Re: CCM/GCM implementation defect

[Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:26:20AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Hi:
> 
> It looks like our IPsec implementations of CCM and GCM are buggy
> in that they don't include the IV in the authentication calculation.

Seems like crypto_rfc4106_crypt() passes the associated data it
got from ESP directly to gcm, without chaining with the IV.

> 
> This definitely breaks interoperability with anyone who implements
> them correctly.  The fact that there have been no reports on this
> probably means that nobody has run into this in the field yet.
> 
> On the security side, this is probably not a big deal for CCM
> because it always verifies the authentication tag after decryption.
> But for GCM this may be a DoS issue as an attacker could modify
> the IV without triggering the authentication check and thus cause
> an unnecessary decryption.  For both CCM and GCM this will result
> in random data injected as a packet into the network stack which
> hopefully will be dropped.
> 
> In order to fix this without breaking backwards compatibility,
> my plan is to introduce new templates such as rfc4106v2 which
> implement the RFC correctly.  The existing templates will be
> retained so that current users aren't broken by the fix.

Adding a second template for the correct implementation is
probaply the only thing that we can do if we don't want to
break backwards compatibility. But maybe we can add a warning
to the old implementation, such that users notice that they
use a broken version.