Re: PKCS#11 provider issues with min and max size
Hi Valerie,
Sorry for delayed response, I've been away :-(
Turns out there is a bug report for this already, although related to
RSA keys, not EC as in my case.
https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8183107
I can not add additional information to the issue of course, but the
information we exchanged here should be valuable input to this issue.
Also that there are several users with this issue.
Cheers,
Tomas
---
Meet us at RSA Conference, booth #1518. Use the code X8EPRIME to get
your free expo pass.
**
PrimeKey Solutions AB
Lundagatan 16, 171 63 Solna, Sweden
Mob: +46 (0)707421096
Internet: www.primekey.se
Twitter: twitter.com/primekeyPKI
**
On 2018-02-15 23:51, Valerie Peng wrote:
>
> Yes, please go ahead and file a bug for this.
> Thanks!
> Valerie
>
> On 2/13/2018 6:00 AM, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
>> Thanks for taking a look.
>>
>> I haven't created a bug for this (yet) Let me know if that would help.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tomas
>> On 2018-02-09 20:04, Valerie Peng wrote:
>>> Hmm, seems reasonable to support this in the provider configuration
>>> file.
>>> Or, on a similar note, but slightly different approach is to just add an
>>> configuration option for disabling checking the supported key size
>>> range.
>>> Regards,
>>> Valerie
>>>
>>> On 2/9/2018 2:16 AM, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
I just realized that a natural place to configure provider behavior is
in the provider construction, which is also per provider, so you can
have multiple ones with different configuration. We are already
using an
InputStream to construct SunPKCS11, and adding more parameters to
configure/override defaults would be natural.
I.e.:
-
name =
library = ;
slot = slot
rsakeygenmech = CKM_RSA_X9_31_KEY_PAIR_GEN
rsakeygenmechminsize = 1024
rsakeygenmechmaxsize = 8192
attributes(*, CKO_PUBLIC_KEY, *) = {
CKA_TOKEN = false
CKA_ENCRYPT = true
CKA_VERIFY = true
CKA_WRAP = true
}
attributes(*, CKO_PRIVATE_KEY, *) = {
CKA_DERIVE = false
CKA_TOKEN = true
CKA_PRIVATE = true
CKA_SENSITIVE = true
CKA_EXTRACTABLE = false
CKA_DECRYPT = true
CKA_SIGN = true
CKA_UNWRAP = true
}
attributes(*, CKO_SECRET_KEY, *) = {
CKA_SENSITIVE = true
CKA_EXTRACTABLE = false
CKA_ENCRYPT = true
CKA_DECRYPT = true
CKA_SIGN = true
CKA_VERIFY = true
CKA_WRAP = true
CKA_UNWRAP = true
}
-
Cheers,
Tomas
On 2018-02-09 09:55, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the answer. (sorry I was out with the flu for a week)
>
>> I am not too keen to add an env var/system property to accommodate
>> this
>> kind of PKCS11 library bugs since this should be rare I hope.
>> Valerie
> Unfortunately I don't see it as rare and the impact is huge due to the
> slow turnaround of HSM firmware. Due to FIPS certification and whatnot
> HSM vendors do not fix simple things like this sometimes in years.
> This
> puts customers to a complete halt in the meantime. These are heavily
> certified environments where re-certification alone takes at least 6
> months.
>
> Having worked with all major HSM vendors for many years I know that
> PKCS11 library bugs are not rare at all. If we'd be using PKCS#11
> natively, you can hack around by ignoring bad values, but when using
> SunPKCS#11 you are stuck with Java's rules unless you patch SunPKCS11
> which is not for everyone.
>
> Due to the strictness of using SunPKCS11 compared to native PKCS#11,
> some more flexibility in configuration would help a lot.
>
> For many years SunPKCS11 have worked great. But also the HSM world is
> moving faster than they did 5 years ago, and unfortunately this means
> that we're seeing a huge rise in PKCS#11 issues in the last year,
> requiring quite a lot of hacking in SunPKCS11 to workaround. In theory
> it should not be needed, but in practice it is. Faster evolution =
> more
> bugs.
>
> I just showed two real world use cases that you really need to be able
> to work around. And these will not be the last. PKCS#11 is a complex
> standard and implementors will rarely get it exactly right.
>
> Increased flexibility and more control around PKCS#11 will be
> needed in
> the future imho, or users will be forced to move to other solutions
> like
> JackNJI11. We'd much rather use SunPKCS11 but customers (end users)
> can't get stuck between Java and HSM vendors in a fight who does
> PKCS#11
> right or wrong.
>
> Cheers,
> Tomas
>
> On 2018-02-01 01:07, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback. I suppose we can ignore values which
>> obviously
>>
Re: PKCS#11 provider issues with min and max size
Yes, please go ahead and file a bug for this.
Thanks!
Valerie
On 2/13/2018 6:00 AM, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
Thanks for taking a look.
I haven't created a bug for this (yet) Let me know if that would help.
Regards,
Tomas
On 2018-02-09 20:04, Valerie Peng wrote:
Hmm, seems reasonable to support this in the provider configuration file.
Or, on a similar note, but slightly different approach is to just add an
configuration option for disabling checking the supported key size range.
Regards,
Valerie
On 2/9/2018 2:16 AM, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
I just realized that a natural place to configure provider behavior is
in the provider construction, which is also per provider, so you can
have multiple ones with different configuration. We are already using an
InputStream to construct SunPKCS11, and adding more parameters to
configure/override defaults would be natural.
I.e.:
-
name =
library = ;
slot = slot
rsakeygenmech = CKM_RSA_X9_31_KEY_PAIR_GEN
rsakeygenmechminsize = 1024
rsakeygenmechmaxsize = 8192
attributes(*, CKO_PUBLIC_KEY, *) = {
CKA_TOKEN = false
CKA_ENCRYPT = true
CKA_VERIFY = true
CKA_WRAP = true
}
attributes(*, CKO_PRIVATE_KEY, *) = {
CKA_DERIVE = false
CKA_TOKEN = true
CKA_PRIVATE = true
CKA_SENSITIVE = true
CKA_EXTRACTABLE = false
CKA_DECRYPT = true
CKA_SIGN = true
CKA_UNWRAP = true
}
attributes(*, CKO_SECRET_KEY, *) = {
CKA_SENSITIVE = true
CKA_EXTRACTABLE = false
CKA_ENCRYPT = true
CKA_DECRYPT = true
CKA_SIGN = true
CKA_VERIFY = true
CKA_WRAP = true
CKA_UNWRAP = true
}
-
Cheers,
Tomas
On 2018-02-09 09:55, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the answer. (sorry I was out with the flu for a week)
I am not too keen to add an env var/system property to accommodate this
kind of PKCS11 library bugs since this should be rare I hope.
Valerie
Unfortunately I don't see it as rare and the impact is huge due to the
slow turnaround of HSM firmware. Due to FIPS certification and whatnot
HSM vendors do not fix simple things like this sometimes in years. This
puts customers to a complete halt in the meantime. These are heavily
certified environments where re-certification alone takes at least 6
months.
Having worked with all major HSM vendors for many years I know that
PKCS11 library bugs are not rare at all. If we'd be using PKCS#11
natively, you can hack around by ignoring bad values, but when using
SunPKCS#11 you are stuck with Java's rules unless you patch SunPKCS11
which is not for everyone.
Due to the strictness of using SunPKCS11 compared to native PKCS#11,
some more flexibility in configuration would help a lot.
For many years SunPKCS11 have worked great. But also the HSM world is
moving faster than they did 5 years ago, and unfortunately this means
that we're seeing a huge rise in PKCS#11 issues in the last year,
requiring quite a lot of hacking in SunPKCS11 to workaround. In theory
it should not be needed, but in practice it is. Faster evolution = more
bugs.
I just showed two real world use cases that you really need to be able
to work around. And these will not be the last. PKCS#11 is a complex
standard and implementors will rarely get it exactly right.
Increased flexibility and more control around PKCS#11 will be needed in
the future imho, or users will be forced to move to other solutions like
JackNJI11. We'd much rather use SunPKCS11 but customers (end users)
can't get stuck between Java and HSM vendors in a fight who does PKCS#11
right or wrong.
Cheers,
Tomas
On 2018-02-01 01:07, Valerie Peng wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. I suppose we can ignore values which obviously
don't make sense such as 0 or max being less than min key size.
However, if the underlying PKCS11 library vendors forgot to update the
max value as in your comment#2, supposedly they should fix it.
I am not too keen to add an env var/system property to accommodate this
kind of PKCS11 library bugs since this should be rare I hope.
Valerie
On 1/30/2018 12:22 AM, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
Hi,
At some revision in the PKCS#11 provider there was introduced checking
of C_GetMechanismInfo min and max sizes.
This has turned out to be a bit fragile. Let me give two real world
examples:
1. Amazon Cloud HSM report minSize and maxSize for EC keys to 0. The
Java PKCS#11 provider will happily take 0 as maxSize and refuse to
generate any EC keys at all. Needless to say, without the Java
check it
would be no problem.
131: C_GetMechanismInfo
2018-01-30 07:52:20.740
[in] slotID = 0x1
CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN
[out] pInfo:
CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN : min:0 max:0 flags:0x10001 ( Hardware
KeyPair )
Returned: 0 CKR_OK
(we are reporting this to Amazon as well)
2. Thales HSMs (some?) report maxSize for RSA_PKCS key generation as
4096, but will happily generate 8192 bit keys. I.e. the reported
maxSize
is not true.
We have customers who used to generate 8192 bit RSA keys, but after a
Java update can not do so anymore, because Java
Re: PKCS#11 provider issues with min and max size
Thanks for taking a look.
I haven't created a bug for this (yet) Let me know if that would help.
