The pending crypto singularity

Recently penned by Peter, it is worth a read.  Especially for those who are concerned about putting all of their eggs in one basket.  

On the Impending Crypto Monoculture
===================================

A number of IETF standards groups are currently in the process of applying the
second-system effect to redesigning their crypto protocols.A major feature
of these changes includes the dropping of traditional encryption algorithms
and mechanisms like RSA, DH, ECDH/ECDSA, SHA-2, and AES, for a completely
different set of mechanisms, including Curve25519 (designed by Dan Bernstein
et al), EdDSA (Bernstein and colleagues), Poly1305 (Bernstein again) and
ChaCha20 (by, you guessed it, Bernstein).

What's more, the reference implementations of these algorithms also come from
Dan Bernstein (again with help from others), leading to a never-before-seen
crypto monoculture in which it's possible that the entire algorithm suite used
by a security protocol, and the entire implementation of that suite, all
originate from one person.

How on earth did it come to this?

The Underlying Problem
----------------------

It would be easy to dismiss the wholesale adoption of Bernstein algorithms and
code as rampant fanboyism, and indeed there is some fanboyism present.An
example of this is the interpretation of the data formats to use as "whatever
Dan's code does" rather than the form specified in widely-adopted standards
like X9.62 ("Additional Elliptic Curves (Curve25519 etc) for TLS ECDH key
agreement", TLS WG discussion), something that hasn't been seen since the C
language was defined as "whatever the pcc compiler accepts as input".

The underlying problem, though, is far more complex.

In adopting the Bernstein algorithm suite and its implementation, implementers
have rejected both the highly brittle and failure-prone current algorithms and
mechanisms and their equally brittle and failure-prone implementations.

Consider the simple case of authenticated encryption as used in the major
Internet security protocols TLS, SSH, PGP, and S/MIME (the remaining protocol
would be IPsec, but I've never written an IPsec implementation so I don't have
sufficient hands-on experience with it to comment on it in practice).S/MIME
has an authenticated-encryption mode (encrypt-then-MAC or EtM) that's
virtually never used or even implemented, PGP has a sort-of integrity-check
mode that encrypts a hash of the plaintext in CFB mode, and both TLS and SSH
use the endlessly failure-prone MAC-then-encrypt (MtE) mode, with an ever-
evolving suite of increasingly creatively-named attacks stretching back 15
years or more (TLS recently adopted, after a terrific struggle on their
mailing list, an option to use EtM, but support in some major implementations
is still lagging).

What are the (standardised) alternatives?Looking through a recent paper from
Real World Crypto ("The Evolution of Authenticated Encryption", Phil Rogaway),
we see the three options GCM, CCM, and OCB.The GCM slide provides a list of
pros and cons to using GCM, none of which seem like a terribly big deal, but
misses out the single biggest, indeed killer failure of the whole mode, the
fact that if you for some reason fail to increment the counter, you're sending
what's effectively plaintext (it's recoverable with a simple XOR).It's an
incredibly brittle mode, the equivalent of the historically frighteningly
misuse-prone RC4, and one I won't touch with a barge pole because you're one
single machine instruction away from a catastrophic failure of the whole
cryptosystem, or one single IV reuse away from the same.This isn't just
theoretical, it actually happened to Colin Percival, a very experienced crypto
developer, in his backup program tarsnap.You can't even salvage just the
authentication from it, that fails as well with a single IV reuse
("Authentication Failures in NIST version of GCM", Antoine Joux).

Compare this with old-fashioned CBC+HMAC (applied in the correct EtM manner),
in which you can arbitrarily misuse the IV (for example you can forget to
apply it completely) and the worst that can happen is that you drop back to
ECB mode, which isn't perfect but still a long way from the total failure that
you get with GCM.Similarly, HMAC doesn't fail completely due to a minor
problem with the IV.

Then there's CCM, which is two-pass and therefore an instant fail for
streaming implementations, which is all of the protocols mentioned earlier
(since CCM was designed for use in 802.11 which has fixed maximum-size packets
this isn't a failure of the mode itself, but does severely limit its
applicability).

