signature: Clamp PSS salt len to MD len (openssl-3.1)#19862
Closed
neverpanic wants to merge 2 commits intoopenssl:openssl-3.1from
Closed
signature: Clamp PSS salt len to MD len (openssl-3.1)#19862neverpanic wants to merge 2 commits intoopenssl:openssl-3.1from
neverpanic wants to merge 2 commits intoopenssl:openssl-3.1from
Conversation
Rather than computing the PSS salt length again in core using ossl_rsa_ctx_to_pss_string, which calls rsa_ctx_to_pss and computes the salt length, obtain it from the provider using the OSSL_SIGNATURE_PARAM_ALGORITHM_ID param to handle the case where the interpretation of the magic constants in the provider differs from that of OpenSSL core. Add tests that verify that the rsa_pss_saltlen:max, rsa_pss_saltlen:<integer> and rsa_pss_saltlen:digest options work and put the computed digest length into the CMS_ContentInfo struct when using CMS. Do not add a test for the salt length generated by a provider when no specific rsa_pss_saltlen option is defined, since that number could change between providers and provider versions, and we want to preserve compatibility with older providers. Signed-off-by: Clemens Lang <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Belyavskiy <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <[email protected]> (Merged from openssl#19724) (cherry picked from commit 5a3bbe1)
FIPS 186-4 section 5 "The RSA Digital Signature Algorithm", subsection 5.5 "PKCS openssl#1" says: "For RSASSA-PSS […] the length (in bytes) of the salt (sLen) shall satisfy 0 <= sLen <= hLen, where hLen is the length of the hash function output block (in bytes)." Introduce a new option RSA_PSS_SALTLEN_AUTO_DIGEST_MAX and make it the default. The new value will behave like RSA_PSS_SALTLEN_AUTO, but will not use more than the digest length when signing, so that FIPS 186-4 is not violated. This value has two advantages when compared with RSA_PSS_SALTLEN_DIGEST: (1) It will continue to do auto-detection when verifying signatures for maximum compatibility, where RSA_PSS_SALTLEN_DIGEST would fail for other digest sizes. (2) It will work for combinations where the maximum salt length is smaller than the digest size, which typically happens with large digest sizes (e.g., SHA-512) and small RSA keys. J.-S. Coron shows in "Optimal Security Proofs for PSS and Other Signature Schemes. Advances in Cryptology – Eurocrypt 2002, volume 2332 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 272 – 287. Springer Verlag, 2002." that longer salts than the output size of modern hash functions do not increase security: "For example,for an application in which at most one billion signatures will be generated, k0 = 30 bits of random salt are actually sufficient to guarantee the same level of security as RSA, and taking a larger salt does not increase the security level." Signed-off-by: Clemens Lang <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Belyavskiy <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <[email protected]> (Merged from openssl#19724) (cherry picked from commit 6c73ca4)
Contributor
Author
|
Test failures seem unrelated:
|
t8m
approved these changes
Dec 8, 2022
Collaborator
|
24 hours has passed since 'approval: done' was set, but this PR has failing CI tests. Once the tests pass it will get moved to 'approval: ready to merge' automatically, alternatively please review and set the label manually. |
Contributor
Author
|
Is there something I should do to retrigger and/or fix those CI failures? |
Member
Nope, I'll just merge this. |
Member
|
Merged to 3.1 branch. Thank you for your contribution. |
openssl-machine
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 9, 2022
Rather than computing the PSS salt length again in core using ossl_rsa_ctx_to_pss_string, which calls rsa_ctx_to_pss and computes the salt length, obtain it from the provider using the OSSL_SIGNATURE_PARAM_ALGORITHM_ID param to handle the case where the interpretation of the magic constants in the provider differs from that of OpenSSL core. Add tests that verify that the rsa_pss_saltlen:max, rsa_pss_saltlen:<integer> and rsa_pss_saltlen:digest options work and put the computed digest length into the CMS_ContentInfo struct when using CMS. Do not add a test for the salt length generated by a provider when no specific rsa_pss_saltlen option is defined, since that number could change between providers and provider versions, and we want to preserve compatibility with older providers. Signed-off-by: Clemens Lang <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Belyavskiy <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 5a3bbe1) (Merged from #19862)
openssl-machine
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 9, 2022
FIPS 186-4 section 5 "The RSA Digital Signature Algorithm", subsection 5.5 "PKCS #1" says: "For RSASSA-PSS […] the length (in bytes) of the salt (sLen) shall satisfy 0 <= sLen <= hLen, where hLen is the length of the hash function output block (in bytes)." Introduce a new option RSA_PSS_SALTLEN_AUTO_DIGEST_MAX and make it the default. The new value will behave like RSA_PSS_SALTLEN_AUTO, but will not use more than the digest length when signing, so that FIPS 186-4 is not violated. This value has two advantages when compared with RSA_PSS_SALTLEN_DIGEST: (1) It will continue to do auto-detection when verifying signatures for maximum compatibility, where RSA_PSS_SALTLEN_DIGEST would fail for other digest sizes. (2) It will work for combinations where the maximum salt length is smaller than the digest size, which typically happens with large digest sizes (e.g., SHA-512) and small RSA keys. J.-S. Coron shows in "Optimal Security Proofs for PSS and Other Signature Schemes. Advances in Cryptology – Eurocrypt 2002, volume 2332 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 272 – 287. Springer Verlag, 2002." that longer salts than the output size of modern hash functions do not increase security: "For example,for an application in which at most one billion signatures will be generated, k0 = 30 bits of random salt are actually sufficient to guarantee the same level of security as RSA, and taking a larger salt does not increase the security level." Signed-off-by: Clemens Lang <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Belyavskiy <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 6c73ca4) (Merged from #19862)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Cherry-pick of #19724 to openssl-3.1.
Checklist