A paper was published on the IACR’s ePrint archive yesterday, titled LadderLeak: Breaking ECDSA With Less Than One Bit of Nonce Leakage.
The ensuing discussion on /r/crypto led to several interesting questions that I thought would be worth capturing and answering in detail.
What’s Significant About the LadderLeak Paper?
This is best summarized by Table 1 from the paper.
The paper authors were able to optimize existing attacks exploiting one-bit leakages against 192-bit and 160-bit elliptic curves. They were further able to exploit leakages of less than one bit in the same curves.
How Can You Leak Less Than One Bit?
We’re used to discrete quantities in computer science, but you can leak less than one bit of information in the case of side-channels.
Biased modular reduction can also create a vulnerable scenario: If you know the probability of a 0 or a 1 in a given position in the bit-string of the one-time number (i.e. the most significant bit) is not 0.5 to 0.5, but some other ratio (e.g. 0.51 to 0.49), you can (over many samples) conclude a probability of a specific bit in your dataset.
If “less than one bit” sounds strange, that’s probably our fault for always rounding up to the nearest bit when we express costs in computer science.
What’s the Cost of the Attack?
Consult Table 3 from the paper for empirical cost data:
How Devastating is LadderLeak?
First, it assumes a lot of things:
- That you’re using ECDSA with either sect163r1 or secp192r1 (NIST P-192). Breaking larger curves requires more bits of bias (as far as we know).
- That you’re using a cryptography library with cache-timing leaks.
- That you have a way to measure the timing leaks (and not just pilfer the ECDSA secret key; i.e. in a TPM setup). This threat model generally assumes some sort of physical access.
But if you can pull the attack off, you can successfully recover the device’s ECDSA secret key. Which, for protocols like TLS, allow an attacker to impersonate a certificate-bearer (typically the server)… which is pretty devastating.
Is ECDSA Broken Now?
Non-deterministic ECDSA is not significantly more broken with LadderLeak than it already was by other attacks. LadderLeak does not break the Internet.
Fundamentally, LadderLeak doesn’t really change the risk calculus. Bleichenbacher’s attack framework for solving the Hidden Number Problem using Lattices was already practical, with sufficient samples.
There’s even a CryptoPals challenge about these attacks.
As an acquaintance put it, the authors made a time-memory trade-off with a leaky oracle. It’s a neat result worthy of publication, but we aren’t any minutes closer to midnight with this revelation.
Is ECDSA’s k-value Really a Nonce?
Nonce in cryptography has always meant “number that must be used only once” (typically per key). See: AES-GCM.
Nonces are often confused for initialization vectors (IVs), which in addition to a nonce’s requirements for non-reuse must also be unpredictable. See: AES-CBC.
However, nonces and IVs can both be public, whereas ECDSA k-values MUST NOT be public! If you recover the k-value for a given signature, you can recover the secret key too.
That is to say, ECDSA k-values must be all of the above:
- Never reused
They’re really in a class of their own.
For that reason, it’s probably better to think of the k-value as a per-signature key than a simple nonce. (n.b. Many cryptography libraries actually implement them as a one-time ECDSA keypair.)
What’s the Difference Between Random and Unpredictable?
The HMAC-SHA256 output of a message under a secret key is unpredictable for anyone not in possession of said secret key. This value, though unpredictable, is not random, since signing the same message twice yields the same output.
A large random integer when subjected to modular reduction by a non-Mersenne prime of the same magnitude will be biased towards small values. This bias may be negligible, but it makes the bit string that represents the reduced integer more predictable, even though it’s random.
What Should We Do? How Should We Respond?
First, don’t panic. This is interesting research and its authors deserve to enjoy their moment, but the sky is not falling.
Second, acknowledge that none of the attacks are effective against EdDSA.
If you feel the urge to do something about this attack paper, file a support ticket with all of your third-party vendors and business partners that handle cryptographic secrets to ask them if/when they plan to support EdDSA (especially if FIPS compliance is at all relevant to your work, since EdDSA is coming to FIPS 186-5).
Reason: With increased customer demand for EdDSA, more companies will adopt this digital signature algorithm (which is much more secure against real-world attacks). Thus, we can ensure an improved attack variant that actually breaks ECDSA doesn’t cause the sky to fall and the Internet to be doomed.
(Seriously, I don’t think most companies can overcome their inertia regarding ECDSA to EdDSA migration if their customers never ask for it.)