My current grumpy view on key generation for hardware crypto keys

October 17, 2017

I tweeted:

My lesson learned from the Infineon HSM issue is to never trust a HSM to generate keys, just to store them. Generate keys on a real machine.

In my usual manner, this is perhaps overstated for Twitter. So let's elaborate on it a bit, starting with the background.

When I first heard about the Infineon TPM key generation issue (see also the technical blog article), I wasn't very concerned, since we don't have sophisticated crypto smartcards or electronic ID cards or the like. Then I found out that some Yubikeys are affected and got grumpy. When I set up SSH keys on my Yubikey 4, I had the Yubikey itself generate the RSA key involved. After all, why not? That way the key was never exposed on my Linux machine, even if the practical risks were very low. Unfortunately, this Infineon issue now shows the problem in that approach.

In theory, a hardware key like the Yubikey is a highly secure physical object that just works. In practice they are little chunks of inexpensive hardware that run some software, and there's nothing magical about that software; like all software, it's subject to bugs and oversights. This means that in practice, there is a tradeoff about where you generate your keys. If you generate them inside the HSM instead of on your machine, you don't have to worry about your machine being compromised or the quality of your software, but you do have to worry about the quality of the HSM's software (and related to that, the quality of the random numbers that the HSM can generate).

(Another way to put this is that a HSM is just a little computer that you can't get at, running its own collection of software on some hardware that's often pretty tiny and limited.)

As a practical matter, the software I'd use for key generation on my Linux machine is far more scrutinized (especially these days) and thus almost certainly much more trustworthy than the opaque proprietary software inside a HSM. The same is true for /dev/urandom on a physical Linux machine such as a desktop or a laptop. It's possible that a HSM could do a better job on both fronts, but it's extremely likely that my Linux machine is good enough on both. That leaves machine compromise, which is a very low probability issue for most people. And if you're a bit worried, there are also mitigation strategies for the cautious, starting with disconnecting from the network, turning off swap, generating keys into a tmpfs, and then rebooting your machine afterward.

Once upon a time (only a year ago), I thought that the balance of risks made it perfectly okay to generate RSA keys in the Yubikey HSM. It turns out that I was wrong in practice, and now I believe that I was wrong in general for me and most people. I now feel that the balance of risks strongly favour trusting the HSM more or less as little as possible, which means only trusting it to hold keys securely and perhaps limit their use to only when the HSM is unlocked or the key usage is approved.

(This is actually giving past me too much credit. Past me didn't even think about the risk that the Yubikey software could have bugs; past me just assumed that of course it didn't and therefor was axiomatically better than generating keys on the local machine and moving them into the HSM. After all, who would sell a HSM that didn't have very carefully audited and checked software? I really should have known better, because the answer is 'nearly everyone'.)

PS: If you have a compliance mandate that keys can never be created on a general-purpose machine in any situation where they might make it to the outside world, you have two solutions (at least). One of them involves hope and then perhaps strong failure, as here with Infineon, and one of them involves a bunch of work, some persuasion, and perhaps physically destroying some hardware afterward if you're really cautious.

Comments on this page:

By Guus Snijders at 2017-10-19 18:37:51:

Wow, I can hardly believe that I missed this announcement. For $work the impact should be limited, but still, it'll take some work to review all keys.

Time to also review my RSS feeds, I guess.

After all, who would sell a HSM that didn't have very carefully audited and checked software? I really should have known better, because the answer is 'nearly everyone'.)

Indeed. Hindsight is always the easiest, but I confess to have made the same assumption. On first sight; it's a device that's build for the purpose, on the other, it's a black box that will have it's own bugs.

As for generating keys on a 'trusted' system; in theory it should be easy to build a standalone system, in a more-or-less secure room. Managing the necessary updates is the hard part. Read-only media (CD/DVD) is possible, but probably too much work in practice...

Hmm, food for thought.

Written on 17 October 2017.
« Getting ssh-agent working in Fedora 26's Cinnamon desktop environment
I still like Python and often reach for it by default »

Page tools: View Source, View Normal, Add Comment.
Login: Password:
Atom Syndication: Recent Comments.

Last modified: Tue Oct 17 00:17:55 2017
This dinky wiki is brought to you by the Insane Hackers Guild, Python sub-branch.