I have a question about how to encrypt messages between users. Note i will only talk about cryptography theory and not platform dependent code like C++ with Windows Cryptography. I am talking about system programming and not web programming encryption with TLS, SSL, etc...
Also, ignore Certificates and Signing of messages, so just think of the Public keys as already being verified as not fraudulent and messages as being from the correct user.
I believe the best way to reach fast and secure encryption communication between users is to have both users with a session key because symmetric encryption is faster than asymmetric, and using asymmetric encryption (RSA) for the secure transfer of the session key.
I know there are other key agreement algorithms like Diffie-Hellmans, but lets stick with RSA which is what i've chosen.
Please tell me if you see where this might be a insecure (man-in-the-middle attack) or drastically inefficient way of performing encrypted communications.
Theory steps:
i.) Parties = {Server, Client}
ii.) Server: Generate session key (RC4)
iii.) Client: Generate private/public key pair (RSA)
iv.) Client: Send public key to Server
v.) Server: Encrypt session key with Client's Public Key, then send encrypted
session key to Client
vi.) Client: Decrypt session key using Client's Private Key
vii.) Both parties now hold the session key for fast encrypted communications
Server(Server's Session key) <--> Session Key's encrypted packet (Communication medium) <--> Client(Server's Session key, Client's Public/Private key pair)
Thanks!
Assumptions:
Public Key Tampering is not possible.
I think you mean this, by "ignore Certificates and Signing of messages"
Cryptosystem is not broken.
Symmetric cipher is not broken (RC4 is broken, for example)
Asymmetric cipher is not broken
One-way Hash function is not broken
Random number generator is not broken
Under these conditions, that's perfectly safe. In fact what you described in your question is how PGP works.
If you are willing to learn more about attacks against PGP, go here.
And if you are willing to learn basics of cryptology, this is an excellent beginner tutorial.
lets stick with RSA which is what i've chosen.
That's where your biggest vulnerability is.
Protocols such as TLS (which can use RSA) SSH and PGP provide a well defined mechanism for negotiating encryption, and implementations such as openssl provide a documented, tested, portable, robust and we'll tested abstraction layer.
Rolling your own solution carries massive risks of injecting vulnerabilities. And entails ongoing pain in maintenance.
BTW RC4 is considered broken by many people.
Related
I am relatively new to Cryptography. From what I have read, it says that AES is symmetric. Hence there is no concept of Public and Private. So how is AES implemented to secure information transmitted over the web?
To try to explain, when a website uses SSL/TLS for transmitting encrypted data over the transport layer is first establishes the identity of the server (an/or client depending on the certificates used). Together, using Asymmetric crypto (for example RSA) the two sides (client and server) establish connection and using public and private keys, they figure out a symmetric key that they both can use for transmitting data for the remainder of the session. The actual symmetric key is never transmitted.
Once they have done that, they switch to using symmetric crypto (AES, RC4, etc) for the rest of the session using the key that they determined during the previous steps. Symmetric crypto is much, much faster then asymmetric, hence the reason for switching, but since they can't just pass a symmetric key back and forth the first step is needed to figure out what key to use.
This is a very simplistic explanation of the extremely complex tasks that are really going on, but since you said you're a beginner, I'll keep it simple.
Symmetric encryption (AES and others) are also commonly used strictly within the application (not for transmitting data) for storing encrypted data in a database or on a file system. So in that way AES (or others) can be used for website security.
AES Reference
NIST FIPS 197 doc
For a program I am writing, I would like to use TLS (or something similar) to encapsulate my application's protocol. This will minimize both the amount of work I have to do as well as the number of vulnerabilities I could accidentally create.
My program is designed to be peer-to-peer although one or more servers provide some services to help one user locate another (it registers IP address/port combos) but do little else. I want to make this system very fault-tolerant so having these servers act as a Certificate Authority is unacceptable because a compromise of a server or its key would affect too many users. Therefore I plan on using a Web of Trust.
