On 29/06/15 02:26, Ralph Holz wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I think this should be recorded as verified - peer-reviewed attack, valid
> erratum.

Done.

S.

> 
> Ralph
> 
> On 28/06/15 22:28, RFC Errata System wrote:> The following errata report
> has been submitted for RFC7457,
>> "Summarizing Known Attacks on Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram
> TLS (DTLS)".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7457&eid=4403
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Sebastian Schinzel <[email protected]>
>>
>> Section: 2.7
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> While the Bleichenbacher attack has been mitigated in TLS 1.0,
>> the Klima attack, which relies on a version-check oracle, is only
>> mitigated by TLS 1.1.
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> The Bleichenbacher attack has been first addressed in TLS 1.0. This
>> mitigation closed the error message-based attack, but opened a
>> potentially exploitable timing leak [*] which has been addressed in
>> TLS 1.2. The Klima attack, which relies on a version-check oracle,
>> is mitigated by TLS 1.1.
>>
>> [*]: Revisiting SSL/TLS Implementations: New Bleichenbacher Side
>> Channels and Attacks. Meyer, Somorovsky, Weiss, Schwenk, Schinzel,
>> Tews.  23rd Usenix Security Symposium 2014.
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> RFC 7457 states: "While the Bleichenbacher attack has been mitigated
>> in TLS 1.0, the Klima attack, which relies on a version-check oracle,
>> is only mitigated by TLS 1.1."
>>
>> RFC 2246 (TLS 1.0) states: "The best way to avoid vulnerability
>> to this attack is to treat incorrectly formatted messages in a
>> manner indistinguishable from correctly formatted RSA blocks. Thus,
>> when it receives an incorrectly formatted RSA block, a server should
>> generate a random 48-byte value and proceed using it as the premaster
>> secret. Thus, the server will act identically whether the received
>> RSA block is correctly encoded or not."
>>
>> This does not safely prevent Bleichenbacher style attacks. To rephrase
>> it: implementations should generate and proceed with a random PMS
>> if (implied "*and only if*") an incorrectly formatted message was
>> received.  This opens a timing side channel that we successfully
>> exploited in several TLS implementations that comply with RFC 2246
>> (see [1], [2]).
>>
>> This timing side channel was first addressed in TLS 1.2 (RFC 5246),
>> which gives the following timing-constant algorithm to prevent
>> Bleichenbacher's attack: "1. Generate a string R of 46 random bytes
>> 2. Decrypt the message to recover the plaintext M 3. If the PKCS#1
>> padding is not correct, or the length of message
>>       M is not exactly 48 bytes:
>>          pre_master_secret = ClientHello.client_version || R
>>       else If ClientHello.client_version <= TLS 1.0, and version
>>       number check is explicitly disabled:
>>          pre_master_secret = M
>>       else:
>>          pre_master_secret = ClientHello.client_version || M[2..47]"
>>
>> Thus, it is not TLS 1.0 which safely prevents Bleichenbacher attacks,
>> but TLS 1.2.
>>
>> Instructions:
>> -------------
>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC7457 (draft-ietf-uta-tls-attacks-05)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : Summarizing Known Attacks on Transport Layer
> Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS)
>> Publication Date    : February 2015
>> Author(s)           : Y. Sheffer, R. Holz, P. Saint-Andre
>> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
>> Source              : Using TLS in Applications APP
>> Area                : Applications
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Uta mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
> 

_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta

Reply via email to