Applied Crypto Hardening
Applied Crypto Hardening
(University of Vienna, CERT.be, KIT-CERT, CERT.at, A-SIT/IAIK, coretec.at, FH Campus Wien, VRVis,
MilCERT Austria, A-Trust, Runtux.com, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg,
azet.org, maclemon.at)
March 1, 2015
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 2 of 94
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our thanks to the following reviewers and people who have generously
offered their time and interest (in alphabetical order):
The reviewers did review parts of the document in their area of expertise; all remaining errors in
this document are the sole responsibility of the primary authors.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 3 of 94
Abstract
This guide arose out of the need for system administrators to have an updated, solid, well re-
searched and thought-through guide for configuring SSL, PGP, SSH and other cryptographic tools
in the post-Snowden age. Triggered by the NSA leaks in the summer of 2013, many system admin-
istrators and IT security officers saw the need to strengthen their encryption settings. This guide is
specifically written for these system administrators.
As Schneier noted in [Sch13a], it seems that intelligence agencies and adversaries on the Internet
are not breaking so much the mathematics of encryption per se, but rather use software and
hardware weaknesses, subvert standardization processes, plant backdoors, rig random number
generators and most of all exploit careless settings in server configurations and encryption systems
to listen in on private communications. Worst of all, most communication on the internet is not
encrypted at all by default (for SMTP, opportunistic TLS would be a solution).
This guide can only address one aspect of securing our information systems: getting the crypto
settings right to the best of the authors’ current knowledge. Other attacks, as the above mentioned,
require different protection schemes which are not covered in this guide. This guide is not an
introduction to cryptography. For background information on cryptography and cryptoanalysis we
would like to refer the reader to the references in appendix B and C at the end of this document.
The focus of this guide is merely to give current best practices for configuring complex cipher suites
and related parameters in a copy & paste-able manner. The guide tries to stay as concise as is pos-
sible for such a complex topic as cryptography. Naturally, it can not be complete. There are many
excellent guides [IS12, fSidIB13, ENI13] and best practice documents available when it comes to
cryptography. However none of them focuses specifically on what an average system administrator
needs for hardening his or her systems’ crypto settings.
Contents
1. Introduction 7
1.1. Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2. Related publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3. How to read this guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4. Disclaimer and scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Practical recommendations 11
2.1. Webservers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.1. Apache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.2. lighttpd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.3. nginx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.4. Cherokee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.5. MS IIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2. SSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.1. OpenSSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.2. Cisco ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.3. Cisco IOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3. Mail Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.1. SMTP in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.2. Dovecot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3.3. cyrus-imapd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3.4. Postfix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3.5. Exim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.4. VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.4.1. IPsec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.4.2. Check Point FireWall-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.4.3. PPTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.4.4. Cisco ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.4.5. Openswan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.4.6. tinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.5. PGP/GPG - Pretty Good Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.6. IPMI, ILO and other lights out management solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.7. Instant Messaging Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.7.1. General server configuration recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.7.2. ejabberd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.7.3. Chat privacy - Off-the-Record Messaging (OTR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.7.4. Charybdis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.7.5. SILC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.8. Database Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.8.1. Oracle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.8.2. MySQL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.8.3. DB2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.8.4. PostgreSQL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 5 of 94
Contents Contents
3. Theory 58
3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.2. Cipher suites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.2.1. Architectural overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.2.2. Forward Secrecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.2.3. Recommended cipher suites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.2.4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.3. Random Number Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.3.1. When random number generators fail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.3.2. Linux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.3.3. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.4. Keylengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.5. A note on Elliptic Curve Cryptography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.6. A note on SHA-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.7. A note on Diffie Hellman Key Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.8. Public Key Infrastructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.8.1. Certificate Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.8.2. Hardening PKI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.9. TLS and its support mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.9.1. HTTP Strict Transport Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
A. Tools 76
A.1. SSL & TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
A.2. Key length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
A.3. RNGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
A.4. Guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
B. Links 78
C. Suggested Reading 79
E. Further research 89
Index 94
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 6 of 94
1. Introduction
1.1. Audience
Ecrypt II [IS12], ENISA’s report on Algorithms, key sizes and parameters [ENI13] and BSI’s Technische
Richtlinie TR-02102 [fSidIB13] are great publications which are more in depth than this guide.
However, this guide has a different approach: it focuses on copy & paste-able settings for system
administrators, effectively breaking down the complexity in the above mentioned reports to an
easy to use format for the intended target audience.
This guide tries to accommodate two needs: first of all, having a handy reference on how to
configure the most common services’ crypto settings and second of all, explain a bit of background
on cryptography. This background is essential if the reader wants to chose his or her own cipher
string settings.
System administrators who want to copy & paste recommendations quickly without spending a
lot of time on background reading on cryptography or cryptanalysis can do so, by simply searching
for the corresponding section in chapter 2 (“Practical recommendations”).
It is important to know that in this guide the authors arrived at two recommendations: Cipher string
A and Cipher string B. While the former is a hardened recommendation the latter is a weaker one
but provides wider compatibility. Cipher strings A and B are described in 3.2.3.
However, for the quick copy & paste approach it is important to know that this guide assumes
users are happy with Cipher string B.
While chapter 2 is intended to serve as a copy & paste reference, chapter 3 (“Theory”) explains the
reasoning behind cipher string B. In particular, section 3.2 explains how to choose individual cipher
strings. We advise the reader to actually read this section and challenge our reasoning in choosing
Cipher string B and to come up with a better or localized solution.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 7 of 94
Start Introduction
no
This guide specifically does not address physical security, protecting software and hardware against
exploits, basic IT security housekeeping, information assurance techniques, traffic analysis attacks,
issues with key-roll over and key management, securing client PCs and mobile devices (theft,
loss), proper Operations Security1 , social engineering attacks, protection against tempest [Wik13c]
attack techniques, thwarting different side-channel attacks (timing–, cache timing–, differential fault
analysis, differential power analysis or power monitoring attacks), downgrade attacks, jamming
the encrypted channel or other similar attacks which are typically employed to circumvent strong
encryption. The authors can not overstate the importance of these other techniques. Interested
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_security
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 8 of 94
readers are advised to read about these attacks in detail since they give a lot of insight into other
parts of cryptography engineering which need to be dealt with.2
This guide does not talk much about the well-known insecurities of trusting a public-key infrastruc-
ture (PKI)3 . Nor does this text fully explain how to run your own Certificate Authority (CA).
Most of this zoo of information security issues are addressed in the very comprehensive book
“Security Engineering” by Ross Anderson [And08].
For some experts in cryptography this text might seem too informal. However, we strive to keep the
language as non-technical as possible and fitting for our target audience: system administrators
who can collectively improve the security level for all of their users.
This guide can only describe what the authors currently believe to be the best settings based
on their personal experience and after intensive cross checking with literature and experts. For a
complete list of people who reviewed this paper, see the Acknowledgements. Even though multiple
specialists reviewed the guide, the authors can give no guarantee whatsoever that they made the
right recommendations. Keep in mind that tomorrow there might be new attacks on some ciphers
and many of the recommendations in this guide might turn out to be wrong. Security is a process.
We therefore recommend that system administrators keep up to date with recent topics in IT
security and cryptography.
In this sense, this guide is very focused on getting the cipher strings done right even though there
is much more to do in order to make a system more secure. We the authors, need this document
as much as the reader needs it.
Scope
• Internet-facing services
• Commonly used services
• Devices which are used in business environments (this specifically excludes XBoxes, Playsta-
tions and similar consumer devices)
• OpenSSL
We explicitly excluded:
• Specialized systems (such as medical devices, most embedded systems, industrial control
systems, etc.)
2 An easy to read yet very insightful recent example is the "FLUSH+RELOAD" technique [YF13] for leaking cryptographic
keys from one virtual machine to another via L3 cache timing attacks.
3 Interested readers are referred to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647959 or http://www.h-online.com/
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 9 of 94
1.5. Methods
For writing this guide, we chose to collect the most well researched facts about cryptography
settings and let as many trusted specialists as possible review those settings. The review process
is completely open and done on a public mailing list. The document is available (read-only) to
the public Internet on the web page and the source code of this document is on a public git
server, mirrored on GitHub.com and open for public scrutiny. However, write permissions to the
document are only granted to vetted people. The list of reviewers can be found in the section
“Acknowledgements”. Every write operation to the document is logged via the “git” version control
system and can thus be traced back to a specific author. We accept “git pull requests” on the github
mirror4 for this paper.
Public peer-review and multiple eyes checking of our guide is the best strategy we can imagine at
the present moment 5 .
4 https://github.com/BetterCrypto/Applied-Crypto-Hardening
5 http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/10/how-to-design-and-defend-against-the-perfect-backdoor/
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 10 of 94
2. Practical recommendations
2.1. Webservers
2.1.1. Apache
Note that any cipher suite starting with EECDH can be omitted, if in doubt. (Compared to the theory
section, EECDH in Apache and ECDHE in OpenSSL are synonyms 1 )
Settings
1 https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg33405.html
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 11 of 94
Additional settings
You might want to redirect everything to https:// if possible. In Apache you can do this with the
following setting inside of a VirtualHost environment:
<VirtualHost *:80>
Redirect permanent / https://SERVER_NAME/
</VirtualHost>
References
How to test
See appendix A
2.1.2. lighttpd
Settings
$SERVER["socket"] == "0.0.0.0:443" {
ssl.engine = "enable"
ssl.use-sslv2 = "disable"
ssl.use-sslv3 = "disable"
ssl.pemfile = "/etc/lighttpd/server.pem"
ssl.ca-file = "/etc/ssl/certs/server.crt"
ssl.cipher-list = "EDH+CAMELLIA:EDH+aRSA:EECDH+aRSA+AESGCM:EECDH+aRSA+SHA384:\
\EECDH+aRSA+SHA256:EECDH:+CAMELLIA256:+AES256:+CAMELLIA128:+AES128:+SSLv3:!\
\aNULL!eNULL:!LOW:!3DES:!MD5:!EXP:!PSK:!DSS:!RC4:!SEED:!ECDSA:CAMELLIA256-SHA:\
\AES256-SHA:CAMELLIA128-SHA:AES128-SHA"
ssl.honor-cipher-order = "enable"
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 12 of 94
Starting with lighttpd version 1.4.29 Diffie-Hellman and Elliptic-Curve Diffie-Hellman key agreement
protocols are supported. By default, elliptic curve "prime256v1" (also "secp256r1") will be used, if
no other is given. To select special curves, it is possible to set them using the configuration options
ssl.dh-file and ssl.ec-curve.
Please read section 3.7 for more information on Diffie Hellman key exchange and elliptic curves.
Additional settings
As for any other webserver, you might want to automatically redirect http:// traffic toward https://.
It is also recommended to set the environment variable HTTPS, so the PHP applications run by the
webserver can easily detect that HTTPS is in use.
$HTTP["scheme"] == "http" {
# capture vhost name with regex condition -> %0 in redirect pattern
# must be the most inner block to the redirect rule
$HTTP["host"] =~ ".*" {
url.redirect = (".*" => "https://%0$0")
}
# Set the environment variable properly
setenv.add-environment = (
"HTTPS" => "on"
)
}
Additional information
The config option honor-cipher-order is available since 1.4.30, the supported ciphers depend on
the used OpenSSL-version (at runtime). ECDHE has to be available in OpenSSL at compile-time,
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 13 of 94
which should be default. SSL compression should by deactivated by default at compile-time (if not,
it’s active).
Support for other SSL-libraries like GnuTLS will be available in the upcoming 2.x branch, which is
currently under development.
References
How to test
See appendix A
2.1.3. nginx
Settings
ssl_prefer_server_ciphers on;
ssl_protocols TLSv1 TLSv1.1 TLSv1.2; # not possible to do exclusive
ssl_ciphers 'EDH+CAMELLIA:EDH+aRSA:EECDH+aRSA+AESGCM:EECDH+aRSA+SHA384:EECDH+\
\aRSA+SHA256:EECDH:+CAMELLIA256:+AES256:+CAMELLIA128:+AES128:+SSLv3:!aNULL:!\
\eNULL:!LOW:!3DES:!MD5:!EXP:!PSK:!DSS:!RC4:!SEED:!ECDSA:CAMELLIA256-SHA:AES256\
\-SHA:CAMELLIA128-SHA:AES128-SHA';
add_header Strict-Transport-Security max-age=15768000; # six months
# use this only if all subdomains support HTTPS!
# add_header Strict-Transport-Security "max-age=15768000; includeSubDomains";
If you absolutely want to specify your own DH parameters, you can specify them via
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 14 of 94
ssl_dhparam file;
However, we advise you to read section 3.7 and stay with the standard IKE/IETF parameters (as
long as they are >1024 bits).
