Skip to main content

Micali-Schnorr Generator (MS-DRBG) Part III - Zero Knowledge Proof Wanted!!

See  also Part I and Part II  of this series
This is going to be a short blog post about the (in)famous Micali-Schnorr  Random Number Generator (MS-DRBG). See Part I and Part II  of this series  for more information about this topic.



WHO: NIST published the specification for Micali-Schnorr  Random Number Generator (MS-DRBG) in NIST Special Publication 800-90 ISO 18031.  Along with the explanation of the core algorithm the documents contains the specification's moduli with the claim to be of the form  n = pq with p = 2p1 + 1, q = 2q1 + 1, where p1 and q1 are (lg(n)/2 – 1)-bit primes.

N.B. a prime of the form p = 2p1 + 1 where p1 is also a prime goes under the name of Safe Prime and they are often used in cryptography for both RSA and DH.

WHAT: Now we can look at the NIST Special Publication 800-90 ISO 18031's moduli and simply believe that those modulis are of the claimed form but maybe is not a great idea (see the WHY section). Going to N(SA)IST and just asking for the factorization is not a great idea either. In the first instance because this will never happen, secondly even if there is not even a single hint that let believe so, having the factorization of the moduli might jeopardize the security of the DRBG. So WHAT?. Well it turns out there is a really beautiful paper from 1998 by Camenisch and Michels where is possible to Proving in Zero-Knowledge that a Number is the Product of Two Safe Primes.
 
WHY: So why we should not trust a priori the aforementioned claim? Well let's say that what happened in the Dual_EC_DRBG case where the presence of a backdoor is now a certainty make us at least raise an eyebrow.


WHEN: Well ideally this should had happened already when the specification (that includes the modulis) was redacted (let's remember that the Camenisch/Michels's paper predates the spec by many years) but Hey is never too late for a nice  Zero Knowledge Proof  :p

WHERE: I wonder where/how this could ever happen.... any idea ?

Having such a ZK proof would be a really win-win in an ideal World. I know this will never happen for this specific case but in my humble opinion this should be the way to go for future specifications!


That's all folks. For more crypto goodies, follow me on Twitter.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

OpenSSL Key Recovery Attack on DH small subgroups (CVE-2016-0701)

Usual Mandatory Disclaimer: IANAC (I am not a cryptographer) so I might likely end up writing a bunch of mistakes in this blog post... tl;dr The OpenSSL 1.0.2 releases suffer from a Key Recovery Attack on DH small subgroups . This issue got assigned CVE-2016-0701 with a severity of High and OpenSSL 1.0.2 users should upgrade to 1.0.2f. If an application is using DH configured with parameters based on primes that are not "safe" or not Lim-Lee (as the one in RFC 5114 ) and either Static DH ciphersuites are used or DHE ciphersuites with the default OpenSSL configuration (in particular SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE is not set) then is vulnerable to this attack.  It is believed that many popular applications (e.g. Apache mod_ssl) do set the  SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE option and would therefore not be at risk (for DHE ciphersuites), they still might be for Static DH ciphersuites. Introduction So if you are still here it means you wanna know more. And here is the thing. In my last bl

The Curious Case of WebCrypto Diffie-Hellman on Firefox - Small Subgroups Key Recovery Attack on DH

tl;dr Mozilla Firefox prior to version 72 suffers from Small Subgroups Key Recovery Attack on DH in the WebCrypto 's API. The Firefox's team fixed the issue r emoving completely support for DH over finite fields (that is not in the WebCrypto standard). If you find this interesting read further below. Premise In this blog post I assume you are already knowledgeable about Diffie-Hellman over finite fields and related attacks. If not I recommend to read any cryptography book that covers public key cryptography. Here is a really cool simple explanation by David Wong : I found a cooler way to explain Diffie-Hellman :D pic.twitter.com/DlPvGwZbto — David Wong (@cryptodavidw) January 4, 2020 If you want more details about Small Subgroups Key Recovery Attack on DH I covered some background in one of my previous post ( OpenSSL Key Recovery Attack on DH small subgroups (CVE-2016-0701) ). There is also an academic pape r where we examine the issue with some more rigors.

All your Paypal OAuth tokens belong to me - localhost for the win

tl;dr   I was able to hijack the OAuth tokens of EVERY Paypal OAuth application with a really simple trick. Introduction If you have been following this blog you might have got tired of how many times  I have stressed out the importance of the redirect_uri parameter in the OAuth flow. This simple parameter might be source of many headaches for any maintainer of OAuth installations being it a client or a server. Accepting the risk of repeating myself here is two simple suggestions that may help you stay away from troubles (you can always skip this part and going directly to the Paypal Vulnerability section): If you are building an OAuth client,   Thou shall register a redirect_uri as much as specific as you can i.e. if your OAuth client callback is https://yourouauthclient.com/oauth/oauthprovider/callback then DO register https://yourouauthclient.com/oauth/oauthprovider/callback   NOT JUST h ttps://yourouauthclient.com/ or https://yourouauthclient.com/oauth If