The main problem with using TLS is that the original TLS 1.2 specification (RFC 5246) does not provide for using OpenPGP certificates. It seems to be very x.509 centric. RFC 6091, which obsoletes RFC 5081 and extends RFC 5246, makes provisions for an extension to TLS that does what I want. The problem is that I don't think BouncyCastle implements this extension and I can't find a Java crypto library that does. I also don't want to write my own / contribute to BC because I'm really bad at not making mistakes and I'm also very lazy.
Another problem with this is that BouncyCastle provides "a light weight client-side TLS API" but because this software is P2P, a server-side API is also necessary so that I can use TLS by making it believe that the peer originating the connection is the client. I'm pretty sure that once the handshake is complete that it's the same.
Questions:
Is there any way that I can still use TLS (which I highly doubt)? Is there a protocol like TLS that is designed for P2P, or at least can function in this way (like I believe TLS can), but can work with an OpenPGP certificate? If neither is the case, should I pursue the idea explained in this question and implement my own layer taking concepts from TLS?
Links to RFCs: RFC 5246 and RFC 6091
The only library that I know to support RFC 6091 (i.e. TLS with openpgp certificates) is GnuTLS but I don't know whether you can use something like that in Java. Alternatively you could replicate the SSH semantics, where you store the public keys of your peers using self-signed
X.509 certificates.
In TLS, the X.509 parts are actually handled as opaque blobs:
The server sends its certificate (and some helper certificates, if it wishes so) as (a list of) opaque string(s) of bytes (a three-byte length, followed by the encoded certificate as arbitrary bytes).
When the server asks for public key client authentication, it sends a list of "names" which are supposed to be the encoded X.500 names of the root CA the server will recognize -- there again, opaque blobs (two-byte length).
The client, when (if) it sends a certificate (chain), uses the same format than the server.
As TLS is defined, both client and server are supposed to use the peer public key, which they get in any way they see fit and that's mostly out of scope of the TLS specification: the certificates exchanged over the wire are considered as mere helpers. So there would be no problem in actually sending OpenPGP encoded public keys in those blobs, as long as both client and server expect it -- and since you control code on both, this should be no issue.
Your problem then "simply" becomes a matter of making a TLS implementation accept to hand you the blobs without choking on them. I know of no existing Java-only TLS implementation which will fit the bill, so you may have to write a bit of code -- but I urge you not to fiddle with TLS protocol details except processing of the certificate blobs. Those things are subtle and weaknesses are sooo easy to create...
As far as I know, the Sun/Oracle JSSE implementation only deals with X.509 TrustManagers (which you can customize to handle certain extensions, but would still expect a structurally valid X.509 certificate.
It might be possible to use Java's security API to implement RFC 6091, but I'm not sure how. It's definitely more work than just tweaking the TrustManagers, as you would have to go deeper into Java's implementation of TLS.
Alternatively, if it's for a bespoke server, you could re-use the key material from PGP certificates into X.509 certificates and put the initial PGP certificate (with all its signatures) as a blob in a custom X.509 extension (as it's more or less done here). The problem here would be interoperability, since such an extension wouldn't be a standard. Implementing a TrustManager in Java that is able to understand extension is definitely feasible, and you wouldn't need to dig into the internals of Java's TLS stack, you'd only have to deal with custom TrustManagers to initialize your SSLContexts.
I have a client-server game, where the client connects to a server and stays connected during the game (approx 5-60 min).
I want new clients to be able to register securely, as well as allowing existing clients to authenticate with no worries that the login credentials are exposed.
The thing is that for performance reasons it would be best to stick with a simple and cheap encryption like RC4 for the game session, but a symmetric key does not make it easy to secure the registration procedure.
Since I will want to keep a separate login server anyway, my idea is like this:
Client sends a HTTPS request to the login server with credentials (or registration information)
The login server collects the user information, and generates a temporary RC4 session encryption key
The user information + RC4 session + timestamp + digest (I can rely on both servers to be synchronized timewise) with a secret symmetric key, shared between game server and login server.
The packaged data + RC4 session encryption key + ip address to the game server is sent as a reply to the HTTPS request to the client.
The client opens a connection to the game server, sends an initial unencrypted hello message with the encrypted user information as a payload.
The game server unpacks the data packaged in (3). It now knows the user and the RC4 encryption key it is supposed to use.
