[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
SSL search attacks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
From: Scott Brickner <[email protected]>
>We've identified several forms of "real-world retaliation:"
>1) "Result hoarding" - failure to report a found key
>2) "Segment hoarding" - requesting more segments than one can hope to search
>3) Denial of service - preventing access to the server
>The "random search" method eliminates all three of these at about 37%
>higher cost in search time, on the average. I submit that if we
>*really* were trying to break something important, we could design a
>system which eliminated the first two and adequately limited the third,
>but at *much* less cost.
>The problems in the current system were to be expected of a first
>attempt. In the future: Only the server assigns segments, only the
>assignee may report the status of a segment, and after all segments are
>NAKed we know condition 1 has occurred, at which time we start over,
>but never assign the same segment to the same searcher. Limit the
>number of segments which may be outstanding with one searcher at one
>time as a function of work rate. Deploy redundant servers.
BEAAAT STATE! Push 'em back.. WAAAAAAY BAAAACK.
(relevant comments follow)
From: [email protected] (Timothy C. May)
>An interesting question: Is it a valid approach for J. Random User to
>"claim" some chunk of keyspace to search?
>If the "reward" of finding the gold buried in the keyspace (a key that
>meets the challenge) is high and the cost of claiming the keyspace is low
>(or nil), then game theory tells us that some folks will be tempted to
>claim a bigger chunk of keyspace than they can possibly process.
>What can be done to reduce this effect?
In regard to both messages, I think that with sequentially allocated
keyspace an attacker who knows the real key would have trouble getting the
right segment unless s/he grabbed a big enough piece. If the search is
restarted, we know something's up. Ensuring that nobody gets to search
keyspace they searched before would be one improvement. A random (instead
of sequential) allocation _by the keyserver_ (out of unallocated
piecemeal segments) would also take some work to implement.
>On the negative side, ostracize or punish those who bite off more than they
>can chew. This approach is fraught with dangers.
If the search wraps around to catch the UNACK'ed pieces, this type of
oversight will only slow down the actual discovery of the key. Failure
to report a found key, though, is a bit different. I would not be opposed
to having my program report possible hits, with the server being what
discovers if I've found it or not.
>On the positive side, let everyone simply attack the keyspace as they see
>fit, picking random parts to attack. This should not be "worse" than a
>factor of several from a "perfectly coordinated" attack. (I haven't spent
>time calculating this, but my intuition is that a random attack, with
>overlapping keyspace, is not a lot less efficiently attacked than
>attempting to arrange for no overlaps...just based on my mental picture of
>dropping line segments randomly on some interval and figuring coverage of
>the line segment.)
Why not have a random backup-mode, in case someone does mount a denial of
service attack. Or imploy a combination of the two modes. The machines
running brloop can search sequentially (out of the middle 50%?) and the
machines not connected search randomly (out of the outside 50%?). Or,
venturing further into the I-wonder-who's-gonna-code-this world, log the
random searches for possible conversion to an exhaustive search later.
It would be nice to be able to hit the emergency button and switch to
random mode, but currently I don't think there's a need to actually
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
<[email protected]> fRee cRyPTo! jOin the hUnt or BE tHe PrEY
PGP key - http://bert.cs.byu.edu/~don or PubKey servers (0x994b8f39)
June 7&14, 1995: 1st amendment repealed. Death threats ALWAYS pgp signed
* This user insured by the Smith, Wesson, & Zimmermann insurance company *