[…]

Turla has in the past shown many innovative ways to accomplish its goals, such as using hijacked satellite infrastructure. This time, if we’re right that Turla is the actor behind this new wave of attacks, then with Reductor it has implemented a very interesting way to mark a host’s encrypted TLS traffic by patching the browser without parsing network packets. The victimology for this new campaign aligns with previous Turla interests.

We didn’t observe any MitM functionality in the analyzed malware samples. However, Reductor is able to install digital certificates and mark the targets’ TLS traffic. It uses infected installers for initial infection through HTTP downloads from warez websites. The fact the original files on these sites are not infected also points to evidence of subsequent traffic manipulation.

The attribution chain from Reductor to COMPfun to Turla is thin. Speculation is that the attacker behind all of this is Russia.

# Towards Post-Quantum Cryptography in TLS

Post Syndicated from Kris Kwiatkowski original https://blog.cloudflare.com/towards-post-quantum-cryptography-in-tls/

We live in a completely connected society. A society connected by a variety of devices: laptops, mobile phones, wearables, self-driving or self-flying things. We have standards for a common language that allows these devices to communicate with each other. This is critical for wide-scale deployment – especially in cryptography where the smallest detail has great importance.

One of the most important standards-setting organizations is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is hugely influential in determining which standardized cryptographic systems see worldwide adoption. At the end of 2016, NIST announced it would hold a multi-year open project with the goal of standardizing new post-quantum (PQ) cryptographic algorithms secure against both quantum and classical computers.

Many of our devices have very different requirements and capabilities, so it may not be possible to select a “one-size-fits-all” algorithm during the process. NIST mathematician, Dustin Moody, indicated that institute will likely select more than one algorithm:

“There are several systems in use that could be broken by a quantum computer – public-key encryption and digital signatures, to take two examples – and we will need different solutions for each of those systems.”

Initially, NIST selected 82 candidates for further consideration from all submitted algorithms. At the beginning of 2019, this process entered its second stage. Today, there are 26 algorithms still in contention.

### Post-quantum cryptography: what is it really and why do I need it?

In 1994, Peter Shor made a significant discovery in quantum computation. He found an algorithm for integer factorization and computing discrete logarithms, both believed to be hard to solve in classical settings. Since then it has become clear that the ‘hard problems’ on which cryptosystems like RSA and elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) rely – integer factoring and computing discrete logarithms, respectively – are efficiently solvable with quantum computing.

A quantum computer can help to solve some of the problems that are intractable on a classical computer. In theory, they could efficiently solve some fundamental problems in mathematics. This amazing computing power would be highly beneficial, which is why companies are actually trying to build quantum computers. At first, Shor’s algorithm was merely a theoretical result – quantum computers powerful enough to execute it did not exist – but this is quickly changing. In March 2018, Google announced a 72-qubit universal quantum computer. While this is not enough to break say RSA-2048 (still more is needed), many fundamental problems have already been solved.

In anticipation of wide-spread quantum computing, we must start the transition from classical public-key cryptography primitives to post-quantum (PQ) alternatives. It may be that consumers will never get to hold a quantum computer, but a few powerful attackers who will get one can still pose a serious threat. Moreover, under the assumption that current TLS handshakes and ciphertexts are being captured and stored, a future attacker could crack these stored individual session keys and use those results to decrypt the corresponding individual ciphertexts. Even strong security guarantees, like forward secrecy, do not help out much there.

In 2006, the academic research community launched a conference series dedicated to finding alternatives to RSA and ECC. This so-called post-quantum cryptography should run efficiently on a classical computer, but it should also be secure against attacks performed by a quantum computer. As a research field, it has grown substantially in popularity.

Several companies, including Google, Microsoft, Digicert and Thales, are already testing the impact of deploying PQ cryptography. Cloudflare is involved in some of this, but we want to be a company that leads in this direction. The first thing we need to do is understand the real costs of deploying PQ cryptography, and that’s not obvious at all.

### What options do we have?

Many submissions to the NIST project are still under study. Some are very new and little understood; others are more mature and already standardized as RFCs. Some have been broken or withdrawn from the process; others are more conservative or illustrate how far classical cryptography would need to be pushed so that a quantum computer could not crack it within a reasonable cost. Some are very slow and big; others are not. But most cryptographic schemes can be categorized into these families: lattice-based, multivariate, hash-based (signatures only), code-based and isogeny-based.

For some algorithms, nevertheless, there is a fear they may be too inconvenient to use with today’s Internet. We must also be able to integrate new cryptographic schemes with existing protocols, such as SSH or TLS. To do that, designers of PQ cryptosystems must consider these characteristics:

• Latency caused by encryption and decryption on both ends of the communication channel, assuming a variety of devices from big and fast servers to slow and memory constrained IoT (Internet of Things) devices
• Small public keys and signatures to minimize bandwidth
• Clear design that allows cryptanalysis and determining weaknesses that could be exploited
• Use of existing hardware for fast implementation

The work on post-quantum public key cryptosystems must be done in a full view of organizations, governments, cryptographers, and the public. Emerging ideas must be properly vetted by this community to ensure widespread support.

### Helping Build a Better Internet

To better understand the post-quantum world, Cloudflare began experimenting with these algorithms and used them to provide confidentiality in TLS connections.

With Google, we are proposing a wide-scale experiment that combines client- and server-side data collection to evaluate the performance of key-exchange algorithms on actual users’ devices. We hope that this experiment helps choose an algorithm with the best characteristics for the future of the Internet. With Cloudflare’s highly distributed network of access points and Google’s Chrome browser, both companies are in a very good position to perform this experiment.

Our goal is to understand how these algorithms act when used by real clients over real networks, particularly candidate algorithms with significant differences in public-key or ciphertext sizes. Our focus is on how different key sizes affect handshake time in the context of Transport Layer Security (TLS) as used on the web over HTTPS.

Our primary candidates are an NTRU-based construction called HRSS-SXY (by Hülsing – Rijneveld – Schanck – Schwabe, and Tsunekazu Saito – Keita Xagawa – Takashi Yamakawa) and an isogeny-based Supersingular Isogeny Key Encapsulation (SIKE). Details of both algorithms are described in more detail below in section “Dive into post-quantum cryptography”. This table shows a few characteristics for both algorithms. Performance timings were obtained by running the BoringSSL speed test on an Intel Skylake CPU.

KEM Public Key size (bytes) Ciphertext (bytes) Secret size (bytes) KeyGen (op/sec) Encaps (op/sec) Decaps (op/sec) NIST level
HRSS-SXY 1138 1138 32 3952.3 76034.7 21905.8 1
SIKE/p434 330 346 16 367.1 228.0 209.3 1

Currently the most commonly used key exchange algorithm (according to Cloudflare’s data) is the non-quantum X25519. Its public keys are 32 bytes and BoringSSL can generate 49301.2 key pairs, and is able to perform 19628.6 key agreements every second on my Skylake CPU.

Note that HRSS-SXY shows a significant speed advantage, while SIKE has a size advantage. In our experiment, we will deploy these two algorithms on both the server side using Cloudflare’s infrastructure, and the client side using Chrome Canary; both sides will collect telemetry information about TLS handshakes using these two PQ algorithms to see how they perform in practice.

### What do we expect to find?

In 2018, Adam Langley conducted an experiment with the goal of evaluating the likely latency impact of a post-quantum key exchange in TLS. Chrome was augmented with the ability to include a dummy, arbitrarily-sized extension in the TLS ClientHello (fixed number of bytes of random noise). After taking into account the performance and key size offered by different types key-exchange schemes, he concluded that constructs based on structured lattices may be most suitable for future use in TLS.

However, Langley also observed a peculiar phenomenon; client connections measured at 95th percentile had much higher latency than the median. It means that in those cases, isogeny-based systems may be a better choice. In the “Dive into post-quantum cryptography”, we describe the difference between isogeny-based SIKE and lattice-based NTRU cryptosystems.

