On Security Monoculture

Datetime:2016-08-22 21:43:29          Topic: OpenSSL           Share

A pet hate of mine for some time has been the blanket assertion from those who like to identify themselves as “security professionals” that nobody should write their own cryptographic code. I’ve heard a number of individuals voicing this view and implying that all that is wrong in the world of computer security would be fixed if people would simply stop it.

This is, and has been, for some time, the conventional wisdom. It is wrong.

Why do I say this? Simple. The conventional wisdom implies that we should all be using the exact same code behind the scenes (this is often accompanied by claims of the superiority of Open Source implementations as they will be reviewed by many more people). For many people, and for many applications, this thinking leads to using OpenSSL, as it is “tried and tested”, and is Open Source so lots of people must have looked over the code and decided it was good, right? Well, let’s take a look at the huge list of vulnerabilities that have been found in that library , or the comments that the founder of OpenBSD, Theo de Raadt, made about it after deciding to fork it and create LibreSSL instead .

(Fine, you might say, use LibreSSL, or Botan, or Secure Transport, or CryptoAPI, or…; well, yes, that’s kind of my point. But I wouldn’t want to recommend that everyone should use LibreSSL, or Botan, or Secure Transport either. It’s much safer if there’s a mix of software performing this task.)

Heartbleed was only such a big problem because everyone was using the single implementation that contained that bug . Well, almost everyone; some software was using Apple’s Secure Transport, or Microsoft’s implementation (via CryptoAPI), or one of the various other implementations that are floating about. But the overwhelming majority uses OpenSSL, and as a result, a single vulnerability affected everyone, everywhere, simultaneously.

Another implication of this “thou shalt not implement crypto” view is that the set of implementations we presently have should be fixed. Maybe even some of them should go away. After all, nobody should be implementing crypto software (the only exception seems to be if the person quoting this rule knows your name, in which case you’re probably D.J. Bernstein or Bruce Schneier or some such). But that will make matters worse , not better. It will increase the reliance on OpenSSL and make the monoculture worse; and everyone switching wholesale to LibreSSL won’t help in that regard (it might be better in other respects, but that’s another matter). Indeed, it even implies that you shouldn’t be submitting any fixes to OpenSSL, because you can’t possibly be a suitable person to be tampering with cryptographic software.

Now, do I think you, dear reader, should immediately go out and roll your own RSA implementation? No, absolutely not. I am categorically not in favour of everyone implementing their own crypto (or, worse, rolling their own cryptographic algorithm). It isn’t something you can throw together in an afternoon, without carefully researching the subject first, and it certainly isn’t something you should be doing without adequate testing to make sure you haven’t slipped up. There are lots of gotchas in this area that you won’t appreciate unless you go and learn about it first. But what I don’t like about the conventional wisdom on the subject is that it has tended to discourage people who are competent to do so from writing additional implementations, and has created an atmosphere where you’re likely to be yelled at for merely suggesting that it might be a good idea for that to happen.





About List