Named returned values should only be used on public funcs and methods
when it contributes to the documentation.
Named return values should not be used if they're only saving the
programmer a few lines of code inside the body of the function,
especially if that means there's stutter in the documentation or it
was only there so the programmer could use a naked return
statement. (Naked returns should not be used except in very small
functions)
This change is a manual audit & cleanup of public func signatures.
Signatures were not changed if:
* the func was private (wouldn't be in public godoc)
* the documentation referenced it
* the named return value was an interesting name. (i.e. it wasn't
simply stutter, repeating the name of the type)
There should be no changes in behavior. (At least: none intended)
Change-Id: I3472ef49619678fe786e5e0994bdf2d9de76d109
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/20024
Run-TryBot: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org>
This is based on the implementation used in OpenSSL, from a
submission by Shay Gueron and myself. Besides using assembly,
this implementation employs several optimizations described in:
S.Gueron and V.Krasnov, "Fast prime field elliptic-curve
cryptography with 256-bit primes"
In addition a new and improved modular inverse modulo N is
implemented here.
The performance measured on a Haswell based Macbook Pro shows 21X
speedup for the sign and 9X for the verify operations.
The operation BaseMult is 30X faster (and the Diffie-Hellman/ECDSA
key generation that use it are sped up as well).
The adaptation to Go with the help of Filippo Valsorda
Updated the submission for faster verify/ecdh, fixed some asm syntax
and API problems and added benchmarks.
Change-Id: I86a33636747d5c92f15e0c8344caa2e7e07e0028
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/8968
Run-TryBot: Adam Langley <agl@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@golang.org>
Could go in 1.5, although not critical.
See also #12107
Change-Id: I7f1608b58581d21df4db58f0db654fef79e33a90
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/13481
Reviewed-by: Dave Cheney <dave@cheney.net>
crypto/rand.Reader doesn't ensure that short reads don't happen. This
change contains a couple of fixups where io.ReadFull wasn't being used
with it.
Change-Id: I3855b81f5890f2e703112eeea804aeba07b6a6b8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/7645
Reviewed-by: Minux Ma <minux@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org>
ECDSA is unsafe to use if an entropy source produces predictable
output for the ephemeral nonces. E.g., [Nguyen]. A simple
countermeasure is to hash the secret key, the message, and
entropy together to seed a CSPRNG, from which the ephemeral key
is derived.
Fixes#9452
--
This is a minimalist (in terms of patch size) solution, though
not the most parsimonious in its use of primitives:
- csprng_key = ChopMD-256(SHA2-512(priv.D||entropy||hash))
- reader = AES-256-CTR(k=csprng_key)
This, however, provides at most 128-bit collision-resistance,
so that Adv will have a term related to the number of messages
signed that is significantly worse than plain ECDSA. This does
not seem to be of any practical importance.
ChopMD-256(SHA2-512(x)) is used, rather than SHA2-256(x), for
two sets of reasons:
*Practical:* SHA2-512 has a larger state and 16 more rounds; it
is likely non-generically stronger than SHA2-256. And, AFAIK,
cryptanalysis backs this up. (E.g., [Biryukov] gives a
distinguisher on 47-round SHA2-256 with cost < 2^85.) This is
well below a reasonable security-strength target.
*Theoretical:* [Coron] and [Chang] show that Chop-MD(F(x)) is
indifferentiable from a random oracle for slightly beyond the
birthday barrier. It seems likely that this makes a generic
security proof that this construction remains UF-CMA is
possible in the indifferentiability framework.
--
Many thanks to Payman Mohassel for reviewing this construction;
any mistakes are mine, however. And, as he notes, reusing the
private key in this way means that the generic-group (non-RO)
proof of ECDSA's security given in [Brown] no longer directly
applies.