In our experiment, we want to more thoroughly evaluate and ascribe root causes to these unexpected latency increases. We would particularly like to learn more about the characteristics of those networks: what causes increased latency? how does the performance cost of isogeny-based algorithms impact the TLS handshake? We want to answer key questions, like:

• What is a good ratio for speed-to-key size (or how much faster could SIKE get to achieve the client-perceived performance of HRSS)?
• How do network middleboxes behave when clients use new PQ algorithms, and which networks have problematic middleboxes?
• How do the different properties of client networks affect TLS performance with different PQ key exchanges? Can we identify specific autonomous systems, device configurations, or network configurations that favor one algorithm over another? How is performance affected in the long tail?

### Experiment Design

Our experiment will involve both server- and client-side performance statistics collection from real users around the world (all the data is anonymized). Cloudflare is operating the server-side TLS connections. We will enable the CECPQ2 (HRSS + X25519) and CECPQ2b (SIKE + X25519) key-agreement algorithms on all TLS-terminating edge servers.

In this experiment, the ClientHello will contain a CECPQ2 or CECPQ2b public key (but never both). Additionally, Chrome will always include X25519 for servers that do not support post-quantum key exchange. The post-quantum key exchange will only be negotiated in TLS version 1.3 when both sides support it.

Since Cloudflare only measures the server side of the connection, it is impossible to determine the time it takes for a ClientHello sent from Chrome to reach Cloudflare’s edge servers; however, we can measure the time it takes for the TLS ServerHello message containing post-quantum key exchange, to reach the client and for the client to respond.

On the client side, Chrome Canary will operate the TLS connection. Google will enable either CECPQ2 or CECPQ2b in Chrome for the following mix of architecture and OSes:

• x86-64: Windows, Linux, macOS, ChromeOS
• aarch64: Android

Our high-level expectation is to get similar results as Langley’s original experiment in 2018 — slightly increased latency for the 50th percentile and higher latency for the 95th. Unfortunately, data collected purely from real users’ connections may not suffice for diagnosing the root causes of why some clients experience excessive slowdown. To this end, we will perform follow-up experiments based on per-client information we collect server-side.

Our primary hypothesis is that excessive slowdowns, like those Langley observed, are largely due to in-network events, such as middleboxes or bloated/lossy links. As a first-pass analysis, we will investigate whether the slowed-down clients share common network features, like common ASes, common transit networks, common link types, and so on. To determine this, we will run a traceroute from vantage points close to our servers back toward the clients (not overloading any particular links or hosts) and study whether some client locations are subject to slowdowns for all destinations or just for some.

### Dive into post-quantum cryptography

Be warned: the details of PQ cryptography may be quite complicated. In some cases it builds on classical cryptography, and in other cases it is completely different math. It would be rather hard to describe details in a single blog post. Instead, we are giving you an intuition of post-quantum cryptography, rather than provide deep academic-level descriptions. We’re skipping a lot of details for the sake of brevity. Nevertheless, settle in for a bit of an epic journey because we have a lot to cover.

### Key encapsulation mechanism

NIST requires that all key-agreement algorithms have a form of key-encapsulation mechanism (KEM). The KEM is a simplified form of public key encryption (PKE). As PKE, it also allows agreement on a secret, but in a slightly different way. The idea is that the session key is an output of the encryption algorithm, conversely to public key encryption schemes where session key is an input to the algorithm. In a KEM, Alice generates a random key and uses the pre-generated public key from Bob to encrypt (encapsulate) it. This results in a ciphertext sent to Bob. Bob uses his private key to decrypt (decapsulate) the ciphertext and retrieve the random key. The idea was initially introduced by Cramer and Shoup. Experience shows that such constructs are easier to design, analyze, and implement as the scheme is limited to communicating a fixed-size session key. Leonardo Da Vinci said, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication,” which is very true in cryptography.

The key exchange (KEX) protocol, like Diffie-Hellman, is yet a different construct: it allows two parties to agree on a shared secret that can be used as a symmetric encryption key. For example, Alice generates a key pair and sends a public key to Bob. Bob does the same and uses his own key pair with Alice’s public key to generate the shared secret. He then sends his public key to Alice who can now generate the same shared secret. What’s worth noticing is that both Alice and Bob perform exactly the same operations.

KEM construction can be converted to KEX. Alice performs key generation and sends the public key to Bob. Bob uses it to encapsulate a symmetric session key and sends it back to Alice. Alice decapsulates the ciphertext received from Bob and gets the symmetric key. This is actually what we do in our experiment to make integration with the TLS protocol less complicated.

### NTRU Lattice-based Encryption

We will enable the CECPQ2 implemented by Adam Langley from Google on our servers. He described this implementation in detail here. This key exchange uses the HRSS algorithm, which is based on the NTRU (N-Th Degree TRUncated Polynomial Ring) algorithm. Foregoing too much detail, I am going to explain how NTRU works and give simplified examples, and finally, compare it to HRSS.

NTRU is a cryptosystem based on a polynomial ring. This means that we do not operate on numbers modulo a prime (like in RSA), but on polynomials of degree $$N$$ , where the degree of a polynomial is the highest exponent of its variable. For example, $$x^7 + 6x^3 + 11x^2$$ has degree of 7.

One can add polynomials in the ring in the usual way, by simply adding theirs coefficients modulo some integer. In NTRU this integer is called $$q$$. Polynomials can also be multiplied, but remember, you are operating in the ring, therefore the result of a multiplication is always a polynomial of degree less than $$N$$. It basically means that exponents of the resulting polynomial are added to modulo $$N$$.

In other words, polynomial ring arithmetic is very similar to modular arithmetic, but instead of working with a set of numbers less than N, you are working with a set of polynomials with a degree less than N.

To instantiate the NTRU cryptosystem, three domain parameters must be chosen:

• $$N$$ – degree of the polynomial ring, in NTRU the principal objects are polynomials of degree $$N-1$$.
• $$p$$ – small modulus used during key generation and decryption for reducing message coefficients.
• $$q$$ – large modulus used during algorithm execution for reducing coefficients of the polynomials.

First, we generate a pair of public and private keys. To do that, two polynomials $$f$$ and $$g$$ are chosen from the ring in a way that their randomly generated coefficients are much smaller than $$q$$. Then key generation computes two inverses of the polynomial: $$f_p= f^{-1} \bmod{p} \\ f_q= f^{-1} \bmod{q}$$

The last step is to compute $$pk = p\cdot f_q\cdot g \bmod q$$, which we will use as public key pk. The private key consists of $$f$$ and $$f_p$$. The $$f_q$$ is not part of any key, however it must remain secret.

It might be the case that after choosing $$f$$, the inverses modulo $$p$$ and $$q$$ do not exist. In this case, the algorithm has to start from the beginning and generate another $$f$$. That’s unfortunate because calculating the inverse of a polynomial is a costly operation. HRSS brings an improvement to this issue since it ensures that those inverses always exist, making key generation faster than as proposed initially in NTRU.

The encryption of a message $$m$$ proceeds as follows. First, the message $$m$$ is converted to a ring element $$pt$$ (there exists an algorithm for performing this conversion in both directions). During encryption, NTRU randomly chooses one polynomial $$b$$ called blinder. The goal of the blinder is to generate different ciphertexts per encyption. Thus, the ciphetext $$ct$$ is obtained as $$ct = (b\cdot pk + pt ) \bmod q$$ Decryption looks a bit more complicated but it can also be easily understood. Decryption uses both the secret value $$f$$ and to recover the plaintext as $$v = f \cdot ct \bmod q \\ pt = v \cdot f_p \bmod p$$

This diagram demonstrates why and how decryption works.

After obtaining $$pt$$, the message $$m$$ is recovered by inverting the conversion function.

The underlying hard assumption is that given two polynomials: $$f$$ and $$g$$ whose coefficients are short compared to the modulus $$q$$, it is difficult to distinguish $$pk = \frac{f}{g}$$ from a random element in the ring. It means that it’s hard to find $$f$$ and $$g$$ given only public key pk.

