On Sun, 2019-04-14 at 09:33 +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmav@redhat.com writes:
This patch adds the SIV-CMAC algorithm to nettle (an update of the previous attempt). It is an atypical cipher which fits into the encrypt_message interface.
Thanks. Some comments below:
--- a/nettle-types.h +++ b/nettle-types.h @@ -78,6 +78,21 @@ typedef void *nettle_realloc_func(void *ctx, void *p, size_t length); /* Ciphers */ typedef void nettle_set_key_func(void *ctx, const uint8_t *key);
+/* AEAD ciphers */ +typedef void +nettle_encrypt_message(void *ctx,
size_t nlength, const uint8_t *nonce,size_t alength, const uint8_t *adata,size_t tlength,size_t clength, uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t*src);
+typedef int +nettle_decrypt_message(void *ctx,
size_t nlength, const uint8_t *nonce,size_t alength, const uint8_t *adata,size_t tlength,size_t mlength, uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t*src);
In this patch, these types used in tests only. But I imagine you'd like something in nettle-meta to represent a message-oriented aead?
I have never used the nettle-meta interface for ciphers, so I'm not sure about whether that's needed or not. CCM for example is not represented there. Would it make sense to separate the meta interface from the addition of the cipher, or should I avoid adding the type completely?
+@acronym{SIV-CMAC} mode is a combination of counter mode with message +authentication based on @acronym{CMAC}. Unlike other counter @acronym{AEAD} +modes, it provides protection against accidental nonce misuse, making it +a good choice for stateless-servers that cannot ensure nonce uniqueness.
Some detail on the nonce-reuse would be helpful. As I understood RFC 5297, the nonce used in SIV is only to make the ciphertexts of otherwise identical messages look different to the attacker.
My understanding of this RFC is that a primary goal as in 1.3.2, is to be resistant to nonce misuse (e.g., if you re-use the nonce). I can add more information but I am not sure I understand which direction of detail you mean. What are you missing or think is unclear in the text?
--- /dev/null +++ b/siv-aes128-cmac.c @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
[...]
+void +siv_aes128_cmac_encrypt_message(struct siv_aes128_cmac_ctx *ctx,
size_t nlength, const uint8_t *nonce,size_t alength, const uint8_t *adata,size_t tlength,size_t slength, uint8_t *dst, constuint8_t *src) +{
- assert(tlength == SIV_DIGEST_SIZE);
The tlength argument doesn't look that useful, do we need it?.
If we remove the tlength then it would not implement the nettle_encrypt_message_func(). My goal in keeping tlength was to have a consistent interface across the message oriented ciphers.
Also, I think we agreed that the message length argument should be the size of the *destination* area, i.e., ciphertext size for encrypt_message (see ccm_*_encrypt_message):
I can name it clength, but there is the implicit assumption that clength = slength right? Otherwise if a larger buffer is provided for destination, I do not see how it figure the source size.
--- /dev/null +++ b/siv-cmac.c @@ -0,0 +1,194 @@ +/* This is a common structure for AES-128 and AES-256 thus
- for the cipher part we simply pad to the maximum structure
- size plus 16 bytes to account for any alignment difference in
- the original structures */
+struct cmac128_syn {
- struct cmac128_ctx ctx;
- struct {
- uint8_t pad[NETTLE_MAX_CIPHER16_CONTEXT_SIZE+16];
- } cipher;
+};
I don't think this guarantees any alignment. You would either need soemthing like
struct cipher_storage { union { uint64_t u64; char c[NETTLE_MAX_CIPHER16_CONTEXT_SIZE]; } storage; }; ... CMAC128_CTX(cipher_storage) ctx;
The goal here was not to make c aligned, but to have enough pad so that when this structure is read as cmac_aes128_ctx, to account for any alignment in the latter. Maybe actually I should do just that, and add the real types as union.
or use TMP_ALLOC_ALIGN (but in the latter case, you can't use the CMAC128_* macros). Or let caller pass in the cipher context (see last comment in this mail)
+static +void _siv_s2v(const struct nettle_cipher *nc,
const uint8_t *s2vk, size_t alength, const uint8_t*adata,
size_t nlength, const uint8_t *nonce,size_t plength, const uint8_t *pdata,uint8_t *v)+{
- struct cmac128_syn ctx;
- union nettle_block16 D, S, T;
- const uint8_t const_one[16] = {
- 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
- 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x01
- };
- const uint8_t const_zero[16] = {
- 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
- 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00
- };
Use static const.
Done. Why do you prefer this?
- assert(nc->context_size <= NETTLE_MAX_CIPHER16_CONTEXT_SIZE);
- /* ensure we have enough size of context plus any padding size
*/
- CMAC128_SET_KEY(&ctx, nc->set_encrypt_key, nc->encrypt, s2vk);
- if (nlength == 0 && alength == 0) {
- CMAC128_UPDATE(&ctx, nc->encrypt, 16, const_one);
- CMAC128_DIGEST(&ctx, nc->encrypt, 16, v);
- return;
- }
Shouldn't the plaintext, plength, pdata, still be processed in this case?
In this function, you treat empty associated data or nonce as those elements missing in the input vector to S2V. E.g., if both adata and nonce are empty, the input vector is { plaintext }, one single element. But it could also be { "", "", plaintext }, with three elements, the first two being empty strings.
To me, this sounds like a likely source of interop problems. Since RFC 5297 is general and allows the application to decide on the number of elements and meaning of the input vector, it doesn't give much guidance on this, as far as I see. The crucial case is when an application specifies that SIV is used with associated data and/or a nonce, but allows an empty string for either of those.
Also encoding empty adata, nonce "foo" in the same way as adata "foo", empty nonce, seems like a subtlety contrary to the spirit of 1.3.3.
I am not sure if the message interface can be used for derivation, but I'll need some time to answer your questions above.
+void +siv_cmac_set_key(struct siv_cmac_ctx *ctx, void *cipher,
const struct nettle_cipher *nc,const uint8_t *key)+{
- unsigned skey_size = nc->key_size;
- assert(skey_size <= SIV_MAX_KEY_SIZE/2);
- memcpy(ctx->s2vk, key, skey_size);
I think this function should do the underlying key setup also for the cipher instance used for s2v, not just store the key for later. So then the function would be
void siv_cmac_set_key(void *cmac_cipher, void *ctr_cipher, const struct nettle_cipher *nc, const uint8_t *key)
with no struct siv_cmac_ctx.
Why do you think that? Are there any benefits in that way?
regards, Nikos