[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Commercial PGP; trapdoor rumors
In message <[email protected]> Mike Ingle said:
>If there is any flaw in PGP, there are only a few places where it
>could be. The basic mechanics of the program (RSA, IDEA, etc) obviously
I'll agree with you there, or at the least, if they don't work I'm not
likely to be able to prove it. I also very much doubt that there's
really a 'trapdoor' to deliberately make decryption easy, but there's
plenty of scope for a bug or unwarranted assumption to do so by
accident. (Look at WordPerfect 5.1 encryption, for a good example).
>The file format can easily be checked to make sure it is correct.
>A subtle flaw would have to be somewhere like: prime number generation,
>random RSA key generation, or random session key generation. If the primes
>weren't actually prime, that would make the RSA keys breakable. But
>you could take the primes (pgp -kg -l and you will see them in hex)
>and feed them into a primality tester to verify that.
With regard to the file format, I've just been looking at that, I hacked
a test copy of PGP 2.3a to dump out the plaintext that it would normally
idea-encrypt to a file, and encrypted a selection of files with a
selection of keys to look for known plaintext, then went back into
the source code to track down where it came from.
The first twelve bytes of the data that gets idea-encrypted contain
two bytes of known plaintext, and two repeated bytes. The actual
bytes 1-8: Randomly generated prefix
bytes 9-10: Repeat of bytes 7 and 8 (key check bytes)
bytes 11-12: ALWAYS 0xA3 and 0x01 !!!!
The repeated bytes come from idea_file() in crypto.c, and are used to
verify that you got the correct key to decrypt the file. The known
bytes come from squish_and_idea_file() in the same file, and verify that
the input contains compressed data and that it's zipped.
Now, I don't know enough about idea encryption to know how much this would
help to break the code, but it still seems to me that much of this does
not need to be here. Anyone got any suggestions ? (I'd guess you could
at least move the repeated bytes to the end of the file ?). It's definitely a
weak point, as a brute-force attack would only need to decrypt 12 bytes
to verify (or almost verify ?) a correct idea key, though whether that
*greatly* reduces the security, I don't know.
I realise that the random bytes are supposed in part to protect you from
this, however, I don't see any point in reducing the security of the
data if you don't have to.
>The most likely place for a bug would be in the randomness. I suppose
>it is possible that a one-line bug somewhere could leave out most of
>the randomness, making the keys still look random but actually be
>predictable. Random number generation is hard to verify. How has
>that in PGP been checked? The PGP source is so big and spread out,
>it's hard to check. I don't think there is a bug, but it would
>be nice if PGP were carefully examined and attacked. Where are these
>rumors coming from? They are bad for the cause.
Randomness is the next thing I'm going to look at. From the output I've
produced, I can't say I'm greatly impressed by the randomness of the random
prefix bytes, though that's probably a result of looking at such a small
Tomorrow, hopefully, I'll set a program running to generate a few hundred
thousand PGP random numbers and look at what comes out. Obviously, I
can look at the frequency of different byte values, both overall and in
each of the bytes it produces, but does anyone know of any other simple
'randomness' tests for 16-byte random numbers ?
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to [email protected]
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to [email protected]