### Lattices

NTRU cryptosystem is a grandfather of lattice-based encryption schemes. The idea of using  difficult problems for cryptographic purposes was due to Ajtai. His work evolved into a whole area of research with the goal of creating more practical, lattice-based cryptosystems.

### What is a lattice and why it can be used for post-quantum crypto?

The picture below visualizes lattice as points in a two-dimensional space. A lattice is defined by the origin $$O$$ and base vectors $$\{ b_1 , b_2\}$$. Every point on the lattice is represented as a linear combination of the base vectors, for example  $$V = -2b_1+b_2$$.

There are two classical NP-hard problems in lattice-based cryptography:

1. Shortest Vector Problem (SVP): Given a lattice, to find the shortest non-zero vector in the lattice. In the graph, the vector $$s$$ is the shortest one. The SVP problem is NP-hard only under some assumptions.
2. Closest Vector Problem (CVP). Given a lattice and a vector $$V$$ (not necessarily in the lattice), to find the closest vector to $$V$$. For example, the closest vector to $$t$$ is $$z$$.

In the graph above, it is easy for us to solve SVP and CVP by simple inspection. However, the lattices used in cryptography have higher dimensions, say above 1000, as well as highly non-orthogonal basis vectors. On these instances, the problems get extremely hard to solve. It’s even believed future quantum computers will have it tough.

HRSS, which we use in our experiment, is based on NTRU, but a slightly better instantiation. The main improvements are:

• Faster key generation algorithm.
• NTRU encryption can produce ciphertexts that are impossible to decrypt (true for many lattice-based schemes). But HRSS fixes this problem.
• HRSS is a key encapsulation mechanism.

### CECPQ2b – Isogeny-based Post-Quantum TLS

Following CECPQ2, we have integrated into BoringSSL another hybrid key exchange mechanism relying on SIKE. It is called CECPQ2b and we will use it in our experimentation in TLS 1.3. SIKE is a key encapsulation method based on Supersingular Isogeny Diffie-Hellman (SIDH). Read more about SIDH in our previous post. The math behind SIDH is related to elliptic curves. A comparison between SIDH and the classical Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) is given.

An elliptic curve is a set of points that satisfy a specific mathematical equation. The equation of an elliptic curve may have multiple forms, the standard form is called the Weierstrass equation $$y^2 = x^3 +ax +b$$ and its shape can look like the red curve.

An interesting fact about elliptic curves is have a group structure. That is, the set of points on the curve have associated a binary operation called point addition. The set of points on the elliptic curve is closed under addition. Thus, adding two points results in another point that is also on the elliptic curve.

If we can add two different points on a curve, then we can also add one point to itself. And if we do it multiple times, then the resulting operations is known as a scalar multiplication and denoted as  $$Q = k\cdot P = P+P+\dots+P$$ for an integer $$k$$.

Multiplication of scalars is commutative. It means that two scalar multiplications can be evaluated in any order $$\color{darkred}{k_a}\cdot\color{darkgreen}{k_b} = \color{darkgreen}{k_b}\cdot\color{darkred}{k_a}$$; this an important property that makes ECDH possible.

It turns out that carefully if choosing an elliptic curve “correctly”, scalar multiplication is easy to compute but extremely hard to reverse. Meaning, given two points $$Q$$ and $$P$$ such that $$Q=k\cdot P$$, finding the integer k is a difficult task known as the Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm problem (ECDLP). This problem is suitable for cryptographic purposes.

Alice and Bob agree on a secret key as follows. Alice generates a private key $$k_a$$. Then, she uses some publicly known point $$P$$ and calculates her public key as $$Q_a = k_a\cdot P$$. Bob proceeds in similar fashion and gets $$k_b$$ and $$Q_b = k_b\cdot P$$. To agree on a shared secret, each party multiplies their private key with the public key of the other party. The result of this is the shared secret. Key agreement as described above, works thanks to the fact that scalars can commute:
$$\color{darkgreen}{k_a} \cdot Q_b = \color{darkgreen}{k_a} \cdot \color{darkred}{k_b} \cdot P \iff \color{darkred}{k_b} \cdot \color{darkgreen}{k_a} \cdot P = \color{darkred}{k_b} \cdot Q_a$$

There is a vast theory behind elliptic curves. An introduction to elliptic curve cryptography was posted before and more details can be found in this book. Now, lets describe SIDH and compare with ECDH.

### Isogenies on Elliptic Curves

Before explaining the details of SIDH key exchange, I’ll explain the 3 most important concepts, namely: j-invariant, isogeny and its kernel.

Each curve has a number that can be associated to it. Let’s call this number a j-invariant. This number is not unique per curve, meaning many curves have the same value of j-invariant, but it can be viewed as a way to group multiple elliptic curves into disjoint sets. We say that two curves are isomorphic if they are in the same set, called the isomorphism class. The j-invariant is a simple criterion to determine whether two curves are isomorphic. The j-invariant of a curve $$E$$ in Weierstrass form $$y^2 = x^3 + ax + b$$ is given as $$j(E) = 1728\frac{4a^3}{4a^3 +27b^2}$$

When it comes to isogeny, think about it as a map between two curves. Each point on some curve $$E$$ is mapped by isogeny to the point on isogenous curve $$E’$$. We denote mapping from curve $$E$$ to $$E’$$ by isogeny $$\phi$$ as:

$$\phi: E \rightarrow E’$$

It depends on the map if those two curves are isomorphic or not. Isogeny can be visualised as:

There may exist many of those mappings, each curve used in SIDH has small number of isogenies to other curves. Natural question is how do we compute such isogeny. Here is where the kernel of an isogeny comes. The kernel uniquely determines isogeny (up to isomorphism class). Formulas for calculating isogeny from its kernel were initially given by J. Vélu and the idea of calculating them efficiently was extended.

To finish, I will summarize what was said above with a picture.

There are two isomorphism classes on the picture above. Both curves $$E_1$$ and $$E_2$$ are isomorphic and have  j-invariant = 6. As curves $$E_3$$ and $$E_4$$ have j-invariant=13, they are in a different isomorphism class. There exists an isogeny $$\phi_2$$ between curve $$E_3$$ and $$E_2$$, so they both are isogeneous. Curves $$\phi_1$$ and $$E_2$$ are isomorphic and there is isogeny $$\phi_1$$ between them. Curves $$E_1$$ and $$E_4$$ are not isomorphic.

For brevity I’m skipping many important details, like details of the finite field, the fact that isogenies must be separable and that the kernel is finite. But curious readers can find a number of academic research papers available on the Internet.

### Big picture: similarities with ECDH

Let’s generalize the ECDH algorithm described above, so that we can swap some elements and try to use Supersingular Isogeny Diffie-Hellman.

Note that what actually happens during an ECDH key exchange is:

• We have a set of points on elliptic curve, set S
• We have another group of integers used for point multiplication, G
• We use an element from Z to act on an element from S to get another element from S:

$$G \cdot S \rightarrow S$$

Now the question is: what is our G and S in an SIDH setting? For SIDH to work, we need a big set of elements and something secret that will act on the elements from that set. This “group action” must also be resistant to attacks performed by quantum computers.

In the SIDH setting, those two sets are defined as:

• Set S is a set (graph) of j-invariants, such that all the curves are supersingular: $$S = [j(E_1), j(E_2), j(E_3), …. , j(E_n)]$$
• Set G is a set of isogenies acting on elliptic curves and transforming, for example, the elliptic curve $$E_1$$ into $$E_n$$:

### Random walk on supersingular graph

When we talk about Isogeny Based Cryptography, as a topic distinct from Elliptic Curve Cryptography, we usually mean algorithms and protocols that rely fundamentally on the structure of isogeny graphs. An example of such a (small) graph is pictured below.

Each vertex of the graph represents a different j-invariant of a set of supersingular curves. The edges between vertices represent isogenies converting one elliptic curve to another. As you can notice, the graph is strongly connected, meaning every vertex can be reached from every other vertex. In the context of isogeny-based crypto, we call such a graph a supersingular isogeny graph. I’ll skip some technical details about the construction of this graph (look for those here or here), but instead describe ideas about how it can be used.