The remaining mode is OCB, which I'd consider the best AEAD mode out there (it
shares CBC's graceful-degradation property in which reuse or misuse of the IV
doesn't lead to a total loss of security, only the authentication property
breaks but not the confidentiality).Unfortunately it's patented, and even
though there are fairly broad exceptions allowing it to be used in many
situations, the legal minefield that ensues makes it untouchable for most
potential users.For example does the prohibition on military use cover the
situation where an open-source crypto package is used in a vendor library
that's used in a medical insurance app that's used by the US Navy, or where
banking transactions protected by TLS may include ones of a military nature
(both of these are actual examples that affected decisions not to use OCB).
Since no-one wants to call in lawyers every time a situation like this comes
up, and indeed can't call in lawyers when the crypto is several levels away in
the service stack, OCB won't be used even though it may be the best AEAD mode
out there.

(The background behind this problem can be found in Phil Rogaway's excellent
essay "The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work", which discusses aligning
crypto work with principles like the Buddhist concept of right livelihood,
applying it in an ethical manner.Unfortunately, in the same way that the
current misguided attempts by politicians to limit mostly non-existent use of
crypto by terrorists and other equestrians only affects legitimate users (the
few terrorists who may actually bother with encryption won't care), so the
restriction of OCB, however well-intentioned, have the effect that a beautiful
AEAD mode that should be used everywhere is instead used almost nowhere).

The implementations of the algorithms aren't much better.Alongside brittle,
failure-prone crypto modes and mechanisms, we also have brittle, failure-prone
implementations.The most notorious of these is OpenSSL, which powers a
significant part of the world's crypto infrastructure not only directly (as a
TLS/SSL implementation) but also indirectly, when it's used as a component of
other applications like OpenSSH.In fact one of the reasons given for
OpenSSH's adoption of the chacha20-poly1305 crypto mechanisms (alongside
Curve25519 and others) was that it finally allowed them to remove the last
vestiges of OpenSSL from their code.

The Reason for the Monoculture
------------------------------

Anyone who works with crypto on the Internet has had to endure 15-20 years of
constant breakage of the crypto they use, both of the algorithms and
mechanisms and of the implementations.It's not even possible to give
references for this because the list of breakage is so long and extensive that
it would take pages and pages just to enumerate it all.

Take for example an organisation like Google.Every single time that there's
been some break in a crypto mechanism, Google gets hit.Again and again, year
in, year out.So when they look to moving to ChaCha20 and Poly1305, it's not
Bernstein fanboyism, it's an attempt to dig themselves out of the current hole
where they get hit with a new attack every couple of months, and the breakage
just keeps recurring, endlessly.

What implementers are looking for is what Bernstein has termed boring crypto,
"crypto that simply works, solidly resists attacks, never needs any upgrades"
("Boring crypto", Dan Bernstein).Bernstein and colleagues offer a silver
bullet, something that appears better than anything else that's out there at
the moment.

In this they have no real competition.There's no AEAD mode that's usable,
the ECC algorithms and parameters that we're supposed to use are both tainted
due to NSA involvement and riddled with side-channels (the Bernstein
algorithms and mechanisms have been specifically designed to deal with both of
these issues), and so on.

Consider being lost in an endless desert.If you see an oasis in the
distance, you head towards it even if the water is brackish and has camel dung
floating in it.Bernstein et al are the oasis (or perhaps the mirage of an
oasis), in an endless desert of cryptosystems and implementations of
cryptosystems that keep breaking.

So the (pending) Bernstein monoculture isn't necessarily a vote for Dan, it's
more a vote against everything else.

Acknowledgements
----------------

This essay came about as the result of a discussion at AsiaCrypt 2015, and was
then developed with significant input from Lucky Green.Prior to publication,
further input was provided by some of the people whose work is mentioned in
it.

Glibc DNS IDS signature

Here is a slightly optimized signature for GLibc's DNS overflow vulnerability (CVE-2015-7547.)  Please adapt to your liking.

alert udp any 53 -> any any (msg:"LP UDP-DNS REPLY OVERFLOW
CVE-2015-7547"; content:"|83 80 00 01|"; content:"|00 01 00 01|";
distance:10; pcre:"/\x00\x01\x00\x01(.{2000,})/s";reference:url,googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.fr/2016/02/cve-2015-7547-glibc-getaddrinfo-stack.html;
classtype:attempted-admin; sid:%YOUR CHOICE%; rev:1;)


alert tcp any 53 -> any any (msg:"LP TCP-DNS REPLY OVERFLOW
CVE-2015-7547"; content:"|83 80 00 01|"; content:"|00 1c 00 01|";
distance:10; pcre:"/\x00\x1c\x00\x01(.{2000,})/s";
reference:url,googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.fr/2016/02/cve-2015-7547-glibc-getaddrinfo-stack.html;
classtype:attempted-admin; sid:%YOUR CHOICE%; rev:1;)