Regards,
Tomas
On 2018-02-09 20:04, Valerie Peng wrote:
>
> Hmm, seems reasonable to support this in the provider configuration file.
> Or, on a similar note, but slightly different approach is to just add an
> configuration option for disabling checking the supported key size range.
> Regards,
> Valerie
>
> On 2/9/2018 2:16 AM, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
>> I just realized that a natural place to configure provider behavior is
>> in the provider construction, which is also per provider, so you can
>> have multiple ones with different configuration. We are already using an
>> InputStream to construct SunPKCS11, and adding more parameters to
>> configure/override defaults would be natural.
>>
>> I.e.:
>> -
>> name =
>> library = ;
>> slot = slot
>> rsakeygenmech = CKM_RSA_X9_31_KEY_PAIR_GEN
>> rsakeygenmechminsize = 1024
>> rsakeygenmechmaxsize = 8192
>>
>> attributes(*, CKO_PUBLIC_KEY, *) = {
>> CKA_TOKEN = false
>> CKA_ENCRYPT = true
>> CKA_VERIFY = true
>> CKA_WRAP = true
>> }
>> attributes(*, CKO_PRIVATE_KEY, *) = {
>> CKA_DERIVE = false
>> CKA_TOKEN = true
>> CKA_PRIVATE = true
>> CKA_SENSITIVE = true
>> CKA_EXTRACTABLE = false
>> CKA_DECRYPT = true
>> CKA_SIGN = true
>> CKA_UNWRAP = true
>> }
>> attributes(*, CKO_SECRET_KEY, *) = {
>> CKA_SENSITIVE = true
>> CKA_EXTRACTABLE = false
>> CKA_ENCRYPT = true
>> CKA_DECRYPT = true
>> CKA_SIGN = true
>> CKA_VERIFY = true
>> CKA_WRAP = true
>> CKA_UNWRAP = true
>> }
>> -
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tomas
>>
>> On 2018-02-09 09:55, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the answer. (sorry I was out with the flu for a week)
>>>
I am not too keen to add an env var/system property to accommodate this
kind of PKCS11 library bugs since this should be rare I hope.
Valerie
>>> Unfortunately I don't see it as rare and the impact is huge due to the
>>> slow turnaround of HSM firmware. Due to FIPS certification and whatnot
>>> HSM vendors do not fix simple things like this sometimes in years. This
>>> puts customers to a complete halt in the meantime. These are heavily
>>> certified environments where re-certification alone takes at least 6
>>> months.
>>>
>>> Having worked with all major HSM vendors for many years I know that
>>> PKCS11 library bugs are not rare at all. If we'd be using PKCS#11
>>> natively, you can hack around by ignoring bad values, but when using
>>> SunPKCS#11 you are stuck with Java's rules unless you patch SunPKCS11
>>> which is not for everyone.
>>>
>>> Due to the strictness of using SunPKCS11 compared to native PKCS#11,
>>> some more flexibility in configuration would help a lot.
>>>
>>> For many years SunPKCS11 have worked great. But also the HSM world is
>>> moving faster than they did 5 years ago, and unfortunately this means
>>> that we're seeing a huge rise in PKCS#11 issues in the last year,
>>> requiring quite a lot of hacking in SunPKCS11 to workaround. In theory
>>> it should not be needed, but in practice it is. Faster evolution = more
>>> bugs.
>>>
>>> I just showed two real world use cases that you really need to be able
>>> to work around. And these will not be the last. PKCS#11 is a complex
>>> standard and implementors will rarely get it exactly right.
>>>
>>> Increased flexibility and more control around PKCS#11 will be needed in
>>> the future imho, or users will be forced to move to other solutions like
>>> JackNJI11. We'd much rather use SunPKCS11 but customers (end users)
>>> can't get stuck between Java and HSM vendors in a fight who does PKCS#11
>>> right or wrong.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Tomas
>>>
>>> On 2018-02-01 01:07, Valerie Peng wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. I suppose we can ignore values which obviously
don't make sense such as 0 or max being less than min key size.
However, if the underlying PKCS11 library vendors forgot to update the
max value as in your comment#2, supposedly they should fix it.
I am not too keen to add an env var/system property to accommodate this
kind of PKCS11 library bugs since this should be rare I hope.
Valerie
On 1/30/2018 12:22 AM, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At some revision in the PKCS#11 provider there was introduced checking
> of C_GetMechanismInfo min and max sizes.
>
> This has turned out to be a bit fragile. Let me give two real world
> examples:
>
> 1. Amazon Cloud HSM report minSize and maxSize for EC keys to 0. The
> Java PKCS#11 provider will happily take 0 as maxSize and refuse to
> generate any EC keys at all. Needless to say, without the Java
> check it
> would be no problem.
>
> 131: C_GetMechanismInfo
> 2018-01-30 07:52:20.740
> [in] slotID = 0x1
> CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN
> [out] pInfo:
> CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN : min:0 max:0 flags:0x10001 ( Hardware
>
Re: PKCS#11 provider issues with min and max size
Hmm, seems reasonable to support this in the provider configuration file.
Or, on a similar note, but slightly different approach is to just add an
configuration option for disabling checking the supported key size range.
Regards,
Valerie
On 2/9/2018 2:16 AM, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
I just realized that a natural place to configure provider behavior is
in the provider construction, which is also per provider, so you can
have multiple ones with different configuration. We are already using an
InputStream to construct SunPKCS11, and adding more parameters to
configure/override defaults would be natural.
I.e.:
-
name =
library = ;
slot = slot
rsakeygenmech = CKM_RSA_X9_31_KEY_PAIR_GEN
rsakeygenmechminsize = 1024
rsakeygenmechmaxsize = 8192
attributes(*, CKO_PUBLIC_KEY, *) = {
CKA_TOKEN = false
CKA_ENCRYPT = true
CKA_VERIFY = true
CKA_WRAP = true
}
attributes(*, CKO_PRIVATE_KEY, *) = {
CKA_DERIVE = false
CKA_TOKEN = true
CKA_PRIVATE = true
CKA_SENSITIVE = true
CKA_EXTRACTABLE = false
CKA_DECRYPT = true
CKA_SIGN = true
CKA_UNWRAP = true
}
attributes(*, CKO_SECRET_KEY, *) = {
CKA_SENSITIVE = true
CKA_EXTRACTABLE = false
CKA_ENCRYPT = true
CKA_DECRYPT = true
CKA_SIGN = true
CKA_VERIFY = true
CKA_WRAP = true
CKA_UNWRAP = true
}
-
Cheers,
Tomas
On 2018-02-09 09:55, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the answer. (sorry I was out with the flu for a week)
I am not too keen to add an env var/system property to accommodate this
kind of PKCS11 library bugs since this should be rare I hope.
Valerie
Unfortunately I don't see it as rare and the impact is huge due to the
slow turnaround of HSM firmware. Due to FIPS certification and whatnot
HSM vendors do not fix simple things like this sometimes in years. This
puts customers to a complete halt in the meantime. These are heavily
certified environments where re-certification alone takes at least 6 months.
Having worked with all major HSM vendors for many years I know that
PKCS11 library bugs are not rare at all. If we'd be using PKCS#11
natively, you can hack around by ignoring bad values, but when using
SunPKCS#11 you are stuck with Java's rules unless you patch SunPKCS11
which is not for everyone.
Due to the strictness of using SunPKCS11 compared to native PKCS#11,
some more flexibility in configuration would help a lot.
For many years SunPKCS11 have worked great. But also the HSM world is
moving faster than they did 5 years ago, and unfortunately this means
that we're seeing a huge rise in PKCS#11 issues in the last year,
requiring quite a lot of hacking in SunPKCS11 to workaround. In theory
it should not be needed, but in practice it is. Faster evolution = more
bugs.
I just showed two real world use cases that you really need to be able
to work around. And these will not be the last. PKCS#11 is a complex
standard and implementors will rarely get it exactly right.
Increased flexibility and more control around PKCS#11 will be needed in
the future imho, or users will be forced to move to other solutions like
JackNJI11. We'd much rather use SunPKCS11 but customers (end users)
can't get stuck between Java and HSM vendors in a fight who does PKCS#11
right or wrong.
Cheers,
Tomas
On 2018-02-01 01:07, Valerie Peng wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. I suppose we can ignore values which obviously
don't make sense such as 0 or max being less than min key size.
However, if the underlying PKCS11 library vendors forgot to update the
max value as in your comment#2, supposedly they should fix it.
I am not too keen to add an env var/system property to accommodate this
kind of PKCS11 library bugs since this should be rare I hope.
Valerie
On 1/30/2018 12:22 AM, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
Hi,
At some revision in the PKCS#11 provider there was introduced checking
of C_GetMechanismInfo min and max sizes.
This has turned out to be a bit fragile. Let me give two real world
examples:
1. Amazon Cloud HSM report minSize and maxSize for EC keys to 0. The
Java PKCS#11 provider will happily take 0 as maxSize and refuse to
generate any EC keys at all. Needless to say, without the Java check it
would be no problem.
131: C_GetMechanismInfo
2018-01-30 07:52:20.740
[in] slotID = 0x1
CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN
[out] pInfo:
CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN : min:0 max:0 flags:0x10001 ( Hardware
KeyPair )
Returned: 0 CKR_OK
(we are reporting this to Amazon as well)
2. Thales HSMs (some?) report maxSize for RSA_PKCS key generation as
4096, but will happily generate 8192 bit keys. I.e. the reported maxSize
is not true.
We have customers who used to generate 8192 bit RSA keys, but after a
Java update can not do so anymore, because Java compares against this
value.
* Suggestions:
1. In the constructor of P11KeyPairGenerator where minKeyLen and
maxKeyLen are calculated, never allow maxKeyLen to be less than
minKeyLen.