As the graph is strongly connected, it is possible to walk a whole graph by starting from any vertex, randomly choosing an edge, following it to the next vertex and then start the process again on a new vertex. Such a way of visiting edges of this graph is called a random walk.

The random walk is a key concept that makes isogeny based crypto feasible. When you look closely at the graph, you can notice that each vertex has a small number of edges incident to it, this is why we can compute the isogenies efficiently. But also for any vertex there is only a limited number of isogenies to choose from, which doesn’t look like good base for a cryptographic scheme. The key question is – where does the security of the scheme come from exactly? In order to get it, it is necessary to visit a couple hundred vertices. What it means in practice is that secret isogeny (of large degree) is constructed as a composition of multiple isogenies (of small, prime degree).  Which means, the secret isogeny is:

This property and properties of the isogeny graph are what makes some of us believe that scheme has a good chance to be secure. More specifically, there is no efficient way of finding a path that connects $$E_0$$ with $$E_n$$, even with quantum computer at hand. The security level of a system depends on value n – the number of steps taken during the walk.

The random walk is a core process used when both generating public keys and computing shared secrets. It starts with party generating random value m (see more below), starting curve $$E_0$$ and points P and Q on this curve. Those values are used to compute the kernel of an isogeny $$R_1$$ in the following way:

$$R_1 = P + m \cdot Q$$

Thanks to formulas given by Vélu we can now use the point $$R_1$$ to compute the isogeny, the party will choose to move from a vertex to another one. After the isogeny $$\phi_{R_1}$$ is calculated it is applied to $$E_0$$  which results in a new curve $$E_1$$:

$$\phi_{R_1}: E_0 \rightarrow E_1$$

Isogeny is also applied to points P and Q. Once on $$E_1$$ the process is repeated. This process is applied n times, and at the end a party ends up on some curve $$E_n$$ which defines isomorphism class, so also j-invariant.

### Supersingular Isogeny Diffie-Hellman

The core idea in SIDH is to compose two random walks on an isogeny graph of elliptic curves in such a way that the end node of both ways of composing is the same.

In order to do it, scheme sets public parameters – starting curve $$E_0$$ and 2 pairs of base points on this curve $$(PA,QA)$$ , $$(PB,QB)$$. Alice generates her random secret keys m, and calculates a secret isogeny $$\phi_q$$ by performing a random walk as described above. The walk finishes with 3 values: elliptic curve $$E_a$$ she has ended up with and pair of points $$\phi_a(PB)$$ and $$\phi_a(QB)$$ after pushing through Alice’s secret isogeny. Bob proceeds analogously which results in the triple $${E_b, \phi_b(PA), \phi_b(QA)}$$. The triple forms a public key which is exchanged between parties.

The picture below visualizes the operation. The black dots represent curves grouped in the same isomorphism classes represented by light blue circles. Alice takes the orange path ending up on a curve $$E_a$$ in a separate isomorphism class than Bob after taking his dark blue path ending on $$E_b$$. SIDH is parametrized in a way that Alice and Bob will always end up in different isomorphism classes.

Upon receipt of triple $${ E_a, \phi_a(PB), \phi_a(QB) }$$  from Alice, Bob will use his secret value m to calculate a new kernel – but instead of using point $$PA$$ and $$QA$$ to calculate an isogeny kernel, he will now use images $$\phi_a(PB)$$ and $$\phi_a(QB)$$ received from Alice:

$$R’_1 = \phi_a(PB) + m \cdot \phi_a(QB)$$

Afterwards, he uses $$R’_1$$ to start the walk again resulting in the isogeny $$\phi’_b: E_a \rightarrow E_{ab}$$. Allice proceeds analogously resulting in the isogeny $$\phi’_a: E_b \rightarrow E_{ba}$$. With isogenies calculated this way, both Alice and Bob will converge in the same isomorphism class. The math math may seem complicated, hopefully the picture below makes it easier to understand.

Bob computes a new isogeny and starts his random walk from $$E_a$$ received from Alice. He ends up on some curve $$E_{ba}$$. Similarly, Alice calculates a new isogeny, applies it on $$E_b$$ received from Bob and her random walk ends on some curve $$E_{ab}$$. Curves $$E_{ab}$$ and $$E_{ba}$$ are not likely to be the same, but construction guarantees that they are isomorphic. As mentioned earlier, isomorphic curves have the same value of j-invariant,  hence the shared secret is a value of j-invariant $$j(E_{ab})$$.

Coming back to differences between SIDH and ECDH – we can split them into four categories: the elements of the group we are operating on, the cornerstone computation required to agree on a shared secret, the elements representing secret values, and the difficult problem on which the security relies.

In ECDH there is a secret key which is an integer scalar, in case of SIDH it is a secret isogeny, which also is generated from an integer scalar. In the case of ECDH one multiplies a point on a curve by a scalar, in the case of SIDH it is a random walk in an isogeny graph. In the case of ECDH, the public key is a point on a curve, in the case of SIDH, the public part is a curve itself and the image of some points after applying isogeny. The shared secret in the case of ECDH is a point on a curve, in the case of SIDH it is a j-invariant.

### SIKE: Supersingular Isogeny Key Encapsulation

SIDH could potentially be used as a drop-in replacement of the ECDH protocol. We have actually implemented a proof-of-concept and added it to our implementation of TLS 1.3 in the tls-tris library and described (together with Mozilla) implementation details in this draft. Nevertheless, there is a problem with SIDH – the keys can be used only once. In 2016, a few researchers came up with an active attack on SIDH which works only when public keys are reused. In the context of TLS, it is not a big problem, because for each session a fresh key pair is generated (ephemeral keys), but it may not be true for other applications.

SIKE is an isogeny key encapsulation which solves this problem. Bob can generate SIKE keys, upload the public part somewhere in the Internet and then anybody can use it whenever he wants to communicate with Bob securely. SIKE reuses SIDH – internally both sides of the connection always perform SIDH key generation, SIDH key agreement and apply some other cryptographic primitives in order to convert SIDH to KEM. SIKE is implemented in a few variants – each variant corresponds to the security levels using 128-, 192- and 256-bit secret keys. Higher security level means longer running time. More details about SIKE can be found here.

SIKE is also one of the candidates in NIST post-quantum “competition“.

I’ve skipped many important details to give a brief description of how isogeny based crypto works. If you’re curious and hungry for details, look at either of these Cloudflare meetups, where Deirdre Connolly talked about isogeny-based cryptography or this talk by Chloe Martindale during PQ Crypto School 2017. And if you would like to know more about quantum attacks on this scheme, I highly recommend this work.

## Conclusion

Quantum computers that can break meaningful cryptographic parameter settings do not exist, yet. They won’t be built for at least the next few years. Nevertheless, they have already changed the way we look at current cryptographic deployments. There are at least two reasons it’s worth investing in PQ cryptography:

• It takes a lot of time to build secure cryptography and we don’t actually know when today’s classical cryptography will be broken. There is a need for a good mathematical base: an initial idea of what may be secure against something that doesn’t exist yet. If you have an idea, you also need good implementation, constant time, resistance to things like time and cache side-channels, DFA, DPA, EM, and a bunch of other abbreviations indicating side-channel resistance. There is also deployment of, for example, algorithms based on elliptic curves were introduced in ’85, but started to really be used in production only during the last decade, 20 or so years later. Obviously, the implementation must be blazingly fast! Last, but not least, integration: we need time to develop standards to allow integration of PQ cryptography with protocols like TLS.
• Even though efficient quantum computers probably won’t exist for another few years, the threat is real. Data encrypted with current cryptographic algorithms can be recorded now with hopes of being broken in the future.

