We did a performance analysis for Oracle’s equivalent of Nginx, OTD, about two 
years ago.  We were looking at the number of connections per second that could 
be established and the limiting factor was locking in ssleay_rand_bytes.  
Approximately a third of the CPU and over 90% of the lock wait time was there 
from memory.  For this kind of workload (many threads, many connections) a 
non-locking RNG would have been an improvement.  I’ll see if I can find the 
analyses and then find out what I can release.

This was using 1.0.2 not 1.1 so things might have changed.


Pauli
-- 
Oracle
Dr Paul Dale | Cryptographer | Network Security & Encryption 
Phone +61 7 3031 7217
Oracle Australia

From: Tim Hudson [mailto:t...@cryptsoft.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2018 1:15 PM
To: openssl-project@openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl-project] DRBGs, threads and locking

We have to keep in mind what threats we care about and their practicality. 
The security of a DRBG is dependent on both the secrecy of the seed material 
provided and the security of the algorithm in terms of its output not leaking 
information that materially leaks the internal state in a manner that enables 
it to be discovered or reversed in a manner to enable determination of previous 
or future outputs.

For some of the arguments used to date there appears to be an assumption that 
there is a practical difference between a broken DRBG algorithm such that it is 
not such a security issue if we separate out the DRBG instances on a per SSL 
connection.
In real terms if a DRBG is broken and its state is able to be determined 
remotely there is no practical difference in separating DRBG instances - they 
are all equally vulnerable in the same manner. 
In the case of the DualEC-DRBG this was clear - and no one I've seen has ever 
suggested that you were safer if you had separate instances of a broken 
algorithm for a DRBG - it makes no practical difference to the security at all.
Sure there is a slight technical difference - but from a security perspective 
there is no difference - you are susceptible to the same attack - so the minor 
technical difference offers no actual meaningful security value - and everyone 
that has referenced this to date has also indicated that they don't think that 
there is actually any real practical value to the difference - it has been more 
of a "it cannot harm" sort of comment. 

In more general terms we need to have a clear view on what we think about our 
thread model - what is considered inside the scope of what we care to address - 
and what is frankly outside the scope (for our view). 

• We don't consider attacks from the same process against itself within our 
threat model. 
• Correspondingly we don't consider attacks from one thread against another 
thread without our threat model.
• We don't consider privileged user attacks against the user in our threat 
model (i.e. root can read the memory of the process on most Unix-like systems). 
• We also don't actually consider a need to protect all secret information from 
every possible other bug that might leak arbitrary parts of memory. We could. 
But we don't. And if we did we would need to protect both the seeding material 
for the DRBG and its internal state and potentially its output. We don't do 
that - because that isn't within our threat model.

Typical applications share an SSL_CTX between multiple SSL instances and we 
maintain the session cache against the SSL_CTX. This may be in a single process 
(thread) or shared across multiple threads - or even shared across multiple 
prcesses (which is simply the same as being in a single process from our 
perspective where the "magic" to coordinate the session id cache between 
processes is left to the developer/user). 

In a FIPS context, every DRBG has requirements on its inputs (seeding) and on 
maintaining a continuous RNG test (block-based compare for non-repeating 
outputs at a block level). 
All of these would be a per-instance requirement on the DRBG. They have to be 
factored in.

There is also the argument that locking is bad and fewer locks are better - and 
that argument needs to be backed up by looking at the overall status - which 
particular application model are we concerned about? Have we measured it? Have 
we figured out where the bottlenecks are? Have we worked through optimising the 
actual areas of performance impact? Or are we just prematurely optimising? 
Excessive locking will have an impact for certain application models - but I 
don't think anyone is suggesting that what we had previously was excessive - 
and given the significant performance impact of the recent changes which went 
unmeasured and unaddressed I think it is clear we haven't been measuring 
performance related items for the DRBG at all to date - so there wasn't any 
"science" behind the choices made.

Simple, clear, well documented code with good tests and known architectural 
assumptions is what we are trying to achieve - and my sense from the 
conversations on this topic to date was that we don't have a consensus as to 
what problem we are actually trying to solve - so the design approach shifts, 
and shifts again - all of which are the authors of the PRs responding to what 
is (in my view at least) conflicting suggestions based on different assumptions.

That is what I put the -1 on the the PR - to have this discussion - and agree 
on what we are trying to solve - and also agree on what we are not trying to 
solve. And perhaps we can actually document some of our "threat model" - as I'm 
sure we have different views on that as well.

I don't think we should have per-SSL DRBGs - it offers no meaningful security 
value. We could have a per-SSL_CTX - but I'm not sure that is needed. We could 
have a per-thread - but again that is unclear if we actually need that either.
My thoughts are per-SSL_CTX might make the most sense based on my understanding 
of the high-performance server contexts (in various web servers and custom 
servers). 
You can make a reasonable argument that we are sharing many security related 
things between SSL_CTXs already so this is the right place. 

And if we cannot reach a consensus because we cannot get to a shared view then 
perhaps it needs to be configurable for the user.

Tim.


On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote:
>    Either that or just always use the per-thread DRBG for the current
    thread, and don't bother to do per-SSL at all.

There is appeal to isolating each SSL connection so that an adversary can't use 
information it has about *it's* connection to attack another.  Granted, this 
might not be practical, but still...

_______________________________________________
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
_______________________________________________
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project

Reply via email to