Re: Vulnerability in encrypted loop device for linux

From: Alfonso De Gregorio (agregorioat_private)
Date: Wed Jan 02 2002 - 20:58:40 PST

  • Next message: Digital Shadow: "Mail.com Cross Site Scripting Vulnerability"

    Hi Jerome, hi Everyone,
    
    > The following text describes a security hole in the encrypted loop 
    > device for Linux. Because of it, an attacker is able to modify the 
    > content of the encrypted device without being detected. This text 
    > proposes to fix the hole by authenticating the device.
    > 
    > comments are welcome
    
    Correct. The encrypted loop device for Linux is vulnerable to the 
    described attack.
    
    However, I'd rather prefer, in certain contexts, the use of a digital 
    signature scheme to HMAC, while authenticating especially at mount time
    and sometimes at cluster time, for the following reasons (in no
    particular order):
    
    0 digital signature schemes allows administrator(s) of each system to 
      trust or not to trust colleagues, while not sharing the same HMAC 
      secret key;
    0 digital signature can be "safely" computed by external well-known 
      crypto hardware (eg. smart cards, coprocessors, etc.);
    0 the same technology can be used to produce signature(s) for optical 
      storage, as required by some national directives (eg. such as the 
      Italian one that actually require two signatures and two hash computed
      with different hash algorithms);
    0 the administration pool can choose to not trust anymore the contents 
      of an encrypted device signed with a key-pair owned by an administrator
      that has been revoked from the pool (eg. an administrator can be 
      fired, etc.);
    0 time-stamp tokens [RFC 3161] allows the pool of administrators to 
      continue to trust the contents of an encrypted device signed before 
      the revocation of the signing key-pair;
    0 etc.
    
    The trade-off between the security and the efficiency offered by a digital 
    signature scheme is in my opinion acceptable especially while using the 
    device for non interactive purposes; I'm thinking to WORM used 
    for archiving data (in this context the authentication token can be 
    computed not only for each file but can come either at cluster time or 
    when the WORM disk get closed).
    
    Sincerely,
    alfonso
    
    [RFC 3161] Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Time-Stamp
    		Protocol (TSP) - C. Adams, P. Cain, D. Pinkas, 
    		R. Zuccherato - <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3161.txt>
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 02 2002 - 21:53:47 PST