Cloudflare is motivated to help build the Internet of tomorrow with the tools at hand today. Our interest is in cryptographic techniques that can be integrated into existing protocols and widely deployed on the Internet as seamlessly as possible. PQ cryptography, like the rest of cryptography, includes many cryptosystems that can be used for communications in today’s Internet; Alice and Bob need to perform some computation, but they do not need to buy new hardware to do that.

Cloudflare sees great potential in those algorithms and believes that some of them can be used as a safe replacement for classical public-key cryptosystems. Time will tell if we’re justified in this belief!

# Towards Post-Quantum Cryptography in TLS

Post Syndicated from Kris Kwiatkowski original https://blog.cloudflare.com/towards-post-quantum-cryptography-in-tls/

We live in a completely connected society. A society connected by a variety of devices: laptops, mobile phones, wearables, self-driving or self-flying things. We have standards for a common language that allows these devices to communicate with each other. This is critical for wide-scale deployment – especially in cryptography where the smallest detail has great importance.

One of the most important standards-setting organizations is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is hugely influential in determining which standardized cryptographic systems see worldwide adoption. At the end of 2016, NIST announced it would hold a multi-year open project with the goal of standardizing new post-quantum (PQ) cryptographic algorithms secure against both quantum and classical computers.

Many of our devices have very different requirements and capabilities, so it may not be possible to select a “one-size-fits-all” algorithm during the process. NIST mathematician, Dustin Moody, indicated that institute will likely select more than one algorithm:

“There are several systems in use that could be broken by a quantum computer – public-key encryption and digital signatures, to take two examples – and we will need different solutions for each of those systems.”

Initially, NIST selected 82 candidates for further consideration from all submitted algorithms. At the beginning of 2019, this process entered its second stage. Today, there are 26 algorithms still in contention.

### Post-quantum cryptography: what is it really and why do I need it?

In 1994, Peter Shor made a significant discovery in quantum computation. He found an algorithm for integer factorization and computing discrete logarithms, both believed to be hard to solve in classical settings. Since then it has become clear that the ‘hard problems’ on which cryptosystems like RSA and elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) rely – integer factoring and computing discrete logarithms, respectively – are efficiently solvable with quantum computing.

A quantum computer can help to solve some of the problems that are intractable on a classical computer. In theory, they could efficiently solve some fundamental problems in mathematics. This amazing computing power would be highly beneficial, which is why companies are actually trying to build quantum computers. At first, Shor’s algorithm was merely a theoretical result – quantum computers powerful enough to execute it did not exist – but this is quickly changing. In March 2018, Google announced a 72-qubit universal quantum computer. While this is not enough to break say RSA-2048 (still more is needed), many fundamental problems have already been solved.

In anticipation of wide-spread quantum computing, we must start the transition from classical public-key cryptography primitives to post-quantum (PQ) alternatives. It may be that consumers will never get to hold a quantum computer, but a few powerful attackers who will get one can still pose a serious threat. Moreover, under the assumption that current TLS handshakes and ciphertexts are being captured and stored, a future attacker could crack these stored individual session keys and use those results to decrypt the corresponding individual ciphertexts. Even strong security guarantees, like forward secrecy, do not help out much there.

In 2006, the academic research community launched a conference series dedicated to finding alternatives to RSA and ECC. This so-called post-quantum cryptography should run efficiently on a classical computer, but it should also be secure against attacks performed by a quantum computer. As a research field, it has grown substantially in popularity.

Several companies, including Google, Microsoft, Digicert and Thales, are already testing the impact of deploying PQ cryptography. Cloudflare is involved in some of this, but we want to be a company that leads in this direction. The first thing we need to do is understand the real costs of deploying PQ cryptography, and that’s not obvious at all.

### What options do we have?

Many submissions to the NIST project are still under study. Some are very new and little understood; others are more mature and already standardized as RFCs. Some have been broken or withdrawn from the process; others are more conservative or illustrate how far classical cryptography would need to be pushed so that a quantum computer could not crack it within a reasonable cost. Some are very slow and big; others are not. But most cryptographic schemes can be categorized into these families: lattice-based, multivariate, hash-based (signatures only), code-based and isogeny-based.

For some algorithms, nevertheless, there is a fear they may be too inconvenient to use with today’s Internet. We must also be able to integrate new cryptographic schemes with existing protocols, such as SSH or TLS. To do that, designers of PQ cryptosystems must consider these characteristics:

• Latency caused by encryption and decryption on both ends of the communication channel, assuming a variety of devices from big and fast servers to slow and memory constrained IoT (Internet of Things) devices
• Small public keys and signatures to minimize bandwidth
• Clear design that allows cryptanalysis and determining weaknesses that could be exploited
• Use of existing hardware for fast implementation

The work on post-quantum public key cryptosystems must be done in a full view of organizations, governments, cryptographers, and the public. Emerging ideas must be properly vetted by this community to ensure widespread support.

### Helping Build a Better Internet

To better understand the post-quantum world, Cloudflare began experimenting with these algorithms and used them to provide confidentiality in TLS connections.

With Google, we are proposing a wide-scale experiment that combines client- and server-side data collection to evaluate the performance of key-exchange algorithms on actual users’ devices. We hope that this experiment helps choose an algorithm with the best characteristics for the future of the Internet. With Cloudflare’s highly distributed network of access points and Google’s Chrome browser, both companies are in a very good position to perform this experiment.

Our goal is to understand how these algorithms act when used by real clients over real networks, particularly candidate algorithms with significant differences in public-key or ciphertext sizes. Our focus is on how different key sizes affect handshake time in the context of Transport Layer Security (TLS) as used on the web over HTTPS.

Our primary candidates are an NTRU-based construction called HRSS-SXY (by Hülsing – Rijneveld – Schanck – Schwabe, and Tsunekazu Saito – Keita Xagawa – Takashi Yamakawa) and an isogeny-based Supersingular Isogeny Key Encapsulation (SIKE). Details of both algorithms are described in more detail below in section “Dive into post-quantum cryptography”. This table shows a few characteristics for both algorithms. Performance timings were obtained by running the BoringSSL speed test on an Intel Skylake CPU.

KEM Public Key size (bytes) Ciphertext (bytes) Secret size (bytes) KeyGen (op/sec) Encaps (op/sec) Decaps (op/sec) NIST level
HRSS-SXY 1138 1138 32 3952.3 76034.7 21905.8 1
SIKE/p434 330 346 16 367.1 228.0 209.3 1

Currently the most commonly used key exchange algorithm (according to Cloudflare’s data) is the non-quantum X25519. Its public keys are 32 bytes and BoringSSL can generate 49301.2 key pairs, and is able to perform 19628.6 key agreements every second on my Skylake CPU.

Note that HRSS-SXY shows a significant speed advantage, while SIKE has a size advantage. In our experiment, we will deploy these two algorithms on both the server side using Cloudflare’s infrastructure, and the client side using Chrome Canary; both sides will collect telemetry information about TLS handshakes using these two PQ algorithms to see how they perform in practice.

### What do we expect to find?

In 2018, Adam Langley conducted an experiment with the goal of evaluating the likely latency impact of a post-quantum key exchange in TLS. Chrome was augmented with the ability to include a dummy, arbitrarily-sized extension in the TLS ClientHello (fixed number of bytes of random noise). After taking into account the performance and key size offered by different types key-exchange schemes, he concluded that constructs based on structured lattices may be most suitable for future use in TLS.

However, Langley also observed a peculiar phenomenon; client connections measured at 95th percentile had much higher latency than the median. It means that in those cases, isogeny-based systems may be a better choice. In the Dive into post-quantum cryptography, we describe the difference between isogeny-based SIKE and lattice-based NTRU cryptosystems.

In our experiment, we want to more thoroughly evaluate and ascribe root causes to these unexpected latency increases. We would particularly like to learn more about the characteristics of those networks: what causes increased latency? how does the performance cost of isogeny-based algorithms impact the TLS handshake? We want to answer key questions, like:

• What is a good ratio for speed-to-key size (or how much faster could SIKE get to achieve the client-perceived performance of HRSS)?
• How do network middleboxes behave when clients use new PQ algorithms, and which networks have problematic middleboxes?
• How do the different properties of client networks affect TLS performance with different PQ key exchanges? Can we identify specific autonomous systems, device configurations, or network configurations that favor one algorithm over another? How is performance affected in the long tail?

