[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGiyFdduUNSGq24zfsk0ZU=hnOCmewAw8vw6XvDoS-3f+3UPKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:49:21 +0000
From: Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
"Daniel J . Bernstein" <djb@...yp.to>, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: HalfSipHash Acceptable Usage
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 6:32 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> Hi JP,
>
> With the threads getting confusing, I've been urged to try and keep
> the topics and threads more closely constrained. Here's where we're
> at, and here's the current pressing security concern. It'd be helpful
> to have a definitive statement on what you think is best, so we can
> just build on top of that, instead of getting lost in the chorus of
> opinions.
>
> 1) Anything that requires actual long-term security will use
> SipHash2-4, with the 64-bit output and the 128-bit key. This includes
> things like TCP sequence numbers. This seems pretty uncontroversial to
> me. Seem okay to you?
>
Right, since 2012 when we published SipHash many cryptanalysts attempted to
break SipHash-2-4 with a 128-bit key, for various notions of "break", and
nothing worth worrying was ever found. I'm totally confident that
SipHash-2-4 will live up to its security promises.
Don't use something weaker for things like TCP sequence numbers or RNGs.
Use SipHash2-4 for those. That is the correct choice.
>
> 2) People seem to want something competitive, performance-wise, with
> jhash if it's going to replace jhash. The kernel community
> instinctively pushes back on anything that could harm performance,
> especially in networking and in critical data structures, so there
> have been some calls for something faster than SipHash. So, questions
> regarding this:
>
>
No free lunch I guess: either go with a cryptographically secure,
time-proved keyed hash such as SipHash, or go with some simpler hash deemed
secure cos its designer can't break it :) #DontRollYourOwnCrypto
2a) George thinks that HalfSipHash on 32-bit systems will have roughly
> comparable speed as SipHash on 64-bit systems, so the idea would be to
> use HalfSipHash on 32-bit systems' hash tables and SipHash on 64-bit
> systems' hash tables. The big obvious question is: does HalfSipHash
> have a sufficient security margin for hashtable usage and hashtable
> attacks? I'm not wondering about the security margin for other usages,
> but just of the hashtable usage. In your opinion, does HalfSipHash cut
> it?
>
HalfSipHash takes its core function from Chaskey and uses the same
construction as SipHash, so it *should* be secure. Nonetheless it hasn't
received the same amount of attention as 64-bit SipHash did. So I'm less
confident about its security than about SipHash's, but it obviously
inspires a lot more confidence than non-crypto hashes.
Too, HalfSipHash only has a 64-bit key, not a 128-bit key like SipHash, so
only use this as a mitigation for hash-flooding attacks, where the output
of the hash function is never directly shown to the caller. Do not use
HalfSipHash for TCP sequence numbers or RNGs.
>
> 2b) While I certainly wouldn't consider making the use case in
> question (1) employ a weaker function, for this question (2), there
> has been some discussion about using HalfSipHash1-3 (or SipHash1-3 on
> 64-bit) instead of 2-4. So, the same question is therefore posed:
> would using HalfSipHash1-3 give a sufficient security margin for
> hashtable usage and hashtable attacks?
>
My educated guess is that yes, it will, but that it may not withhold
cryptanalysis as a pseudorandom function (PRF). For example I wouldn't be
surprised if there were a "distinguishing attack" that detects non-random
patterns in HalfSipHash-1-3's output. But most of the non-crypto hashes
I've seen have obvious distinguishing attacks. So the upshot is that HSH
will get you better security that AnyWeakHash even with 1 & 3 rounds.
So, if you're willing to compromise on security, but still want something
not completely unreasonable, you might be able to get away with using
HalfSipHash1-3 as a replacement for jhash—in circumstances where the output
of the hash function is kept secret—in order to mitigate hash-flooding
attacks.
>
> My plan is essentially to implement things according to your security
> recommendation. The thread started with me pushing a heavy duty
> security solution -- SipHash2-4 -- for _everything_. I've received
> understandable push back on that notion for certain use cases. So now
> I'm trying to discover what the most acceptable compromise is. Your
> answers on (2a) and (2b) will direct that compromise.
>
> Thanks again,
> Jason
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
