Skip to content

Crypto++ vulnerable to the Marvin Attack #1247

Description

@tomato42

Crypto++ Issue Report

I've verified that the Crypto++ is vulnerable to the Marvin Attack—a timing variant of the well-known Bleichenbacher attack.

I've executed the test on ArchLinux, using crypto++ 8.9.0 from the Arch repository.
The reproducer is available in the marvin-toolkit repository. It was compiled with a simple g++ -o time_decrypt -lcryptopp time_decrypt.cpp.

When executed on AMD Ryzen 5 5600X, I'm able to detect a side-channel signal when performing decryption with PKCS#1 v1.5 padding. The results are statistically significant with just few hundred measurement pairs, but below I'm showing results of a run with 100k repeats to show the size of the side-channel more clearly.

The test summary:

Sign test mean p-value: 0.2339, median p-value: 4.255e-12, min p-value: 3.18e-88
Friedman test (chisquare approximation) for all samples
p-value: 0.0
Worst pair: 1(no_header_with_payload_48), 5(valid_0)
Mean of differences: 3.61457e-07s, 95% CI: 2.63026e-07s, 4.577243e-07s (±9.735e-08s)
Median of differences: 4.80000e-07s, 95% CI: 4.30000e-07s, 5.200001e-07s (±4.500e-08s)
Trimmed mean (5%) of differences: 3.84809e-07s, 95% CI: 3.26061e-07s, 4.382825e-07s (±5.611e-08s)
Trimmed mean (25%) of differences: 4.82399e-07s, 95% CI: 4.37442e-07s, 5.255875e-07s (±4.407e-08s)
Trimmed mean (45%) of differences: 4.77529e-07s, 95% CI: 4.31482e-07s, 5.214141e-07s (±4.497e-08s)
Trimean of differences: 4.63125e-07s, 95% CI: 4.07500e-07s, 5.025002e-07s (±4.750e-08s)
Layperson explanation: Definite side-channel detected, implementation is VULNERABLE

conf_interval_plot_trim_mean_25
legend:

ID,Name
0,header_only
1,no_header_with_payload_48
2,no_padding_48
3,no_structure
4,signature_padding_8
5,valid_0
6,valid_48
7,valid_192
8,valid_246
9,valid_repeated_byte_payload_246_1
10,valid_repeated_byte_payload_246_255
11,zero_byte_in_padding_48_4

Explanation for the ciphertexts is in the step2.py file.

As can be read from the graph, there's a clear difference between valid (probes 5, 6, and 7) and invalid ciphertexts. Moreover, the probe 2 is significantly different from others, which suggests a side-channel leakage in the numerical library (the last multiplication to apply deblinder, the last Montgormery reduction, or conversion of the arbitrary precision integer to a byte string), which means that that all padding modes that use the same RSADP() primitive will be similarly vulnerable, that means RSA-OAEP too.

(side note: I'm not a C++ programmer, so any help to make the reproducer cleaner, and command-line configurable, like the ones for openssl, pyca-cryptography, etc. will be really appreciated)

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions