Category Archives: security

OpenPGP 2019 Key Transition Statement

Posted on by

I have created a new OpenPGP key and will be transitioning away from my old key. If you have signed my old key, I would appreciate signatures on my new key as well. I have created a transition statement that can be downloaded from https://josefsson.org/key-transition-2019-03-20.txt.

Below is the signed statement.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

OpenPGP Key Transition Statement for Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>

I have created a new OpenPGP key and will be transitioning away from
my old key.  The old key has not been compromised and will continue to
be valid for some time, but I prefer all future correspondence to be
encrypted to the new key, and will be making signatures with the new
key going forward.

I would like this new key to be re-integrated into the web of trust.
This message is signed by both keys to certify the transition.  My new
and old keys are signed by each other.  If you have signed my old key,
I would appreciate signatures on my new key as well, provided that
your signing policy permits that without re-authenticating me.

The old key, which I am transitioning away from, is:

pub   rsa3744 2014-06-22 [SC]
      9AA9 BDB1 1BB1 B99A 2128  5A33 0664 A769 5426 5E8C

The new key, to which I am transitioning, is:

pub   ed25519 2019-03-20 [SC]
      B1D2 BD13 75BE CB78 4CF4  F8C4 D73C F638 C53C 06BE

The key may be downloaded from: https://josefsson.org/key-20190320.txt

To fetch the full new key from a public key server using GnuPG, run:

  gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net \
      --recv-key B1D2BD1375BECB784CF4F8C4D73CF638C53C06BE

If you already know my old key, you can now verify that the new key is
signed by the old one:

  gpg --check-sigs B1D2BD1375BECB784CF4F8C4D73CF638C53C06BE

If you are satisfied that you've got the right key, and the User IDs
match what you expect, I would appreciate it if you would sign my key:

  gpg --sign-key B1D2BD1375BECB784CF4F8C4D73CF638C53C06BE

You can upload your signatures to a public keyserver directly:

  gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net \
      --send-key B1D2BD1375BECB784CF4F8C4D73CF638C53C06BE

Or email simon@josefsson.org (possibly encrypted) the output from:

  gpg --armor --export B1D2BD1375BECB784CF4F8C4D73CF638C53C06BE

If you'd like any further verification or have any questions about the
transition please contact me directly.

To verify the integrity of this statement:

  wget -q -O- https://josefsson.org/key-transition-2019-03-20.txt | gpg --verify

/Simon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=r0qK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Planning for a new OpenPGP key

Posted on by

I’m the process of migrating to a new OpenPGP key. I have been using GnuPG with keys stored on external hardware (smartcards) for a long time, and I’m firmly committed to that choice. Algorithm wise, RSA was the best choice back for me when I created my key in 2002, and I used it successfully with a non-standard key size for many years. In 2014 it was time for me to move to a new stronger key, and I still settled on RSA and a non-standard key size. My master key was 3744 bits instead of 1280 bits, and the smartcard subkeys were 2048 bits instead of 1024 bits. At that time, I had already moved from the OpenPGP smartcard to the NXP-based YubiKey NEO (version 3) that runs JavaCard applets. The primary relevant difference for me was the availability of source code for the OpenPGP implementation running on the device, in the ykneo-openpgp project. The device was still a proprietary hardware and firmware design though.

Five years later, it is time for a new key again, and I allow myself to revisit some decisions that I made last time.

GnuPG has supported Curve25519/Ed25519 for some time, and today I prefer it over RSA. Infrastructure has been gradually introducing support for it as well, to the point that I now believe I can cut the ropes to the old world with RSA. Having a offline master key is still a strong preference, so I will stick to that decision. You shouldn’t run around with your primary master key if it is possible to get by with subkeys for daily use, and that has worked well for me over the years.

Hardware smartcard support for Curve25519/Ed25519 has been behind software support. NIIBE Yutaka developed the FST-01 hardware device in 2011, and the more modern FST-01G device in 2016. He also wrote the Gnuk software implementation of the OpenPGP card specification that runs on the FST-01 hardware (and other devices). The FST-01 hardware design is open, and it only runs the Gnuk free software. You can buy the FST-01G device from the FSF. The device has not received the FSF Respects Your Freedom stamp, even though it is sold by FSF which seems a bit hypocritical. Hardware running Gnuk are the only free software OpenPGP smartcard that supports Curve25519/Ed25519 right now, to my knowledge. The physical form factor is not as slick as the YubiKey (especially the nano-versions of the YubiKey that can be emerged into the USB slot), but it is a trade-off I can live with. Niibe introduced the FST-01SZ at FOSDEM’19 but to me it does not appear to offer any feature over the FST-01G and is not available for online purchase right now.