If the timestamp indicates that the login credentials has expired, an error is returned to the client (who is then to retrieve new information). If the decrypted user data cannot be verified with the digest a different error is returned.
If everything checks ok, the server sends an unencrypted LOGIN_OK, and the RC4 encrypted communication starts.
Possible security concerns:
The game server 100% trusts the user info it has decrypted. This makes the servers completely decoupled which is nice, but if the key is compromised, users could completely fake their user info. This could be alleviated somewhat by rotating these keys, so that every day or month has a new key. Both game and login servers could get this from a third server that manages their keys. It might be overkill since: a) in case of a break-in where source code is exposed on the servers, they can be restarted with a new key b) a good enough key + encryption should make brute force attacks hard (suggestions on algorithm?)
RC4 isn't the most secure algorithm, but I make sure to throw away the first 512 bytes or so and each key is only valid for a limited time, e.g. 24h.
Doesn't seem susceptible to man-in-the middle from what I can see: SSL secures the RC4 session key, in (5) the RC4 session key sent to the game server is encrypted as well. All that is possible is DoS and to cause the user request a key again. If the data in (2) is cached until it expires, this should not create a new packet.
The encryption in (3) could be improved by adding random bits to the key. Those random bits are sent together with the encrypted packet, and presented to the game server in (5). In (6) the game server adds those random bits to his key and uses the result to decrypt the data. This way and attacker cannot see when the packed data changes.
Are there any vulnerabilities I'm overlooking here?
A summary of payloads created:
Client login-credentials (protected by SSL), sent to login server
User info + timestamp + temporary game server session key + digest encrypted by login server using a secret key shared with game server, given to the client that - without modifying it - passes it to the game server. Ought to be temper resistant because: a) client does not know the secret key b) has timestamp to avoid resending same data c) digest to verify content was encrypted correctly
temporary game server session key sent by the login server to the client together with the encrypted payload. Protected by SSL.
Client game server login packet, consists of encrypted packet received by login server.
A summary of encryption keys:
Temporary game server session key: randomly generated by login server for encrypted game server <-> client communication. Generated by login server, given to client and game server.
Secret user info encryption key. Shared between game server and login server, used pass user info to game server with client as messenger. Client does not possess this key.
First of all I wouldn't use RC4. There are both faster and more secure stream ciphers around so if you control both client and server then you can probably do better than RC4. Discarding only 512 bytes may not be enough for the Fluhrer, Mantin and Shamir attack, but even if you discard more bytes there's also the Klein's attack etc. I don't know if it's worth the trouble.
Second, make sure that the keys you generate are random. I know it seems obvious but for an example see: http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571
But the real problem is this part: "The game server 100% trusts the user info it has decrypted. This makes the servers completely decoupled which is nice, but if the key is compromised, users could completely fake their user info."
You have to assume that the user knows the key. His game client has to know the key so it can communicate with the server. If the user can use his real data to log in via ssl, get a key for stream cipher and then send whatever info he wants to the game server then all the attacker has to do is just get an account and do whatever he wants.
It doesn't matter how often you change the key because every time you change it you have to still give it to the client so you might as well change it after every byte and it still wouldn't matter here.
This is more important than the cipher used or the key generation because no one will brute force the key if he just gets it.
You should never trust the client. You should store the client data on the server side and match it with the key or sign the data and verify it or use HMAC etc. because if the game server 100% trusts the user info then you will have problems sooner o later. There is pretty much no way around it.
It sounds like you're trying to reinvent SSL. Why not issue each client a certificate (signed by your own root authority), and have them connect to the game server over SSL, with mutual authentication?
I understand you cannot use SSL between the game server and the client as you don't want to go through the handshake again.
The protocol seems ok from a first glance. There is no replay attack also as you really need the symmetric session key to do anything meaningful. The best thing you can do is switch to AES is also very fast and very secure. I highly doubt you will see any performance hit by switching to AES.
Also the first security concern bullet point you mentioned is not really a concern. Well it is a concern for all clients on the desktop, for example your browser has the same problem talking over HTTPS. So you don't really have to solve it. Your game logic somehow has to look for bad behavior if you want to actively monitor manipulation attempts. You cannot solve it by re-keying.