I.e. change the part:
// auto-adjust default keysize in case it's out-of-range
if
Re: PKCS#11 provider issues with min and max size
Oh-well, I suppose that we are all humans. ;)
Let me take a closer look on this and see if there are other ways to
relax this constraint than adding env var which should be the very last
resort in my opinion.
BTW, is there a bug filed for this?
Thanks for the feedback,
Valerie
On 2/9/2018 12:55 AM, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the answer. (sorry I was out with the flu for a week)
I am not too keen to add an env var/system property to accommodate this
kind of PKCS11 library bugs since this should be rare I hope.
Valerie
Unfortunately I don't see it as rare and the impact is huge due to the
slow turnaround of HSM firmware. Due to FIPS certification and whatnot
HSM vendors do not fix simple things like this sometimes in years. This
puts customers to a complete halt in the meantime. These are heavily
certified environments where re-certification alone takes at least 6 months.
Having worked with all major HSM vendors for many years I know that
PKCS11 library bugs are not rare at all. If we'd be using PKCS#11
natively, you can hack around by ignoring bad values, but when using
SunPKCS#11 you are stuck with Java's rules unless you patch SunPKCS11
which is not for everyone.
Due to the strictness of using SunPKCS11 compared to native PKCS#11,
some more flexibility in configuration would help a lot.
For many years SunPKCS11 have worked great. But also the HSM world is
moving faster than they did 5 years ago, and unfortunately this means
that we're seeing a huge rise in PKCS#11 issues in the last year,
requiring quite a lot of hacking in SunPKCS11 to workaround. In theory
it should not be needed, but in practice it is. Faster evolution = more
bugs.
I just showed two real world use cases that you really need to be able
to work around. And these will not be the last. PKCS#11 is a complex
standard and implementors will rarely get it exactly right.
Increased flexibility and more control around PKCS#11 will be needed in
the future imho, or users will be forced to move to other solutions like
JackNJI11. We'd much rather use SunPKCS11 but customers (end users)
can't get stuck between Java and HSM vendors in a fight who does PKCS#11
right or wrong.
Cheers,
Tomas
On 2018-02-01 01:07, Valerie Peng wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. I suppose we can ignore values which obviously
don't make sense such as 0 or max being less than min key size.
However, if the underlying PKCS11 library vendors forgot to update the
max value as in your comment#2, supposedly they should fix it.
I am not too keen to add an env var/system property to accommodate this
kind of PKCS11 library bugs since this should be rare I hope.
Valerie
On 1/30/2018 12:22 AM, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
Hi,
At some revision in the PKCS#11 provider there was introduced checking
of C_GetMechanismInfo min and max sizes.
This has turned out to be a bit fragile. Let me give two real world
examples:
1. Amazon Cloud HSM report minSize and maxSize for EC keys to 0. The
Java PKCS#11 provider will happily take 0 as maxSize and refuse to
generate any EC keys at all. Needless to say, without the Java check it
would be no problem.
131: C_GetMechanismInfo
2018-01-30 07:52:20.740
[in] slotID = 0x1
CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN
[out] pInfo:
CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN : min:0 max:0 flags:0x10001 ( Hardware
KeyPair )
Returned: 0 CKR_OK
(we are reporting this to Amazon as well)
2. Thales HSMs (some?) report maxSize for RSA_PKCS key generation as
4096, but will happily generate 8192 bit keys. I.e. the reported maxSize
is not true.
We have customers who used to generate 8192 bit RSA keys, but after a
Java update can not do so anymore, because Java compares against this
value.
* Suggestions:
1. In the constructor of P11KeyPairGenerator where minKeyLen and
maxKeyLen are calculated, never allow maxKeyLen to be less than
minKeyLen.
I.e. change the part:
// auto-adjust default keysize in case it's out-of-range
if ((minKeyLen != -1) && (keySize < minKeyLen)) {
keySize = minKeyLen;
}
if ((maxKeyLen != -1) && (keySize > maxKeyLen)) {
keySize = maxKeyLen;
}
To include something like:
// auto-adjust default keysize in case it's out-of-range
if ((minKeyLen != -1) && (keySize < minKeyLen)) {
keySize = minKeyLen;
}
if ((maxKeyLen != -1) && (maxKeyLen < minKeyLen)) {
maxKeyLen = minKeyLen;
}
if ((maxKeyLen != -1) && (keySize > maxKeyLen)) {
keySize = maxKeyLen;
}
2. Allow to ignore checking of maxKeyLen by some means, i.e. allow to
ignore checking against C_GetMechanismInfo if you know that the HSM does
not provide sane values. I.e. an environment variable for example
reverting back to the old behavior when these were ignored.
Regards,
Tomas Gustavsson
Re: PKCS#11 provider issues with min and max size
I just realized that a natural place to configure provider behavior is
in the provider construction, which is also per provider, so you can
have multiple ones with different configuration. We are already using an
InputStream to construct SunPKCS11, and adding more parameters to
configure/override defaults would be natural.