### Experiment Design

Our experiment will involve both server- and client-side performance statistics collection from real users around the world (all the data is anonymized). Cloudflare is operating the server-side TLS connections. We will enable the CECPQ2 (HRSS + X25519) and CECPQ2b (SIKE + X25519) key-agreement algorithms on all TLS-terminating edge servers.

In this experiment, the ClientHello will contain a CECPQ2 or CECPQ2b public key (but never both). Additionally, Chrome will always include X25519 for servers that do not support post-quantum key exchange. The post-quantum key exchange will only be negotiated in TLS version 1.3 when both sides support it.

Since Cloudflare only measures the server side of the connection, it is impossible to determine the time it takes for a ClientHello sent from Chrome to reach Cloudflare’s edge servers; however, we can measure the time it takes for the TLS ServerHello message containing post-quantum key exchange, to reach the client and for the client to respond.

On the client side, Chrome Canary will operate the TLS connection. Google will enable either CECPQ2 or CECPQ2b in Chrome for the following mix of architecture and OSes:

• x86-64: Windows, Linux, macOS, ChromeOS
• aarch64: Android

Our high-level expectation is to get similar results as Langley’s original experiment in 2018 — slightly increased latency for the 50th percentile and higher latency for the 95th. Unfortunately, data collected purely from real users’ connections may not suffice for diagnosing the root causes of why some clients experience excessive slowdown. To this end, we will perform follow-up experiments based on per-client information we collect server-side.

Our primary hypothesis is that excessive slowdowns, like those Langley observed, are largely due to in-network events, such as middleboxes or bloated/lossy links. As a first-pass analysis, we will investigate whether the slowed-down clients share common network features, like common ASes, common transit networks, common link types, and so on. To determine this, we will run a traceroute from vantage points close to our servers back toward the clients (not overloading any particular links or hosts) and study whether some client locations are subject to slowdowns for all destinations or just for some.

### Dive into post-quantum cryptography

Be warned: the details of PQ cryptography may be quite complicated. In some cases it builds on classical cryptography, and in other cases it is completely different math. It would be rather hard to describe details in a single blog post. Instead, we are giving you an intuition of post-quantum cryptography, rather than provide deep academic-level descriptions. We’re skipping a lot of details for the sake of brevity. Nevertheless, settle in for a bit of an epic journey because we have a lot to cover.

### Key encapsulation mechanism

NIST requires that all key-agreement algorithms have a form of key-encapsulation mechanism (KEM). The KEM is a simplified form of public key encryption (PKE). As PKE, it also allows agreement on a secret, but in a slightly different way. The idea is that the session key is an output of the encryption algorithm, conversely to public key encryption schemes where session key is an input to the algorithm. In a KEM, Alice generates a random key and uses the pre-generated public key from Bob to encrypt (encapsulate) it. This results in a ciphertext sent to Bob. Bob uses his private key to decrypt (decapsulate) the ciphertext and retrieve the random key. The idea was initially introduced by Cramer and Shoup. Experience shows that such constructs are easier to design, analyze, and implement as the scheme is limited to communicating a fixed-size session key. Leonardo Da Vinci said, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication,” which is very true in cryptography.

The key exchange (KEX) protocol, like Diffie-Hellman, is yet a different construct: it allows two parties to agree on a shared secret that can be used as a symmetric encryption key. For example, Alice generates a key pair and sends a public key to Bob. Bob does the same and uses his own key pair with Alice’s public key to generate the shared secret. He then sends his public key to Alice who can now generate the same shared secret. What’s worth noticing is that both Alice and Bob perform exactly the same operations.

KEM construction can be converted to KEX. Alice performs key generation and sends the public key to Bob. Bob uses it to encapsulate a symmetric session key and sends it back to Alice. Alice decapsulates the ciphertext received from Bob and gets the symmetric key. This is actually what we do in our experiment to make integration with the TLS protocol less complicated.

### NTRU Lattice-based Encryption

We will enable the CECPQ2 implemented by Adam Langley from Google on our servers. He described this implementation in detail here. This key exchange uses the HRSS algorithm, which is based on the NTRU (N-Th Degree TRUncated Polynomial Ring) algorithm. Foregoing too much detail, I am going to explain how NTRU works and give simplified examples, and finally, compare it to HRSS.

NTRU is a cryptosystem based on a polynomial ring. This means that we do not operate on numbers modulo a prime (like in RSA), but on polynomials of degree $$N$$ , where the degree of a polynomial is the highest exponent of its variable. For example, $$x^7 + 6x^3 + 11x^2$$ has degree of 7.

One can add polynomials in the ring in the usual way, by simply adding theirs coefficients modulo some integer. In NTRU this integer is called $$q$$. Polynomials can also be multiplied, but remember, you are operating in the ring, therefore the result of a multiplication is always a polynomial of degree less than $$N$$. It basically means that exponents of the resulting polynomial are added to modulo $$N$$.

In other words, polynomial ring arithmetic is very similar to modular arithmetic, but instead of working with a set of numbers less than N, you are working with a set of polynomials with a degree less than N.

To instantiate the NTRU cryptosystem, three domain parameters must be chosen:

• $$N$$ – degree of the polynomial ring, in NTRU the principal objects are polynomials of degree $$N-1$$.
• $$p$$ – small modulus used during key generation and decryption for reducing message coefficients.
• $$q$$ – large modulus used during algorithm execution for reducing coefficients of the polynomials.

First, we generate a pair of public and private keys. To do that, two polynomials $$f$$ and $$g$$ are chosen from the ring in a way that their randomly generated coefficients are much smaller than $$q$$. Then key generation computes two inverses of the polynomial: $$f_p= f^{-1} \bmod{p} \\ f_q= f^{-1} \bmod{q}$$

The last step is to compute $$pk = p\cdot f_q\cdot g \bmod q$$, which we will use as public key pk. The private key consists of $$f$$ and $$f_p$$. The $$f_q$$ is not part of any key, however it must remain secret.

It might be the case that after choosing $$f$$, the inverses modulo $$p$$ and $$q$$ do not exist. In this case, the algorithm has to start from the beginning and generate another $$f$$. That’s unfortunate because calculating the inverse of a polynomial is a costly operation. HRSS brings an improvement to this issue since it ensures that those inverses always exist, making key generation faster than as proposed initially in NTRU.

The encryption of a message $$m$$ proceeds as follows. First, the message $$m$$ is converted to a ring element $$pt$$ (there exists an algorithm for performing this conversion in both directions). During encryption, NTRU randomly chooses one polynomial $$b$$ called blinder. The goal of the blinder is to generate different ciphertexts per encyption. Thus, the ciphetext $$ct$$ is obtained as $$ct = (b\cdot pk + pt ) \bmod q$$ Decryption looks a bit more complicated but it can also be easily understood. Decryption uses both the secret value $$f$$ and to recover the plaintext as $$v = f \cdot ct \bmod q \\ pt = v \cdot f_p \bmod p$$

This diagram demonstrates why and how decryption works.

After obtaining $$pt$$, the message $$m$$ is recovered by inverting the conversion function.

The underlying hard assumption is that given two polynomials: $$f$$ and $$g$$ whose coefficients are short compared to the modulus $$q$$, it is difficult to distinguish $$pk = \frac{f}{g}$$ from a random element in the ring. It means that it’s hard to find $$f$$ and $$g$$ given only public key pk.

### Lattices

NTRU cryptosystem is a grandfather of lattice-based encryption schemes. The idea of using  difficult problems for cryptographic purposes was due to Ajtai. His work evolved into a whole area of research with the goal of creating more practical, lattice-based cryptosystems.

