public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New side channel attack that can recover Bitcoin keys
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 11:00:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAt2M19R_97aXs9rwo8UY5PE7DwHZDT12esPhz76M1EOdGrrdQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1+=JY0RGEMvm9iL09L-tZAWqsSOOwFaroYUKkWumx+xg@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4654 bytes --]

You've heard of TRESOR?

No, not Trezor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRESOR

Signing on the CPU, without touching RAM.

- Sent from my phone
Den 6 mar 2014 09:41 skrev "Mike Hearn" <mike@plan99.net>:

> I'm wondering about whether (don't laugh) moving signing into the kernel
> and then using the MTRRs to disable caching entirely for a small scratch
> region of memory would also work. You could then disable pre-emption and
> prevent anything on the same core from interrupting or timing the signing
> operation.
>
> However I suspect just making a hardened secp256k1 signer implementation
> in userspace would be of similar difficulty, in which case it  would
> naturally be preferable.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Everything you say is true.
>> >
>> > However, branchless does reduce the attack surface considerably - if
>> nothing else, it significantly ups the difficulty of an attack for a
>> relatively low cost in program complexity, and that might still make it
>> worth doing.
>>
>> Absolutely. I believe these things are worth doing.
>>
>> My comment on it being insufficient was only that "my signer is
>> branchless" doesn't make other defense measures (avoiding reuse,
>> multsig with multiple devices, not sharing hardware, etc.)
>> unimportant.
>>
>> > As for uniform memory access, if we avoided any kind of heap
>> allocation, wouldn't we avoid such issues?
>>
>> No. At a minimum to hide a memory timing side-channel you must perform
>> no data dependent loads (e.g. no operation where an offset into memory
>> is calculated). A strategy for this is to always load the same values,
>> but then mask out the ones you didn't intend to read... even that I'd
>> worry about on sufficiently advanced hardware, since I would very much
>> not be surprised if the processor was able to determine that the load
>> had no effect and eliminate it! :) )
>>
>> Maybe in practice if your data dependencies end up only picking around
>> in the same cache-line it doesn't actually matter... but it's hard to
>> be sure, and unclear when a future optimization in the rest of the
>> system might leave it exposed again.
>>
>> (In particular, you can't generally write timing sign-channel immune
>> code in C (or other high level language) because the compiler is
>> freely permitted to optimize things in a way that break the property.
>> ... It may be _unlikely_ for it to do this, but its permitted— and
>> will actually do so in some cases—, so you cannot be completely sure
>> unless you check and freeze the toolchain)
>>
>> > Anyhow, without having gone into the full details of this particular
>> attack, it seems the main attack point is differences in how squaring and
>> multiplication (in the case of field exponentiation) or doubling and point
>> addition (in the case of ECDSA) are performed. I believe using a branchless
>> implementation where each phase of the operation executes the exact same
>> code and accesses the exact same stack frames would not be vulnerable to
>> FLUSH+RELOAD.
>>
>> I wouldn't be surprised.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to
>> Perforce.
>> With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works.
>> Faster operations. Version large binaries.  Built-in WAN optimization and
>> the
>> freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce.
>>
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to
> Perforce.
> With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works.
> Faster operations. Version large binaries.  Built-in WAN optimization and
> the
> freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6070 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2014-03-06 10:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-05 12:49 [Bitcoin-development] New side channel attack that can recover Bitcoin keys Mike Hearn
2014-03-05 12:56 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-03-05 13:18   ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2014-03-05 14:04     ` Pieter Wuille
2014-03-05 16:21 ` Kevin
2014-03-05 19:39   ` Peter Todd
2014-03-05 19:51     ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-03-05 20:32       ` Peter Todd
2014-03-05 20:54         ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-03-12  9:44           ` Peter Todd
2014-03-05 22:17     ` James Hartig
2014-03-05 22:26       ` Eric Lombrozo
2014-03-06  7:02     ` Odinn Cyberguerrilla
2014-03-08 19:34   ` Luke-Jr
2014-03-09  1:57     ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-03-05 21:31 ` Eric Lombrozo
2014-03-05 21:44   ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-03-05 22:14     ` Eric Lombrozo
2014-03-05 22:25       ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-03-06  8:38         ` Mike Hearn
2014-03-06 10:00           ` Natanael [this message]
2014-03-25 13:39             ` Troy Benjegerdes
2014-03-25 13:50               ` Gavin Andresen
2014-03-08 19:29           ` Gustav Simonsson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAAt2M19R_97aXs9rwo8UY5PE7DwHZDT12esPhz76M1EOdGrrdQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=natanael.l@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=mike@plan99.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox