Advertisement

Security Analysis of the W3C Web Cryptography API

  • Kelsey Cairns
  • Harry Halpin
  • Graham Steel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10074)

Abstract

Due to the success of formal modeling of protocols such as TLS, there is a revival of interest in applying formal modeling to standardized APIs. We argue that formal modeling should happen as the standard is being developed (not afterwards) as it can detect complex or even simple attacks that the standardization group may not otherwise detect. As a case example of this, we discuss in detail the W3C Web Cryptography API. We demonstrate how a formal analysis of the API using the modeling language AVISPA with a SAT solver demonstrates that while the API has no errors in basic API operations and maintains its security properties for the most part, there are nonetheless attacks on secret key material due to how key wrapping and usages are implemented. Furthermore, there were a number of basic problems in terms of algorithm selection and a weakness that led to a padding attack. The results of this study led to the removal of algorithms before its completed standardization and the removal of the padding attack via normalization of error codes, although the key wrapping attack is still open. We expect this sort of formal methodology to be applied to new standardization efforts at the W3C such as the W3C Web Authentication API.

Keywords

Security Property Trust Platform Module Elliptic Curve Cryptography Security Proof Threat Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Adrian, D., Bhargavan, K., Durumeric, Z., Gaudry, P., Green, M., Halderman, J.A., Heninger, N., Springall, D., Thomé, E., Valenta, L., et al.: Imperfect forward secrecy: how Diffie-Hellman fails in practice. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 5–17. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akhawe, D., Barth, A., Lam, P.E., Mitchell, J., Song, D.: Towards a formal foundation of web security. In: Proceedings of the 2010 23rd IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium, CSF 2010, pp. 290–304. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sleevi, R., Watson, M.: Web Cryptography API. Candidate recommendation, IETF (2014). http://www.w3.org/TR/WebCryptoAPI/
  4. 4.
    Bansal, C., Bhargavan, K., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Maffeis, S.: Keys to the cloud: formal analysis and concrete attacks on encrypted web storage. In: Basin, D., Mitchell, J.C. (eds.) POST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7796, pp. 126–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-36830-1_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bardou, R., Focardi, R., Kawamoto, Y., Simionato, L., Steel, G., Tsay, J.-K.: Efficient padding oracle attacks on cryptographic hardware. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7417, pp. 608–625. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-32009-5_36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barth, A., Veditz, D., West, M.: Content Security Policy level 1.1. Working draft, W3C (2012). http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-CSpp. 11-20140211/
  7. 7.
    Bellare, M.: New proofs for NMAC and HMAC: security without collision-resistance. In: Dwork, C. (ed.) CRYPTO 2006. LNCS, vol. 4117, pp. 602–619. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11818175_36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: The exact security of digital signatures-how to sign with RSA and Rabin. In: Maurer, U. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1070, pp. 399–416. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). doi: 10.1007/3-540-68339-9_34 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beurdouche, B., Bhargavan, K., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Fournet, C., Kohlweiss, M., Pironti, A., Strub, P.-Y., Zinzindohoue, J.K.: A messy state of the union: taming the composite state machines of TLS. In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 535–552. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bhargavan, K., Lavaud, A.D., Fournet, C., Pironti, A., Strub, P.-Y.: Triple handshakes and cookie cutters: breaking and fixing authentication over TLS. In: 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 98–113. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blanchet, B.: An efficient cryptographic protocol verifier based on prolog rules. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE Workshop on Computer Security Foundations, CSFW 2001, pp. 82–96. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bleichenbacher, D.: Chosen ciphertext attacks against protocols based on the RSA encryption standard PKCS #1. In: Krawczyk, H. (ed.) CRYPTO 1998. LNCS, vol. 1462, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). doi: 10.1007/BFb0055716 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bond, M., Anderson, R.: API-level attacks on embedded systems. Computer 34(10), 67–75 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boneh, D., Shparlinski, I.E.: On the unpredictability of bits of the elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman scheme. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 201–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi: 10.1007/3-540-44647-8_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Braun, F., Akhawe, D., Weinberger, J., West, M.: Subresource Integrity. Working draft, W3C (2014). http://www.w3.org/TR/SRI/
  16. 16.
    Cremers, C.J.F.: The Scyther tool: verification, falsification, and analysis of security protocols. In: Gupta, A., Malik, S. (eds.) CAV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5123, pp. 414–418. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-70545-1_38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Delaune, S., Kremer, S., Steel, G.: Formal security analysis of PKCS#11 and proprietary extensions. J. Comput. Secur. 18(6), 1211–1245 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dennis, G., Chang, F.S.-H., Jackson, D.: Modular verification of code with SAT. In: Proceedings of the ACM/SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 2006, 17–20 July 2006, Portland, Maine, USA, pp. 109–120 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dolev, D., Yao, A.: On the security of public key protocols. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 29(2), 198–208 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Georgiev, M., Iyengar, S., Jana, S., Anubhai, R., Boneh, D., Shmatikov, V.: The most dangerous code in the world: validating SSL certificates in non-browser software. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2012, pp. 38–49. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Halpin, H.: The W3C web cryptography API: motivation and overview. In: Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, WWW Companion 2014, pp. 959–964, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jackson, D.: Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(2), 256–290 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jager, T., Schinzel, S., Somorovsky, J.: Bleichenbacher’s attack strikes again: breaking PKCS#1 v1.5 in XML encryption. In: Foresti, S., Yung, M., Martinelli, F. (eds.) ESORICS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7459, pp. 752–769. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33167-1_43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaliski, B.: PKCS #7: Cryptographic Message Syntax. RSA Security Inc., v1.5. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2315.txt
  25. 25.
    Kaminsky, A., Kurdziel, M., Radziszowski, S.: An overview of cryptanalysis research for the advanced encryption standard. In: 2010 Military Communications Conference - MILCOM 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krawczyk, H.: Cryptographic extraction and key derivation: the HKDF scheme. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 631–648. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-14623-7_34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Künnemann, R., Steel, G.: YubiSecure? Formal security analysis results for the Yubikey and YubiHSM. In: Jøsang, A., Samarati, P., Petrocchi, M. (eds.) STM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7783, pp. 257–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38004-4_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Laurie, B., Langley, A., Kasper, E.: RFC 6962 Certificate Transparency. Experimental, IETF (2013). https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6962
  29. 29.
    Mitchell, C.J.: Error Oracle attacks on CBC mode: is there a future for CBC mode encryption? In: Zhou, J., Lopez, J., Deng, R.H., Bao, F. (eds.) ISC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3650, pp. 244–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11556992_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Near, J.P., Jackson, D.: Derailer: interactive security analysis for web applications. In: Proceedings of the 29th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 587–598. IEEE/ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Paterson, K.G., Yau, A.: Padding Oracle attacks on the ISO CBC mode encryption standard. In: Okamoto, T. (ed.) CT-RSA 2004. LNCS, vol. 2964, pp. 305–323. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-24660-2_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Perrin, T.: Web Cryptography API. Editor’s draft, W3C (2014). http://github.com/trevp/curve25519_webcrypto
  33. 33.
    Rizzo, J.: Duong., T.: Practical padding Oracle attacks. In: Proceedings of the 4th USENIX Conference on Offensive Technologies, WOOT 2010, pp. 1–8. USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rogaway, P., Shrimpton, T.: A provable-security treatment of the key-wrap problem. In: Vaudenay, S. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4004, pp. 373–390. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11761679_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rogaway, P.: Evaluation of some blockcipher modes of operation. Technical report, University of California, Davis, Evaluation carried out for the Cryptography Research and Evaluation Committees (CRYPTREC) for the Government of Japan, February 2011Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schmidt, B., Sasse, R., Cremers, C., Basin, D.: Automated verification of group key agreement protocols. In: 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 179–194. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smart, N.P., Rijmen, V., Warinschi, B., Watson, G., Patterson, K., Stam, M.: Algorithms, key sizes and parameters report: 2014 recommendations. Technical report, November 2014. ENISA Report. Version 1.0Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stark, E., Hamburg, M., Boneh, D.: Symmetric cryptography in Javascript. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, ACSAC 2009, pp. 373–381. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Taly, A., Erlingsson, Ú., Mitchell, J.C., Miller, M.S., Nagra, J.: Automated analysis of security-critical Javascript APIs. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2011, pp. 363–378. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Torlak, E., Taghdiri, M., Dennis, G., Near, J.P.: Applications and extensions of alloy: past, present and future. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 23(4), 915–933 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vaudenay, S.: Security flaws induced by CBC padding — applications to SSL, IPSEC, WTLS. In: Knudsen, L.R. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2332, pp. 534–545. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-46035-7_35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wen, C.C., Dawson, E., González Nieto, J.M., Simpson, L.: A framework for security analysis of key derivation functions. In: Ryan, M.D., Smyth, B., Wang, G. (eds.) ISPEC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7232, pp. 199–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-29101-2_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yao, F.F., Yin, Y.L.: Design and analysis of password-based key derivation functions. In: Menezes, A. (ed.) CT-RSA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3376, pp. 245–261. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-30574-3_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Washington State UniversitySeattleUSA
  2. 2.INRIAParisFrance
  3. 3.CryptosenseParisFrance

Personalised recommendations