I.e.:
-
name =
library = ;
slot = slot
rsakeygenmech = CKM_RSA_X9_31_KEY_PAIR_GEN
rsakeygenmechminsize = 1024
rsakeygenmechmaxsize = 8192
attributes(*, CKO_PUBLIC_KEY, *) = {
CKA_TOKEN = false
CKA_ENCRYPT = true
CKA_VERIFY = true
CKA_WRAP = true
}
attributes(*, CKO_PRIVATE_KEY, *) = {
CKA_DERIVE = false
CKA_TOKEN = true
CKA_PRIVATE = true
CKA_SENSITIVE = true
CKA_EXTRACTABLE = false
CKA_DECRYPT = true
CKA_SIGN = true
CKA_UNWRAP = true
}
attributes(*, CKO_SECRET_KEY, *) = {
CKA_SENSITIVE = true
CKA_EXTRACTABLE = false
CKA_ENCRYPT = true
CKA_DECRYPT = true
CKA_SIGN = true
CKA_VERIFY = true
CKA_WRAP = true
CKA_UNWRAP = true
}
-
Cheers,
Tomas
On 2018-02-09 09:55, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the answer. (sorry I was out with the flu for a week)
>
>> I am not too keen to add an env var/system property to accommodate this
>> kind of PKCS11 library bugs since this should be rare I hope.
>> Valerie
>
> Unfortunately I don't see it as rare and the impact is huge due to the
> slow turnaround of HSM firmware. Due to FIPS certification and whatnot
> HSM vendors do not fix simple things like this sometimes in years. This
> puts customers to a complete halt in the meantime. These are heavily
> certified environments where re-certification alone takes at least 6 months.
>
> Having worked with all major HSM vendors for many years I know that
> PKCS11 library bugs are not rare at all. If we'd be using PKCS#11
> natively, you can hack around by ignoring bad values, but when using
> SunPKCS#11 you are stuck with Java's rules unless you patch SunPKCS11
> which is not for everyone.
>
> Due to the strictness of using SunPKCS11 compared to native PKCS#11,
> some more flexibility in configuration would help a lot.
>
> For many years SunPKCS11 have worked great. But also the HSM world is
> moving faster than they did 5 years ago, and unfortunately this means
> that we're seeing a huge rise in PKCS#11 issues in the last year,
> requiring quite a lot of hacking in SunPKCS11 to workaround. In theory
> it should not be needed, but in practice it is. Faster evolution = more
> bugs.
>
> I just showed two real world use cases that you really need to be able
> to work around. And these will not be the last. PKCS#11 is a complex
> standard and implementors will rarely get it exactly right.
>
> Increased flexibility and more control around PKCS#11 will be needed in
> the future imho, or users will be forced to move to other solutions like
> JackNJI11. We'd much rather use SunPKCS11 but customers (end users)
> can't get stuck between Java and HSM vendors in a fight who does PKCS#11
> right or wrong.
>
> Cheers,
> Tomas
>
> On 2018-02-01 01:07, Valerie Peng wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback. I suppose we can ignore values which obviously
>> don't make sense such as 0 or max being less than min key size.
>> However, if the underlying PKCS11 library vendors forgot to update the
>> max value as in your comment#2, supposedly they should fix it.
>> I am not too keen to add an env var/system property to accommodate this
>> kind of PKCS11 library bugs since this should be rare I hope.
>> Valerie
>>
>> On 1/30/2018 12:22 AM, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> At some revision in the PKCS#11 provider there was introduced checking
>>> of C_GetMechanismInfo min and max sizes.
>>>
>>> This has turned out to be a bit fragile. Let me give two real world
>>> examples:
>>>
>>> 1. Amazon Cloud HSM report minSize and maxSize for EC keys to 0. The
>>> Java PKCS#11 provider will happily take 0 as maxSize and refuse to
>>> generate any EC keys at all. Needless to say, without the Java check it
>>> would be no problem.
>>>
>>> 131: C_GetMechanismInfo
>>> 2018-01-30 07:52:20.740
>>> [in] slotID = 0x1
>>> CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN
>>> [out] pInfo:
>>> CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN : min:0 max:0 flags:0x10001 ( Hardware
>>> KeyPair )
>>> Returned: 0 CKR_OK
>>>
>>> (we are reporting this to Amazon as well)
>>>
>>> 2. Thales HSMs (some?) report maxSize for RSA_PKCS key generation as
>>> 4096, but will happily generate 8192 bit keys. I.e. the reported maxSize
>>> is not true.
>>> We have customers who used to generate 8192 bit RSA keys, but after a
>>> Java update can not do so anymore, because Java compares against this
>>> value.
>>>
>>>
>>> * Suggestions:
>>>
>>> 1. In the constructor of P11KeyPairGenerator where minKeyLen and
>>> maxKeyLen are calculated, never allow maxKeyLen to be less than
>>> minKeyLen.