### What is a lattice and why it can be used for post-quantum crypto?

The picture below visualizes lattice as points in a two-dimensional space. A lattice is defined by the origin $$O$$ and base vectors $$\{ b_1 , b_2\}$$. Every point on the lattice is represented as a linear combination of the base vectors, for example  $$V = -2b_1+b_2$$.

There are two classical NP-hard problems in lattice-based cryptography:

1. Shortest Vector Problem (SVP): Given a lattice, to find the shortest non-zero vector in the lattice. In the graph, the vector $$s$$ is the shortest one. The SVP problem is NP-hard only under some assumptions.
2. Closest Vector Problem (CVP). Given a lattice and a vector $$V$$ (not necessarily in the lattice), to find the closest vector to $$V$$. For example, the closest vector to $$t$$ is $$z$$.

In the graph above, it is easy for us to solve SVP and CVP by simple inspection. However, the lattices used in cryptography have higher dimensions, say above 1000, as well as highly non-orthogonal basis vectors. On these instances, the problems get extremely hard to solve. It’s even believed future quantum computers will have it tough.

HRSS, which we use in our experiment, is based on NTRU, but a slightly better instantiation. The main improvements are:

• Faster key generation algorithm.
• NTRU encryption can produce ciphertexts that are impossible to decrypt (true for many lattice-based schemes). But HRSS fixes this problem.
• HRSS is a key encapsulation mechanism.

### CECPQ2b – Isogeny-based Post-Quantum TLS

Following CECPQ2, we have integrated into BoringSSL another hybrid key exchange mechanism relying on SIKE. It is called CECPQ2b and we will use it in our experimentation in TLS 1.3. SIKE is a key encapsulation method based on Supersingular Isogeny Diffie-Hellman (SIDH). Read more about SIDH in our previous post. The math behind SIDH is related to elliptic curves. A comparison between SIDH and the classical Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) is given.

An elliptic curve is a set of points that satisfy a specific mathematical equation. The equation of an elliptic curve may have multiple forms, the standard form is called the Weierstrass equation $$y^2 = x^3 +ax +b$$ and its shape can look like the red curve.

An interesting fact about elliptic curves is have a group structure. That is, the set of points on the curve have associated a binary operation called point addition. The set of points on the elliptic curve is closed under addition. Thus, adding two points results in another point that is also on the elliptic curve.

If we can add two different points on a curve, then we can also add one point to itself. And if we do it multiple times, then the resulting operations is known as a scalar multiplication and denoted as  $$Q = k\cdot P = P+P+\dots+P$$ for an integer $$k$$.

Multiplication of scalars is commutative. It means that two scalar multiplications can be evaluated in any order $$\color{darkred}{k_a}\cdot\color{darkgreen}{k_b} = \color{darkgreen}{k_b}\cdot\color{darkred}{k_a}$$; this an important property that makes ECDH possible.

It turns out that carefully if choosing an elliptic curve “correctly”, scalar multiplication is easy to compute but extremely hard to reverse. Meaning, given two points $$Q$$ and $$P$$ such that $$Q=k\cdot P$$, finding the integer k is a difficult task known as the Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm problem (ECDLP). This problem is suitable for cryptographic purposes.

Alice and Bob agree on a secret key as follows. Alice generates a private key $$k_a$$. Then, she uses some publicly known point $$P$$ and calculates her public key as $$Q_a = k_a\cdot P$$. Bob proceeds in similar fashion and gets $$k_b$$ and $$Q_b = k_b\cdot P$$. To agree on a shared secret, each party multiplies their private key with the public key of the other party. The result of this is the shared secret. Key agreement as described above, works thanks to the fact that scalars can commute:
$$\color{darkgreen}{k_a} \cdot Q_b = \color{darkgreen}{k_a} \cdot \color{darkred}{k_b} \cdot P \iff \color{darkred}{k_b} \cdot \color{darkgreen}{k_a} \cdot P = \color{darkred}{k_b} \cdot Q_a$$

There is a vast theory behind elliptic curves. An introduction to elliptic curve cryptography was posted before and more details can be found in this book. Now, lets describe SIDH and compare with ECDH.

### Isogenies on Elliptic Curves

Before explaining the details of SIDH key exchange, I’ll explain the 3 most important concepts, namely: j-invariant, isogeny and its kernel.

Each curve has a number that can be associated to it. Let’s call this number a j-invariant. This number is not unique per curve, meaning many curves have the same value of j-invariant, but it can be viewed as a way to group multiple elliptic curves into disjoint sets. We say that two curves are isomorphic if they are in the same set, called the isomorphism class. The j-invariant is a simple criterion to determine whether two curves are isomorphic. The j-invariant of a curve $$E$$ in Weierstrass form $$y^2 = x^3 + ax + b$$ is given as $$j(E) = 1728\frac{4a^3}{4^3 +27b^2}$$

When it comes to isogeny, think about it as a map between two curves. Each point on some curve $$E$$ is mapped by isogeny to the point on isogenous curve $$E’$$. We denote mapping from curve $$E$$ to $$E’$$ by isogeny $$\phi$$ as:

$$\phi: E \rightarrow E’$$

It depends on the map if those two curves are isomorphic or not. Isogeny can be visualised as:

There may exist many of those mappings, each curve used in SIDH has small number of isogenies to other curves. Natural question is how do we compute such isogeny. Here is where the kernel of an isogeny comes. The kernel uniquely determines isogeny (up to isomorphism class). Formulas for calculating isogeny from its kernel were initially given by J. Vélu and the idea of calculating them efficiently was extended .

To finish, I will summarize what was said above with a picture.

There are two isomorphism classes on the picture above. Both curves $$E_1$$ and $$E_2$$ are isomorphic and have  j-invariant = 6. As curves $$E_3$$ and $$E_4$$ have j-invariant=13, they are in a different isomorphism class. There exists an isogeny $$\phi_2$$ between curve $$E_3$$ and $$E_2$$, so they both are isogeneous. Curves $$\phi_1$$ and $$E_2$$ are isomorphic and there is isogeny $$\phi_1$$ between them. Curves $$E_1$$ and $$E_4$$ are neither isomorphic nor isogeneus.

For brevity I’m skipping many important details, like details of the finite field, the fact that isogenies must be separable and that the kernel is finite. But curious readers can find a number of academic research papers available on the Internet.

### Big picture: similarities with ECDH

Let’s generalize the ECDH algorithm described above, so that we can swap some elements and try to use Supersingular Isogeny Diffie-Hellman.

Note that what actually happens during an ECDH key exchange is:

• We have a set of points on elliptic curve, set S
• We have another group of integers used for point multiplication, G
• We use an element from Z to act on an element from S to get another element from S:

$$G \cdot S \rightarrow S$$

Now the question is: what is our G and S in an SIDH setting? For SIDH to work, we need a big set of elements and something secret that will act on the elements from that set. This “group action” must also be resistant to attacks performed by quantum computers.

In the SIDH setting, those two sets are defined as:

• Set S is a set (graph) of j-invariants, such that all the curves are supersingular: $$S = [j(E_1), j(E_2), j(E_3), …. , j(E_n)]$$
• Set G is a set of isogenies acting on elliptic curves and transforming, for example, the elliptic curve $$E_1$$ into $$E_n$$:

### Random walk on supersingular graph

When we talk about Isogeny Based Cryptography, as a topic distinct from Elliptic Curve Cryptography, we usually mean algorithms and protocols that rely fundamentally on the structure of isogeny graphs. An example of such a (small) graph is pictured below.

Each vertex of the graph represents a different j-invariant of a set of supersingular curves. The edges between vertices represent isogenies converting one elliptic curve to another. As you can notice, the graph is strongly connected, meaning every vertex can be reached from every other vertex. In the context of isogeny-based crypto, we call such a graph a supersingular isogeny graph. I’ll skip some technical details about the construction of this graph (look for those here or here), but instead describe ideas about how it can be used.

As the graph is strongly connected, it is possible to walk a whole graph by starting from any vertex, randomly choosing an edge, following it to the next vertex and then start the process again on a new vertex. Such a way of visiting edges of this graph is called a random walk.