I have always generated keys in software using GnuPG. My arguments traditionally was that I 1) don’t trust closed-source RSA key generation implementations, and 2) want to be able to reproduce my setup with a brand new device. With Gnuk the first argument doesn’t hold any longer. However, I still prefer to generate keys with GnuPG on a Linux-based Debian machine because that software stack is likely to receive more auditing than Gnuk. It is a delicated decision though, since GnuPG on Debian is many orders of complexity higher than the Gnuk software. My second argument is now the primary driver for this decision.

I prefer the SHA-2 family of hashes over SHA-1, and earlier had to configure GnuPG for this. Today I believe the defaults have been improved and this is no longer an issue.

Back in 2014, I had a goal of having a JPEG image embedded in my OpenPGP key. I never finished that process, and I have not been sorry for missing out on anything as a result. On the contrary, the size of the key with an embedded image woud have been even more problematic than the already large key holding 4 embedded RSA public keys in it.

To summarize, my requirements for my OpenPGP key setup in 2019 are:

  • Curve25519/Ed25519 algorithms.
  • Master key on USB stick.
  • USB stick only used on an offline computer.
  • Subkeys for daily use (signature, encryption and authentication).
  • Keys are generated in GnuPG software and imported to the smartcard.
  • Smartcard is open hardware and running free software.

Getting this setup up and running sadly requires quite some detailed work, which will be the topic of other posts… stay tuned!

OpenPGP smartcard under GNOME on Debian 9.0 Stretch

Posted on by

I installed Debian 9.0 “Stretch” on my Lenovo X201 laptop today. Installation went smooth, as usual. GnuPG/SSH with an OpenPGP smartcard — I use a YubiKey NEO — does not work out of the box with GNOME though. I wrote about how to fix OpenPGP smartcards under GNOME with Debian 8.0 “Jessie” earlier, and I thought I’d do a similar blog post for Debian 9.0 “Stretch”. The situation is slightly different than before (e.g., GnuPG works better but SSH doesn’t) so there is some progress. May I hope that Debian 10.0 “Buster” gets this right? Pointers to which package in Debian should have a bug report tracking this issue is welcome (or a pointer to an existing bug report).

After first login, I attempt to use gpg --card-status to check if GnuPG can talk to the smartcard.

jas@latte:~$ gpg --card-status
gpg: error getting version from 'scdaemon': No SmartCard daemon
gpg: OpenPGP card not available: No SmartCard daemon
jas@latte:~$

This fails because scdaemon is not installed. Isn’t a smartcard common enough so that this should be installed by default on a GNOME Desktop Debian installation? Anyway, install it as follows.

root@latte:~# apt-get install scdaemon

Then try again.

jas@latte:~$ gpg --card-status
gpg: selecting openpgp failed: No such device
gpg: OpenPGP card not available: No such device
jas@latte:~$

I believe scdaemon here attempts to use its internal CCID implementation, and I do not know why it does not work. At this point I often recall that want pcscd installed since I work with smartcards in general.

root@latte:~# apt-get install pcscd

Now gpg --card-status works!

jas@latte:~$ gpg --card-status

Reader ...........: Yubico Yubikey NEO CCID 00 00
Application ID ...: D2760001240102000006017403230000
Version ..........: 2.0
Manufacturer .....: Yubico
Serial number ....: 01740323
Name of cardholder: Simon Josefsson
Language prefs ...: sv
Sex ..............: male
URL of public key : https://josefsson.org/54265e8c.txt
Login data .......: jas
Signature PIN ....: not forced
Key attributes ...: rsa2048 rsa2048 rsa2048
Max. PIN lengths .: 127 127 127
PIN retry counter : 3 3 3
Signature counter : 8358
Signature key ....: 9941 5CE1 905D 0E55 A9F8  8026 860B 7FBB 32F8 119D
      created ....: 2014-06-22 19:19:04
Encryption key....: DC9F 9B7D 8831 692A A852  D95B 9535 162A 78EC D86B
      created ....: 2014-06-22 19:19:20
Authentication key: 2E08 856F 4B22 2148 A40A  3E45 AF66 08D7 36BA 8F9B
      created ....: 2014-06-22 19:19:41
General key info..: sub  rsa2048/860B7FBB32F8119D 2014-06-22 Simon Josefsson 
sec#  rsa3744/0664A76954265E8C  created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04
ssb>  rsa2048/860B7FBB32F8119D  created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04
                                card-no: 0006 01740323
ssb>  rsa2048/9535162A78ECD86B  created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04
                                card-no: 0006 01740323
ssb>  rsa2048/AF6608D736BA8F9B  created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04
                                card-no: 0006 01740323
jas@latte:~$