>>>
>>> I.e. change the part:
>>> // auto-adjust default keysize in case it's out-of-range
>>> if ((minKeyLen != -1) && (keySize <
Re: PKCS#11 provider issues with min and max size
Hi,
Thanks for the answer. (sorry I was out with the flu for a week)
> I am not too keen to add an env var/system property to accommodate this
> kind of PKCS11 library bugs since this should be rare I hope.
> Valerie
Unfortunately I don't see it as rare and the impact is huge due to the
slow turnaround of HSM firmware. Due to FIPS certification and whatnot
HSM vendors do not fix simple things like this sometimes in years. This
puts customers to a complete halt in the meantime. These are heavily
certified environments where re-certification alone takes at least 6 months.
Having worked with all major HSM vendors for many years I know that
PKCS11 library bugs are not rare at all. If we'd be using PKCS#11
natively, you can hack around by ignoring bad values, but when using
SunPKCS#11 you are stuck with Java's rules unless you patch SunPKCS11
which is not for everyone.
Due to the strictness of using SunPKCS11 compared to native PKCS#11,
some more flexibility in configuration would help a lot.
For many years SunPKCS11 have worked great. But also the HSM world is
moving faster than they did 5 years ago, and unfortunately this means
that we're seeing a huge rise in PKCS#11 issues in the last year,
requiring quite a lot of hacking in SunPKCS11 to workaround. In theory
it should not be needed, but in practice it is. Faster evolution = more
bugs.
I just showed two real world use cases that you really need to be able
to work around. And these will not be the last. PKCS#11 is a complex
standard and implementors will rarely get it exactly right.
Increased flexibility and more control around PKCS#11 will be needed in
the future imho, or users will be forced to move to other solutions like
JackNJI11. We'd much rather use SunPKCS11 but customers (end users)
can't get stuck between Java and HSM vendors in a fight who does PKCS#11
right or wrong.
Cheers,
Tomas
On 2018-02-01 01:07, Valerie Peng wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I suppose we can ignore values which obviously
> don't make sense such as 0 or max being less than min key size.
> However, if the underlying PKCS11 library vendors forgot to update the
> max value as in your comment#2, supposedly they should fix it.
> I am not too keen to add an env var/system property to accommodate this
> kind of PKCS11 library bugs since this should be rare I hope.
> Valerie
>
> On 1/30/2018 12:22 AM, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> At some revision in the PKCS#11 provider there was introduced checking
>> of C_GetMechanismInfo min and max sizes.
>>
>> This has turned out to be a bit fragile. Let me give two real world
>> examples:
>>
>> 1. Amazon Cloud HSM report minSize and maxSize for EC keys to 0. The
>> Java PKCS#11 provider will happily take 0 as maxSize and refuse to
>> generate any EC keys at all. Needless to say, without the Java check it
>> would be no problem.
>>
>> 131: C_GetMechanismInfo
>> 2018-01-30 07:52:20.740
>> [in] slotID = 0x1
>> CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN
>> [out] pInfo:
>> CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN : min:0 max:0 flags:0x10001 ( Hardware
>> KeyPair )
>> Returned: 0 CKR_OK
>>
>> (we are reporting this to Amazon as well)
>>
>> 2. Thales HSMs (some?) report maxSize for RSA_PKCS key generation as
>> 4096, but will happily generate 8192 bit keys. I.e. the reported maxSize
>> is not true.
>> We have customers who used to generate 8192 bit RSA keys, but after a
>> Java update can not do so anymore, because Java compares against this
>> value.
>>
>>
>> * Suggestions:
>>
>> 1. In the constructor of P11KeyPairGenerator where minKeyLen and
>> maxKeyLen are calculated, never allow maxKeyLen to be less than
>> minKeyLen.
>>
>> I.e. change the part:
>> // auto-adjust default keysize in case it's out-of-range
>> if ((minKeyLen != -1) && (keySize < minKeyLen)) {
>> keySize = minKeyLen;
>> }
>> if ((maxKeyLen != -1) && (keySize > maxKeyLen)) {
>> keySize = maxKeyLen;
>> }
>>
>> To include something like:
>> // auto-adjust default keysize in case it's out-of-range
>> if ((minKeyLen != -1) && (keySize < minKeyLen)) {
>> keySize = minKeyLen;
>> }
>> if ((maxKeyLen != -1) && (maxKeyLen < minKeyLen)) {
>> maxKeyLen = minKeyLen;
>> }
>> if ((maxKeyLen != -1) && (keySize > maxKeyLen)) {
>> keySize = maxKeyLen;
>> }
>>
>> 2. Allow to ignore checking of maxKeyLen by some means, i.e. allow to
>> ignore checking against C_GetMechanismInfo if you know that the HSM does
>> not provide sane values. I.e. an environment variable for example
>> reverting back to the old behavior when these were ignored.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tomas Gustavsson
>>
>
Re: PKCS#11 provider issues with min and max size
Thanks for the feedback. I suppose we can ignore values which obviously
don't make sense such as 0 or max being less than min key size.
