Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:26:01 -0700 From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> To: Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Speed and security of /dev/urandom Message-ID: <4E23BEEA-693A-4FA3-BE94-9BB82B49503A@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: <53C85F42.1000704@pyro.eu.org> References: <53C85F42.1000704@pyro.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 17, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org> = wrote: > Hi, >=20 > FreeBSD is as far as I know, quite unique in using Yarrow to provide a > nice, fast CSPRNG for /dev/urandom >=20 > But OpenSSL, LibreSSL, OpenSSH, and various reimplementations of > arc4random(), don't directly use it. They typically take only ~128 = bits > from /dev/urandom or through other means, to seed a stream cipher, = then > return the output of that. I understand why Linux, even OpenBSD must = do > that. Good-quality random bits from the kernel are scarce, so they > *must* be stretched somehow. >=20 > But isn't that essentially what Yarrow does already in FreeBSD? Yes, for many values of "essentially". This is a discussion that always = ends in a rathole. > Is there a good reason arc4random_buf() can't take bytes directly from > /dev/urandom or sysctl KERN_ARND? Therefore no longer needing to seed > first, periodically reseed, or use any stream cipher? The "good reason" is the same as above: doing so would cause so much = discussion and animosity that it is not worth doing. >=20 > There are a few reasons I mention it now: >=20 > * arc4random relies on the stream cipher being cryptographically = strong > between reseeds, or else you could guess previous/later output. = FreeBSD > still uses RC4 for arc4random, and that seems increasingly risky; > OpenBSD moved recently to ChaCha-20, but who knows if even that will > prove to be safe in the longer term? >=20 > * after seeding, some arc4random implementations completely forget to > reseed after the process forks - the same 'random' stream of bytes = could > occur twice, with security implications >=20 > * LibreSSL tried to detect forking, and to reseed automatically, but > Andrew Ayer showed a corner-case where that still didn't work as > expected (CVE-2014-2970) >=20 > * some arc4random implementations might not be thread-safe >=20 > * (re)seeding can fail sometimes (fd's exhausted reading /dev/urandom, > or that is missing in a chroot; even a sysctl might return an error > code); OpenSSL and LibreSSL each have 'scary' ways to try to gather > entropy in userland as a fallback, especially for Linux; FreeBSD and > OpenBSD may have better expectations that the sysctl will work, and > maybe raise SIGKILL otherwise >=20 > So I wonder, could a simplified arc4random for FreeBSD use Yarrow > directly, to avoid making any of these sorts of mistakes we've seen? Yes, it "could". Whether it "should" is another question on a different = layer. >=20 > (There's also the benefit that having many readers from a single > pseudorandom stream, adds an additional kind of randomness to its = output). How does having an additional *reader* add additional bits? > This is obviously a complex issue, and some of it will be subjective. > But I welcome your comments. Thanks! Subjective wins. --Paul Hoffman=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E23BEEA-693A-4FA3-BE94-9BB82B49503A>