Using the key will not work though.

jas@latte:~$ echo foo|gpg -a --sign
gpg: no default secret key: No secret key
gpg: signing failed: No secret key
jas@latte:~$

This is because the public key and the secret key stub are not available.

jas@latte:~$ gpg --list-keys
jas@latte:~$ gpg --list-secret-keys
jas@latte:~$

You need to import the key for this to work. I have some vague memory that gpg --card-status was supposed to do this, but I may be wrong.

jas@latte:~$ gpg --recv-keys 9AA9BDB11BB1B99A21285A330664A76954265E8C
gpg: failed to start the dirmngr '/usr/bin/dirmngr': No such file or directory
gpg: connecting dirmngr at '/run/user/1000/gnupg/S.dirmngr' failed: No such file or directory
gpg: keyserver receive failed: No dirmngr
jas@latte:~$

Surprisingly, dirmngr is also not shipped by default so it has to be installed manually.

root@latte:~# apt-get install dirmngr

Below I proceed to trust the clouds to find my key.

jas@latte:~$ gpg --recv-keys 9AA9BDB11BB1B99A21285A330664A76954265E8C
gpg: key 0664A76954265E8C: public key "Simon Josefsson " imported
gpg: no ultimately trusted keys found
gpg: Total number processed: 1
gpg:               imported: 1
jas@latte:~$

Now the public key and the secret key stub are available locally.

jas@latte:~$ gpg --list-keys
/home/jas/.gnupg/pubring.kbx
----------------------------
pub   rsa3744 2014-06-22 [SC] [expires: 2017-09-04]
      9AA9BDB11BB1B99A21285A330664A76954265E8C
uid           [ unknown] Simon Josefsson 
uid           [ unknown] Simon Josefsson 
sub   rsa2048 2014-06-22 [S] [expires: 2017-09-04]
sub   rsa2048 2014-06-22 [E] [expires: 2017-09-04]
sub   rsa2048 2014-06-22 [A] [expires: 2017-09-04]

jas@latte:~$ gpg --list-secret-keys
/home/jas/.gnupg/pubring.kbx
----------------------------
sec#  rsa3744 2014-06-22 [SC] [expires: 2017-09-04]
      9AA9BDB11BB1B99A21285A330664A76954265E8C
uid           [ unknown] Simon Josefsson 
uid           [ unknown] Simon Josefsson 
ssb>  rsa2048 2014-06-22 [S] [expires: 2017-09-04]
ssb>  rsa2048 2014-06-22 [E] [expires: 2017-09-04]
ssb>  rsa2048 2014-06-22 [A] [expires: 2017-09-04]

jas@latte:~$

I am now able to sign data with the smartcard, yay!

jas@latte:~$ echo foo|gpg -a --sign
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----

owGbwMvMwMHYxl2/2+iH4FzG01xJDJFu3+XT8vO5OhmNWRgYORhkxRRZZjrGPJwQ
yxe68keDGkwxKxNIJQMXpwBMRJGd/a98NMPJQt6jaoyO9yUVlmS7s7qm+Kjwr53G
uq9wQ+z+/kOdk9w4Q39+SMvc+mEV72kuH9WaW9bVqj80jN77hUbfTn5mffu2/aVL
h/IneTfaOQaukHij/P8A0//Phg/maWbONUjjySrl+a3tP8ll6/oeCd8g/aeTlH79
i0naanjW4bjv9wnvGuN+LPHLmhUc2zvZdyK3xttN/roHvsdX3f53yTAxeInvXZmd
x7W0/hVPX33Y4nT877T/ak4L057IBSavaPVcf4yhglVI8XuGgaTP666Wuslbliy4
5W5eLasbd33Xd/W0hTINznuz0kJ4r1bLHZW9fvjLduMPq5rS2co9tvW8nX9rhZ/D
zycu/QA=
=I8rt
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
jas@latte:~$

Encrypting to myself will not work smoothly though. 

jas@latte:~$ echo foo|gpg -a --encrypt -r simon@josefsson.org
gpg: 9535162A78ECD86B: There is no assurance this key belongs to the named user
sub  rsa2048/9535162A78ECD86B 2014-06-22 Simon Josefsson 
 Primary key fingerprint: 9AA9 BDB1 1BB1 B99A 2128  5A33 0664 A769 5426 5E8C
      Subkey fingerprint: DC9F 9B7D 8831 692A A852  D95B 9535 162A 78EC D86B

It is NOT certain that the key belongs to the person named
in the user ID.  If you *really* know what you are doing,
you may answer the next question with yes.

Use this key anyway? (y/N) 
gpg: signal Interrupt caught ... exiting

jas@latte:~$

The reason is that the newly imported key has unknown trust settings. I update the trust settings on my key to fix this, and encrypting now works without a prompt.

jas@latte:~$ gpg --edit-key 9AA9BDB11BB1B99A21285A330664A76954265E8C
gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.18; Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.

Secret key is available.

pub  rsa3744/0664A76954265E8C
     created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04  usage: SC  
     trust: unknown       validity: unknown
ssb  rsa2048/860B7FBB32F8119D
     created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04  usage: S   
     card-no: 0006 01740323
ssb  rsa2048/9535162A78ECD86B
     created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04  usage: E   
     card-no: 0006 01740323
ssb  rsa2048/AF6608D736BA8F9B
     created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04  usage: A   
     card-no: 0006 01740323
[ unknown] (1). Simon Josefsson 
[ unknown] (2)  Simon Josefsson 

gpg> trust
pub  rsa3744/0664A76954265E8C
     created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04  usage: SC  
     trust: unknown       validity: unknown
ssb  rsa2048/860B7FBB32F8119D
     created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04  usage: S   
     card-no: 0006 01740323
ssb  rsa2048/9535162A78ECD86B
     created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04  usage: E   
     card-no: 0006 01740323
ssb  rsa2048/AF6608D736BA8F9B
     created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04  usage: A   
     card-no: 0006 01740323
[ unknown] (1). Simon Josefsson 
[ unknown] (2)  Simon Josefsson 

Please decide how far you trust this user to correctly verify other users' keys
(by looking at passports, checking fingerprints from different sources, etc.)

  1 = I don't know or won't say
  2 = I do NOT trust
  3 = I trust marginally
  4 = I trust fully
  5 = I trust ultimately
  m = back to the main menu

Your decision? 5
Do you really want to set this key to ultimate trust? (y/N) y

pub  rsa3744/0664A76954265E8C
     created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04  usage: SC  
     trust: ultimate      validity: unknown
ssb  rsa2048/860B7FBB32F8119D
     created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04  usage: S   
     card-no: 0006 01740323
ssb  rsa2048/9535162A78ECD86B
     created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04  usage: E   
     card-no: 0006 01740323
ssb  rsa2048/AF6608D736BA8F9B
     created: 2014-06-22  expires: 2017-09-04  usage: A   
     card-no: 0006 01740323
[ unknown] (1). Simon Josefsson 
[ unknown] (2)  Simon Josefsson 
Please note that the shown key validity is not necessarily correct
unless you restart the program.

gpg> quit
jas@latte:~$ echo foo|gpg -a --encrypt -r simon@josefsson.org
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----

hQEMA5U1Fip47NhrAQgArTvAykj/YRhWVuXb6nzeEigtlvKFSmGHmbNkJgF5+r1/
/hWENR72wsb1L0ROaLIjM3iIwNmyBURMiG+xV8ZE03VNbJdORW+S0fO6Ck4FaIj8
iL2/CXyp1obq1xCeYjdPf2nrz/P2Evu69s1K2/0i9y2KOK+0+u9fEGdAge8Gup6y
PWFDFkNj2YiVa383BqJ+kV51tfquw+T4y5MfVWBoHlhm46GgwjIxXiI+uBa655IM
EgwrONcZTbAWSV4/ShhR9ug9AzGIJgpu9x8k2i+yKcBsgAh/+d8v7joUaPRZlGIr
kim217hpA3/VLIFxTTkkm/BO1KWBlblxvVaL3RZDDNI5AVp0SASswqBqT3W5ew+K
nKdQ6UTMhEFe8xddsLjkI9+AzHfiuDCDxnxNgI1haI6obp9eeouGXUKG
=s6kt
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
jas@latte:~$

So everything is fine, isn’t it? Alas, not quite.

jas@latte:~$ ssh-add -L
The agent has no identities.
jas@latte:~$

Tracking this down, I now realize that GNOME’s keyring is used for SSH but GnuPG’s gpg-agent is used for GnuPG. GnuPG uses the environment variable GPG_AGENT_INFO to connect to an agent, and SSH uses the SSH_AUTH_SOCK environment variable to find its agent. The filenames used below leak the knowledge that gpg-agent is used for GnuPG but GNOME keyring is used for SSH.

jas@latte:~$ echo $GPG_AGENT_INFO 
/run/user/1000/gnupg/S.gpg-agent:0:1
jas@latte:~$ echo $SSH_AUTH_SOCK 
/run/user/1000/keyring/ssh
jas@latte:~$

Here the same recipe as in my previous blog post works. This time GNOME keyring only has to be disabled for SSH. Disabling GNOME keyring is not sufficient, you also need gpg-agent to start with enable-ssh-support. The simplest way to achieve that is to add a line in ~/.gnupg/gpg-agent.conf as follows. When you login, the script /etc/X11/Xsession.d/90gpg-agent will set the environment variables GPG_AGENT_INFO and SSH_AUTH_SOCK. The latter variable is only set if enable-ssh-support is mentioned in the gpg-agent configuration.

jas@latte:~$ mkdir ~/.config/autostart
jas@latte:~$ cp /etc/xdg/autostart/gnome-keyring-ssh.desktop ~/.config/autostart/
jas@latte:~$ echo 'Hidden=true' >> ~/.config/autostart/gnome-keyring-ssh.desktop 
jas@latte:~$ echo enable-ssh-support >> ~/.gnupg/gpg-agent.conf 
jas@latte:~$

Log out from GNOME and log in again. Now you should see ssh-add -L working.

jas@latte:~$ ssh-add -L
ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAADAQABAAABAQDFP+UOTZJ+OXydpmbKmdGOVoJJz8se7lMs139T+TNLryk3EEWF+GqbB4VgzxzrGjwAMSjeQkAMb7Sbn+VpbJf1JDPFBHoYJQmg6CX4kFRaGZT6DHbYjgia59WkdkEYTtB7KPkbFWleo/RZT2u3f8eTedrP7dhSX0azN0lDuu/wBrwedzSV+AiPr10rQaCTp1V8sKbhz5ryOXHQW0Gcps6JraRzMW+ooKFX3lPq0pZa7qL9F6sE4sDFvtOdbRJoZS1b88aZrENGx8KSrcMzARq9UBn1plsEG4/3BRv/BgHHaF+d97by52R0VVyIXpLlkdp1Uk4D9cQptgaH4UAyI1vr cardno:000601740323
jas@latte:~$

Topics for further discussion or research include 1) whether scdaemon, dirmngr and/or pcscd should be pre-installed on Debian desktop systems; 2) whether gpg --card-status should attempt to import the public key and secret key stub automatically; 3) why GNOME keyring is used by default for SSH rather than gpg-agent; 4) whether GNOME keyring should support smartcards, or if it is better to always use gpg-agent for GnuPG/SSH, 5) if something could/should be done to automatically infer the trust setting for a secret key.

Enjoy!

Why I don’t Use 2048 or 4096 RSA Key Sizes

Posted on by

I have used non-standard RSA key size for maybe 15 years. For example, my old OpenPGP key created in 2002. With non-standard key sizes, I mean a RSA key size that is not 2048 or 4096. I do this when I generate OpenPGP/SSH keys (using GnuPG with a smartcard like this) and PKIX certificates (using GnuTLS or OpenSSL, e.g. for XMPP or for HTTPS). People sometimes ask me why. I haven’t seen anyone talk about this, or provide a writeup, that is consistent with my views. So I wanted to write about my motivation, so that it is easy for me to refer to, and hopefully to inspire others to think similarily. Or to provoke discussion and disagreement — that’s fine, and hopefully I will learn something.

Before proceeding, here is some context: When building new things, it is usually better to use the Elliptic Curve technology algorithm Ed25519 instead of RSA. There is also ECDSA — which has had a comparatively slow uptake, for a number of reasons — that is widely available and is a reasonable choice when Ed25519 is not available. There are also post-quantum algorithms, but they are newer and adopting them today requires a careful cost-benefit analysis.

First some background. RSA is an asymmetric public-key scheme, and relies on generating private keys which are the product of distinct prime numbers (typically two). The size of the resulting product, called the modulus n, is usually expressed in bit length and forms the key size. Historically RSA key sizes used to be a couple of hundred bits, then 512 bits settled as a commonly used size. With better understanding of RSA security levels, the common key size evolved into 768, 1024, and later 2048. Today’s recommendations (see keylength.com) suggest that 2048 is on the weak side for long-term keys (5+ years), so there has been a trend to jump to 4096. The performance of RSA private-key operations starts to suffer at 4096, and the bandwidth requirements is causing issues in some protocols. Today 2048 and 4096 are the most common choices.

My preference for non-2048/4096 RSA key sizes is based on the simple and naïve observation that if I would build a RSA key cracker, there is some likelihood that I would need to optimize the implementation for a particular key size in order to get good performance. Since 2048 and 4096 are dominant today, and 1024 were dominent some years ago, it may be feasible to build optimized versions for these three key sizes.

My observation is a conservative decision based on speculation, and speculation on several levels. First I assume that there is an attack on RSA that we don’t know about. Then I assume that this attack is not as efficient for some key sizes than others, either on a theoretical level, at implementation level (optimized libraries for certain characteristics), or at an economic/human level (decision to focus on common key sizes). Then I assume that by avoiding the efficient key sizes I can increase the difficulty to a sufficient level.

Before analyzing whether those assumptions even remotely may make sense, it is useful to understand what is lost by selecting uncommon key sizes. This is to understand the cost of the trade-off.

A significant burden would be if implementations didn’t allow selecting unusual key sizes. In my experience, enough common applications support uncommon key sizes, for example GnuPG, OpenSSL, OpenSSH, FireFox, and Chrome. Some applications limit the permitted choices; this appears to be rare, but I have encountered it once. Some environments also restrict permitted choices, for example I have experienced that LetsEncrypt has introduced a requirement for RSA key sizes to be a multiples of 8. I noticed this since I chose a RSA key size of 3925 for my blog and received a certificate from LetsEncrypt in December 2015 however during renewal in 2016 it lead to an error message about the RSA key size. Some commercial CAs that I have used before restrict the RSA key size to one of 1024, 2048 or 4096 only. Some smart-cards also restrict the key sizes, sadly the YubiKey has this limitation. So it is not always possible, but possible often enough for me to be worthwhile.

Another cost is that RSA signature operations are slowed down. This is because the exponentiation function is faster than multiplication, and if the bit pattern of the RSA key is a 1 followed by several 0’s, it is quicker to compute. I have not done benchmarks, but I have not experienced that this is a practical problem for me. I don’t notice RSA operations in the flurry of all of other operations (network, IO) that is usually involved in my daily life. Deploying this on a large scale may have effects, of course, so benchmarks would be interesting.

Back to the speculation that leads me to this choice. The first assumption is that there is an attack on RSA that we don’t know about. In my mind, until there are proofs that the currently known attacks (GNFS-based attacks) are the best that can be found, or at least some heuristic argument that we can’t do better than the current attacks, the probability for an unknown RSA attack is therefor, as strange as it may sound, 100%.

The second assumption is that the unknown attack(s) are not as efficient for some key sizes than others. That statement can also be expressed like this: the cost to mount the attack is higher for some key sizes compared to others.

At the implementation level, it seems reasonable to assume that implementing a RSA cracker for arbitrary key sizes could be more difficult and costlier than focusing on particular key sizes. Focusing on some key sizes allows optimization and less complex code.

At the mathematical level, the assumption that the attack would be costlier for certain types of RSA key sizes appears dubious. It depends on the kind of algorithm the unknown attack is. For something similar to GNFS attacks, I believe the same algorithm applies equally for a RSA key size of 2048, 2730 and 4096 and that the running time depends mostly on the key size. Other algorithms that could crack RSA, such as some approximation algorithms, does not seem likely to be thwarted by using non-standard RSA key sizes either. I am not a mathematician though.

At the economical or human level, it seems reasonable to say that if you can crack 95% of all keys out there (sizes 1024, 2048, 4096) then that is good enough and cracking the last 5% is just diminishing returns of the investment. Here I am making up the 95% number. Currently, I would guess that more than 95% of all RSA key sizes on the Internet are 1024, 2048 or 4096 though. So this aspect holds as long as people behave as they have done.

The final assumption is that by using non-standard key sizes I raise the bar sufficiently high to make an attack impossible. To be honest, this scenario appears unlikely. However it might increase the cost somewhat, by a factor or two or five. Which might make someone target a lower hanging fruit instead.

Putting my argument together, I have 1) identified some downsides of using non-standard RSA Key sizes and discussed their costs and implications, and 2) mentioned some speculative upsides of using non-standard key sizes. I am not aware of any argument that the odds of my speculation is 0% likely to be true. It appears there is some remote chance, higher than 0%, that my speculation is true. Therefor, my personal conservative approach is to hedge against this unlikely, but still possible, attack scenario by paying the moderate cost to use non-standard RSA key sizes. Of course, the QA engineer in me also likes to break things by not doing what everyone else does, so I end this with an ObXKCD.

Let’s Encrypt Clients

Posted on by

As many others, I have been following the launch of Let’s Encrypt. Let’s Encrypt is a new zero-cost X.509 Certificate Authority that supports the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) protocol. ACME allow you to automate creation and retrieval of HTTPS server certificates. As anyone who has maintained a number of HTTPS servers can attest, this process has unfortunately been manual, error-prone and differ between CAs.

On some of my personal domains, such as this blog.josefsson.org, I have been using the CACert authority to sign the HTTPS server certificate. The problem with CACert is that the CACert trust anchors aren’t shipped with sufficient many operating systems and web browsers. The user experience is similar to reaching a self-signed server certificate. For organization-internal servers that you don’t want to trust external parties for, I continue to believe that running your own CA and distributing it to your users is better than using a public CA (compare my XMPP server certificate setup). But for public servers, availability without prior configuration is more important. Therefor I decided that my public HTTPS servers should use a CA/Browser Forum-approved CA with support for ACME, and as long as Let’s Encrypt is trustworthy and zero-cost, they are a good choice.

I was in need of a free software ACME client, and set out to research what’s out there. Unfortunately, I did not find any web pages that listed the available options and compared them. The Let’s Encrypt CA points to the “official” Let’s Encrypt client, written by Jakub Warmuz, James Kasten, Peter Eckersley and several others. The manual contain pointers to two other clients in a seamingly unrelated section. Those clients are letsencrypt-nosudo by Daniel Roesler et al, and simp_le by (again!) Jakub Warmuz. From the letsencrypt.org’s client-dev mailing list I also found letsencrypt.sh by Gerhard Heift and LetsEncryptShell by Jan Mojžíš. Is anyone aware of other ACME clients?

By comparing these clients, I learned what I did not like in them. I wanted something small so that I can audit it. I want something that doesn’t require root access. Preferably, it should be able to run on my laptop, since I wasn’t ready to run something on the servers. Generally, it has to be Secure, which implies something about how it approaches private key handling. The letsencrypt official client can do everything, and has plugin for various server software to automate the ACME negotiation. All the cryptographic operations appear to be hidden inside the client, which usually means it is not flexible. I really did not like how it was designed, it looks like your typical monolithic proof-of-concept design. The simp_le client looked much cleaner, and gave me a good feeling. The letsencrypt.sh client is simple and written in /bin/sh shell script, but it appeared a bit too simplistic. The LetsEncryptShell looked decent, but I wanted something more automated.

What all of these clients did not have, and that letsencrypt-nosudo client had, was the ability to let me do the private-key operations. All the operations are done interactively on the command-line using OpenSSL. This would allow me to put the ACME user private key, and the HTTPS private key, on a YubiKey, using its PIV applet and techniques similar to what I used to create my SSH host CA. While the HTTPS private key has to be available on the HTTPS server (used to setup TLS connections), I wouldn’t want the ACME user private key to be available there. Similarily, I wouldn’t want to have the ACME or the HTTPS private key on my laptop. The letsencrypt-nosudo tool is otherwise more rough around the edges than the more cleaner simp_le client. However the private key handling aspect was the deciding matter for me.

After fixing some hard-coded limitations on RSA key sizes, getting the cert was as simple as following the letsencrypt-nosudo instructions. I’ll follow up with a later post describing how to put the ACME user private key and the HTTPS server certificate private key on a YubiKey and how to use that with letsencrypt-nosudo.

So you can now enjoy browsing my blog over HTTPS! Thank you Let’s Encrypt!