I ended up also posting on sci.crypt and I'll try to summarize the suggested changes (as far as I understand them) below in case it might be of interest.
Step 1: Client sends a HTTPS request to the login server with credentials
Assuming that the credentials take the form of a login token, also add a self-assigned unique id.
Step 3: The user information + RC4 session + timestamp + digest
Use an encryption algorithm that ensures integrity, instead of using a digest explicitly. E.g. AES-GCM or AES-CCM. Add the extra id field in step 1. Add the ip to the game server as well.
Step 4: The packaged data + RC4 session encryption key + ip address to the game server is sent as a reply.
Giving the timestamp to the client will allow the client to know when the session has expired. This avoids unnecessary connects to the game server with expired credentials.
Step 5: The client opens a connection to the game server, sends an initial unencrypted hello message with the encrypted user information as a payload.
Add the self-assigned id in step 1 unencrypted to the payload.
Step 6: The game server unpacks the data packaged in (3). It now knows the user and the RC4 encryption key it is supposed to use.
The game server matches both its own ip with the encrypted ip, as well as the encrypted id with the id given by the client. The first prevents the user from going to a different server with the same credentials.
Step 8: If everything checks ok, the server sends an unencrypted LOGIN_OK, and the RC4 encrypted communication starts.
At this point the game server cannot be sure of the client's identity. Use the session key and encrypt nonce + strictly increasing session id + login success state using AES-GCM/CCM and send it to the client.
The client decrypts and checks the login success state. If this is true, then the client knows that the game server knows the session key (GCM/CCM verifies that the packet has not been tampered with). The client returns sid + nonce.
The server verifies sid + nonce is the same as the values sent.
Finally the client and server creates new session keys by hash-ing the session key with sid + nonce + salt to create the key for the consequent communication, to prevent a possible replay attack.
Regarding RC4
There are vulnerabilities in RC4, but it probably would suffice for this scheme because of the rather aggressive key rescheduling. However, there are modern ciphers which are more secure and faster, such as Snow 2.0 or Trivium.
Just use SSL to the game server. Modern cryptanalysis has resulted in a few very fast implementations of some of the better encryption algorithms. For example, well optimized AES implementations can easily encrypt at better than 150MB/s on any remotely modern machine. Also while AES is held with high regard, it does have two weaknesses that I know of, but when used correctly those weaknesses become insignificant.
I noticed that you failed to mention that you would be using an advanced key scheduling algorithm between the client and the game server. Failing to do so would make the weaknesses of the encryption algorithm much more severe. SSL/TLS should do the key scheduling for you.
I'm in the designing stages of a custom tcp/ip protocol for mobile client-server communication. When not required (data is not sensitive), I'd like to avoid using SSL for overhead reasons (both in handshake latency and conserving cycles).
My question is, what is the best practices way of transmitting authentication information over an unencrypted connection?
Currently, I'm liking SRP or J-PAKE (they generate secure session tokens, are hash/salt friendly, and allow kicking into TLS when necessary), which I believe are both implemented in OpenSSL. However, I am a bit wary since I don't see many people using these algorithms for this purpose. Would also appreciate pointers to any materials discussing this topic in general, since I had trouble finding any.
Edit
Perhaps the question should have been: is there a best practices approach for secure passwords over unencrypted tcp/ip? If not, what are the reasons for selecting a particular method over others? (The Rooks answer is closest in spirit to this question so far, even if it does violate the letter).
Edit, part deux
I'm primarily interested in the case of client-server authentication, where there is an expectation that both parties have a shared secret (password) a priori.
You should have a look at "Diffie-Hellman key exchange":
Diffie–Hellman key exchange (D–H) is a cryptographic protocol that allows two parties that have no prior knowledge of each other to jointly establish a shared secret key over an insecure communications channel. This key can then be used to encrypt subsequent communications using a symmetric key cipher.
Once you have exchanged a key, you can encrypt your password with this key and transmit it over the insecure protocol.
I still think that SSL is by far your best choice, after all why reinvent the wheal when so much can go wrong? You don't have to buy an expensive certificate if your have a list of "good" and "bad" (compromised) certificates. openSSL is completely free, and i don't see a good reason not to use it.
Some things you might not know: ssl handshakes can be resumed.
Also you can use SSL/TLS over UDP to reduce overhead its called DTLS.
You could use a challenge-response algorithm. The algorithm goes like this:
The server sends a random string to the client.
The client combines this string with the password (by combining, you can xor them or just append them).
The client calculates a hash (for example, SHA1) of the result, and sends it to the server.
The server calculates the same hash using this random number and the real password.
The server compares the two hashes.
Since you shouldn't store a password in plain text, but as a hash instead, the client should calculate this hash at the very beginning.
There are possibly several libraries implementing this, so you probably don't need to code it yourself.
I'm using RSA to encrypt communication between a server and a client.
Lets say we have 2 Asymetric keys, key 1 and key2.
The server has key1 (Private) from the start and the client has the key1(public)
So here is the scenario:
the client generates key2
client connects to the server
sending key2(public) encrypted with key1(public)
from now on the server will send all data encrypted with the key2(public)
the client sends some random data to the server
the server sends back the same data hashed
the client verifies that the data is right
As far as I can see this should prevent a man-in-the-middle attack, or am I missing something?
At point 7 the client should know if someone is trying to give the server the wrong key to encrypt with, as no one else but the server can decrypt key2(public).
If there is anything that can be done to improve the security please tell me.
The best thing you can do to improve the security is to use an existing design and not try to reinvent the wheel. I'm not saying that what you've done is necessarily wrong, but just that many people much smarter than you and me have spent a lot of time thinking about this problem. Use TLS instead.
As long as key1 (private) has not been intercepted somehow by a third-party, your scenario looks secure.
I think I saw this somewhere in a paper actually. In it, Alice gave Bob an unlocked box (key 1 public), then Bob put a bunch of his own boxes (key 2 public) in it, locks it and sends it back to Alice. Alice then opens the box(key 1 private), and now she can securely seal the boxes that Bob just gave her.
Despite the box analogy, that's essentially what you're doing, so I'd say its secure.
I agree, just use TLS.
Also, what value do steps 5 through 7 provide? A MITM wanting to do an attack that would work after steps 1-4 (e.g. DoS of some sort by passing n transactions through and then stopping, forcing a retry from the start) could do so just as well after 5-7. What do they add?
-- MarkusQ
No, this protocol is not safe.
A man-in-the-middle can intercept the data sent by the client and send whatever it wants to the server, since you haven't specified any mechanism for the server to authenticate the client or verify the integrity of messages it receives.
Sure, you could doctor up your protocol to fix these glaring problems, but there would be others. If you ever fix them all, you'd have something that maps to TLS or SSH, so why not just start there?
#Petoj—the problem I was focusing on was that of the server trusting the messages it receives; your proposal doesn't provide any security there. However, if you are worried about confidentiality, you still have a problem, because the MITM could pass messages back and forth unaltered until he sees what wants to find because you don't have any privacy on the client messages.
Your proposal seems to be aimed at ensuring the integrity of messages from the client. You've developed the protocol to the point where the client can't distinguish between an attack and a network failure. Rather than trying to help the client determine whether the server acted on a tampered message, allow the server to verify the integrity of the message before acting on it.
I will agree with Greg that you are reinventing the wheel. What you are essentially describing is some basic form of key exchange. Incidentally, in order to ensure that it is secure against man-in-the-middle attacks you must also be certain of the server's identity, i.e. ensure that the client can know with certainty that what it believes to be public(key1) really is the server's and not the man-in-the-middle's (e.g. using a CA or having the server's public(key1) in secure storage on the client side.)
Moreover, there are additional considerations you must be aware from a systems standpoint, such as:
asymmetric key encryption is slower than symmetric key encryption, which is one of the reasons why existing solutions such as TLS will use asymmetric key encryption only to negotiate a temporary symmetric key, which is then used for channel encryption.
if traffic analysis by a third-party succeeds in cracking a temporary symmetric key, you have not compromised you asymmetric key pair. You are encouraged to re-negotiate the temporary key relatively often for this reason. Arguably, generating a new key2 in your scenario would mitigate this aspect.