However, if the underlying PKCS11 library vendors forgot to update the
max value as in your comment#2, supposedly they should fix it.
I am not too keen to add an env var/system property to accommodate this
kind of PKCS11 library bugs since this should be rare I hope.
Valerie
On 1/30/2018 12:22 AM, Tomas Gustavsson wrote:
Hi,
At some revision in the PKCS#11 provider there was introduced checking
of C_GetMechanismInfo min and max sizes.
This has turned out to be a bit fragile. Let me give two real world
examples:
1. Amazon Cloud HSM report minSize and maxSize for EC keys to 0. The
Java PKCS#11 provider will happily take 0 as maxSize and refuse to
generate any EC keys at all. Needless to say, without the Java check it
would be no problem.
131: C_GetMechanismInfo
2018-01-30 07:52:20.740
[in] slotID = 0x1
CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN
[out] pInfo:
CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN : min:0 max:0 flags:0x10001 ( Hardware
KeyPair )
Returned: 0 CKR_OK
(we are reporting this to Amazon as well)
2. Thales HSMs (some?) report maxSize for RSA_PKCS key generation as
4096, but will happily generate 8192 bit keys. I.e. the reported maxSize
is not true.
We have customers who used to generate 8192 bit RSA keys, but after a
Java update can not do so anymore, because Java compares against this value.
* Suggestions:
1. In the constructor of P11KeyPairGenerator where minKeyLen and
maxKeyLen are calculated, never allow maxKeyLen to be less than minKeyLen.
I.e. change the part:
// auto-adjust default keysize in case it's out-of-range
if ((minKeyLen != -1) && (keySize < minKeyLen)) {
keySize = minKeyLen;
}
if ((maxKeyLen != -1) && (keySize > maxKeyLen)) {
keySize = maxKeyLen;
}
To include something like:
// auto-adjust default keysize in case it's out-of-range
if ((minKeyLen != -1) && (keySize < minKeyLen)) {
keySize = minKeyLen;
}
if ((maxKeyLen != -1) && (maxKeyLen < minKeyLen)) {
maxKeyLen = minKeyLen;
}
if ((maxKeyLen != -1) && (keySize > maxKeyLen)) {
keySize = maxKeyLen;
}
2. Allow to ignore checking of maxKeyLen by some means, i.e. allow to
ignore checking against C_GetMechanismInfo if you know that the HSM does
not provide sane values. I.e. an environment variable for example
reverting back to the old behavior when these were ignored.
Regards,
Tomas Gustavsson
PKCS#11 provider issues with min and max size
Hi,
At some revision in the PKCS#11 provider there was introduced checking
of C_GetMechanismInfo min and max sizes.
This has turned out to be a bit fragile. Let me give two real world
examples:
1. Amazon Cloud HSM report minSize and maxSize for EC keys to 0. The
Java PKCS#11 provider will happily take 0 as maxSize and refuse to
generate any EC keys at all. Needless to say, without the Java check it
would be no problem.
131: C_GetMechanismInfo
2018-01-30 07:52:20.740
[in] slotID = 0x1
CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN
[out] pInfo:
CKM_EC_KEY_PAIR_GEN : min:0 max:0 flags:0x10001 ( Hardware
KeyPair )
Returned: 0 CKR_OK
(we are reporting this to Amazon as well)
2. Thales HSMs (some?) report maxSize for RSA_PKCS key generation as
4096, but will happily generate 8192 bit keys. I.e. the reported maxSize
is not true.
We have customers who used to generate 8192 bit RSA keys, but after a
Java update can not do so anymore, because Java compares against this value.
* Suggestions:
1. In the constructor of P11KeyPairGenerator where minKeyLen and
maxKeyLen are calculated, never allow maxKeyLen to be less than minKeyLen.
I.e. change the part:
// auto-adjust default keysize in case it's out-of-range
if ((minKeyLen != -1) && (keySize < minKeyLen)) {
keySize = minKeyLen;
}
if ((maxKeyLen != -1) && (keySize > maxKeyLen)) {
keySize = maxKeyLen;
}
To include something like:
// auto-adjust default keysize in case it's out-of-range
if ((minKeyLen != -1) && (keySize < minKeyLen)) {
keySize = minKeyLen;
}
if ((maxKeyLen != -1) && (maxKeyLen < minKeyLen)) {
maxKeyLen = minKeyLen;
}
if ((maxKeyLen != -1) && (keySize > maxKeyLen)) {
keySize = maxKeyLen;
}
2. Allow to ignore checking of maxKeyLen by some means, i.e. allow to
ignore checking against C_GetMechanismInfo if you know that the HSM does
not provide sane values. I.e. an environment variable for example
reverting back to the old behavior when these were ignored.
Regards,
Tomas Gustavsson
--
**
PrimeKey Solutions AB
Lundagatan 16, 171 63 Solna, Sweden
Mob: +46 (0)707421096
Internet: www.primekey.se
Twitter: twitter.com/primekeyPKI
**