--
[Brown]: http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2000/corr2000-54.ps
"Brown. The exact security of ECDSA. 2000"
[Coron]: https://www.cs.nyu.edu/~puniya/papers/merkle.pdf
"Coron et al. Merkle-Damgard revisited. 2005"
[Chang]: https://www.iacr.org/archive/fse2008/50860436/50860436.pdf
"Chang and Nandi. Improved indifferentiability security analysis
of chopMD hash function. 2008"
[Biryukov]: http://www.iacr.org/archive/asiacrypt2011/70730269/70730269.pdf
"Biryukov et al. Second-order differential collisions for reduced
SHA-256. 2011"
[Nguyen]: ftp://ftp.di.ens.fr/pub/users/pnguyen/PubECDSA.ps
"Nguyen and Shparlinski. The insecurity of the elliptic curve
digital signature algorithm with partially known nonces. 2003"
New tests:
TestNonceSafety: Check that signatures are safe even with a
broken entropy source.
TestINDCCA: Check that signatures remain non-deterministic
with a functional entropy source.
Updated "golden" KATs in crypto/tls/testdata that use ECDSA suites.
Change-Id: I55337a2fbec2e42a36ce719bd2184793682d678a
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/3340
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@golang.org>
ECDSA is unsafe to use if an entropy source produces predictable
output for the ephemeral nonces. E.g., [Nguyen]. A simple
countermeasure is to hash the secret key, the message, and
entropy together to seed a CSPRNG, from which the ephemeral key
is derived.
--
This is a minimalist (in terms of patch size) solution, though
not the most parsimonious in its use of primitives:
- csprng_key = ChopMD-256(SHA2-512(priv.D||entropy||hash))
- reader = AES-256-CTR(k=csprng_key)
This, however, provides at most 128-bit collision-resistance,
so that Adv will have a term related to the number of messages
signed that is significantly worse than plain ECDSA. This does
not seem to be of any practical importance.
ChopMD-256(SHA2-512(x)) is used, rather than SHA2-256(x), for
two sets of reasons:
*Practical:* SHA2-512 has a larger state and 16 more rounds; it
is likely non-generically stronger than SHA2-256. And, AFAIK,
cryptanalysis backs this up. (E.g., [Biryukov] gives a
distinguisher on 47-round SHA2-256 with cost < 2^85.) This is
well below a reasonable security-strength target.
*Theoretical:* [Coron] and [Chang] show that Chop-MD(F(x)) is
indifferentiable from a random oracle for slightly beyond the
birthday barrier. It seems likely that this makes a generic
security proof that this construction remains UF-CMA is
possible in the indifferentiability framework.
--
Many thanks to Payman Mohassel for reviewing this construction;
any mistakes are mine, however. And, as he notes, reusing the
private key in this way means that the generic-group (non-RO)
proof of ECDSA's security given in [Brown] no longer directly
applies.
--
[Brown]: http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2000/corr2000-54.ps
"Brown. The exact security of ECDSA. 2000"
[Coron]: https://www.cs.nyu.edu/~puniya/papers/merkle.pdf
"Coron et al. Merkle-Damgard revisited. 2005"
[Chang]: https://www.iacr.org/archive/fse2008/50860436/50860436.pdf
"Chang and Nandi. Improved indifferentiability security analysis
of chopMD hash function. 2008"
[Biryukov]: http://www.iacr.org/archive/asiacrypt2011/70730269/70730269.pdf
"Biryukov et al. Second-order differential collisions for reduced
SHA-256. 2011"
[Nguyen]: ftp://ftp.di.ens.fr/pub/users/pnguyen/PubECDSA.ps
"Nguyen and Shparlinski. The insecurity of the elliptic curve
digital signature algorithm with partially known nonces. 2003"
Fixes#9452
Tests:
TestNonceSafety: Check that signatures are safe even with a
broken entropy source.
TestINDCCA: Check that signatures remain non-deterministic
with a functional entropy source.
Change-Id: Ie7e04057a3a26e6becb80e845ecb5004bb482745
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/2422
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@golang.org>