The random walk is a key concept that makes isogeny based crypto feasible. When you look closely at the graph, you can notice that each vertex has a small number of edges incident to it, this is why we can compute the isogenies efficiently. But also for any vertex there is only a limited number of isogenies to choose from, which doesn’t look like good base for a cryptographic scheme. The key question is – where does the security of the scheme come from exactly? In order to get it, it is necessary to visit a couple hundred vertices. What it means in practice is that secret isogeny (of large degree) is constructed as a composition of multiple isogenies (of small, prime degree).  Which means, the secret isogeny is:

This property and properties of the isogeny graph are what makes some of us believe that scheme has a good chance to be secure. More specifically, there is no efficient way of finding a path that connects $$E_0$$ with $$E_n$$, even with quantum computer at hand. The security level of a system depends on value n – the number of steps taken during the walk.

The random walk is a core process used when both generating public keys and computing shared secrets. It starts with party generating random value m (see more below), starting curve $$E_0$$ and points P and Q on this curve. Those values are used to compute the kernel of an isogeny $$R_1$$ in the following way:

$$R_1 = P + m \cdot Q$$

Thanks to formulas given by Vélu we can now use the point $$R_1$$ to compute the isogeny, the party will choose to move from a vertex to another one. After the isogeny $$\phi_{R_1}$$ is calculated it is applied to $$E_0$$  which results in a new curve $$E_1$$:

$$\phi_{R_1}: E_0 \rightarrow E_1$$

Isogeny is also applied to points P and Q. Once on $$E_1$$ the process is repeated. This process is applied n times, and at the end a party ends up on some curve $$E_n$$ which defines isomorphism class, so also j-invariant.

### Supersingular Isogeny Diffie-Hellman

The core idea in SIDH is to compose two random walks on an isogeny graph of elliptic curves in such a way that the end node of both ways of composing is the same.

In order to do it, scheme sets public parameters – starting curve $$E_0$$ and 2 pairs of base points on this curve $$(PA,QA)$$ , $$(PB,QB)$$. Alice generates her random secret keys m, and calculates a secret isogeny $$\phi_q$$ by performing a random walk as described above. The walk finishes with 3 values: elliptic curve $$E_a$$ she has ended up with and pair of points $$\phi_a(PB)$$ and $$\phi_a(QB)$$ after pushing through Alice’s secret isogeny. Bob proceeds analogously which results in the triple $${E_b, \phi_b(PA), \phi_b(QA)}$$. The triple forms a public key which is exchanged between parties.

The picture below visualizes the operation. The black dots represent curves grouped in the same isomorphism classes represented by light blue circles. Alice takes the orange path ending up on a curve $$E_a$$ in a separate isomorphism class than Bob after taking his dark blue path ending on $$E_b$$. SIDH is parametrized in a way that Alice and Bob will always end up in different isomorphism classes.

Upon receipt of triple $${ E_a, \phi_a(PB), \phi_a(QB) }$$  from Alice, Bob will use his secret value m to calculate a new kernel – but instead of using point $$PA$$ and $$QA$$ to calculate an isogeny kernel, he will now use images $$\phi_a(PB)$$ and $$\phi_a(QB)$$ received from Alice:

$$R’_1 = \phi_a(PB) + m \cdot \phi_a(QB)$$

Afterwards, he uses $$R’_1$$ to start the walk again resulting in the isogeny $$\phi’_b: E_a \rightarrow E_{ab}$$. Allice proceeds analogously resulting in the isogeny $$\phi’_a: E_b \rightarrow E_{ba}$$. With isogenies calculated this way, both Alice and Bob will converge in the same isomorphism class. The math math may seem complicated, hopefully the picture below makes it easier to understand.

Bob computes a new isogeny and starts his random walk from $$E_a$$ received from Alice. He ends up on some curve $$E_{ba}$$. Similarly, Alice calculates a new isogeny, applies it on $$E_b$$ received from Bob and her random walk ends on some curve $$E_{ab}$$. Curves $$E_{ab}$$ and $$E_{ba}$$ are not likely to be the same, but construction guarantees that they are isomorphic. As mentioned earlier, isomorphic curves have the same value of j-invariant,  hence the shared secret is a value of j-invariant $$j(E_{ab})$$.

Coming back to differences between SIDH and ECDH – we can split them into four categories: the elements of the group we are operating on, the cornerstone computation required to agree on a shared secret, the elements representing secret values, and the difficult problem on which the security relies.

In ECDH there is a secret key which is an integer scalar, in case of SIDH it is a secret isogeny, which also is generated from an integer scalar. In the case of ECDH one multiplies a point on a curve by a scalar, in the case of SIDH it is a random walk in an isogeny graph. In the case of ECDH, the public key is a point on a curve, in the case of SIDH, the public part is a curve itself and the image of some points after applying isogeny. The shared secret in the case of ECDH is a point on a curve, in the case of SIDH it is a j-invariant.

### SIKE: Supersingular Isogeny Key Encapsulation

SIDH could potentially be used as a drop-in replacement of the ECDH protocol. We have actually implemented a proof-of-concept and added it to our implementation of TLS 1.3 in the tls-tris library and described (together with Mozilla) implementation details in this draft. Nevertheless, there is a problem with SIDH – the keys can be used only once. In 2016, a few researchers came up with an active attack on SIDH which works only when public keys are reused. In the context of TLS, it is not a big problem, because for each session a fresh key pair is generated (ephemeral keys), but it may not be true for other applications.

SIKE is an isogeny key encapsulation which solves this problem. Bob can generate SIKE keys, upload the public part somewhere in the Internet and then anybody can use it whenever he wants to communicate with Bob securely. SIKE reuses SIDH – internally both sides of the connection always perform SIDH key generation, SIDH key agreement and apply some other cryptographic primitives in order to convert SIDH to KEM. SIKE is implemented in a few variants – each variant corresponds to the security levels using 128-, 192- and 256-bit secret keys. Higher security level means longer running time. More details about SIKE can be found here.

SIKE is also one of the candidates in NIST post-quantum “competition“.

I’ve skipped many important details to give a brief description of how isogeny based crypto works. If you’re curious and hungry for details, look at either of these Cloudflare meetups, where Deirdre Connolly talked about isogeny-based cryptography or this talk by Chloe Martindale during PQ Crypto School 2017. And if you would like to know more about quantum attacks on this scheme, I highly recommend this work.

## Conclusion

Quantum computers that can break meaningful cryptographic parameter settings do not exist, yet. They won’t be built for at least the next few years. Nevertheless, they have already changed the way we look at current cryptographic deployments. There are at least two reasons it’s worth investing in PQ cryptography:

• It takes a lot of time to build secure cryptography and we don’t actually know when today’s classical cryptography will be broken. There is a need for a good mathematical base: an initial idea of what may be secure against something that doesn’t exist yet. If you have an idea, you also need good implementation, constant time, resistance to things like time and cache side-channels, DFA, DPA, EM, and a bunch of other abbreviations indicating side-channel resistance. There is also deployment of, for example, algorithms based on elliptic curves were introduced in ’85, but started to really be used in production only during the last decade, 20 or so years later. Obviously, the implementation must be blazingly fast! Last, but not least, integration: we need time to develop standards to allow integration of PQ cryptography with protocols like TLS.
• Even though efficient quantum computers probably won’t exist for another few years, the threat is real. Data encrypted with current cryptographic algorithms can be recorded now with hopes of being broken in the future.

Cloudflare is motivated to help build the Internet of tomorrow with the tools at hand today. Our interest is in cryptographic techniques that can be integrated into existing protocols and widely deployed on the Internet as seamlessly as possible. PQ cryptography, like the rest of cryptography, includes many cryptosystems that can be used for communications in today’s Internet; Alice and Bob need to perform some computation, but they do not need to buy new hardware to do that.

Cloudflare sees great potential in those algorithms and believes that some of them can be used as a safe replacement for classical public-key cryptosystems. Time will tell if we’re justified in this belief!