Additional settings
If you decide to trust NIST’s ECC curve recommendation, you can add the following line to nginx’s
configuration file to select special curves:
ssl_ecdh_curve secp384r1;
Listing 2.7: SSL EC/DH settings for nginx
[configuration/Webservers/nginx/default-ec]
You might want to redirect everything to https:// if possible. In Nginx you can do this with the
following setting:
return 301 https://$host$request_uri;
Listing 2.8: https auto-redirect in nginx
[configuration/Webservers/nginx/default-hsts]
References
• http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_ssl_module.html
• http://wiki.nginx.org/HttpSslModule
How to test
See appendix A
2.1.4. Cherokee
Settings
The configuration of the cherokee webserver is performed by an admin interface available via
the web. It then writes the configuration to /etc/cherokee/cherokee.conf, the important lines of
such a configuration file can be found at the end of this section.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 15 of 94
• General Settings
– Network
* SSL/TLS back-end: OpenSSL/libssl
– Ports to listen
* Port: 443, TLS: TLS/SSL port
• Virtual Servers, For each vServer on tab Security:
– Required SSL/TLS Values: Fill in the correct paths for Certificate and Certificate key
– Advanced Options
* Ciphers: EDH+CAMELLIA:EDH+aRSA:EECDH+aRSA+AESGCM:EECDH+aRSA+SHA384:
EECDH+aRSA+SHA256:EECDH:+CAMELLIA256:+AES256:+CAMELLIA128:+AES128:
+SSLv3:!aNULL!eNULL:!LOW:!3DES:!MD5:!EXP:!PSK:!DSS:!RC4:!SEED:
!ECDSA:CAMELLIA256-SHA:AES256-SHA:CAMELLIA128-SHA:AES128-SHA
* Server Preference: Prefer
* Compression: Disabled
• Advanced: TLS
– SSL version 2 and SSL version 3: No
– TLS version 1, TLS version 1.1 and TLS version 1.2: Yes
Additional settings
For each vServer on the Security tab it is possilbe to set the Diffie Hellman length to up to 4096
bits. We recommend to use >1024 bits. More information about Diffie-Hellman and which curves
are recommended can be found in section 3.7.
In Advanced: TLS it is possible to set the path to a Diffie Hellman parameters file for 512, 1024,
2048 and 4096 bits.
HSTS can be configured on host-basis in section vServers / Security / HTTP Strict Transport Security
(HSTS):
To redirect HTTP to HTTPS, configure a new rule per Virtual Server in the Behavior tab. The rule is
SSL/TLS combined with a NOT operator. As Handler define Redirection and use /(.*)$ as Regular
Expression and https://${host}/$1 as Substitution.
server!bind!2!port = 443
server!bind!2!tls = 1
server!tls = libssl
vserver!1!hsts = 1
vserver!1!hsts!max_age = 15768000
vserver!1!hsts!subdomains = 1
vserver!1!rule!5!handler = redir
vserver!1!rule!5!handler!rewrite!10!regex = /(.*)$
vserver!1!rule!5!handler!rewrite!10!show = 1
vserver!1!rule!5!handler!rewrite!10!substring = https://${host}/$1
vserver!1!rule!5!handler!type = just_about
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 16 of 94
vserver!1!rule!5!match = not
vserver!1!rule!5!match!right = tls
vserver!1!ssl_certificate_file = /etc/ssl/certs/ssl-cert-snakeoil.pem
vserver!1!ssl_certificate_key_file = /etc/ssl/private/ssl-cert-snakeoil.key
vserver!1!ssl_cipher_server_preference = 1
vserver!1!ssl_ciphers = EDH+CAMELLIA:EDH+aRSA:EECDH+aRSA+AESGCM:EECDH+aRSA+SHA384\
\:EECDH+aRSA+SHA256:EECDH:+CAMELLIA256:+AES256:+CAMELLIA128:+AES128:+SSLv3:!\
\aNULL!eNULL:!LOW:!3DES:!MD5:!EXP:!PSK:!DSS:!RC4:!SEED:!ECDSA:CAMELLIA256-SHA:\
\AES256-SHA:CAMELLIA128-SHA:AES128-SHA
vserver!1!ssl_compression = 0
vserver!1!ssl_dh_length = 2048
References
How to test
See appendix A
2.1.5. MS IIS
To configure SSL/TLS on Windows Server IIS Crypto can be used. 2 Simply start the Programm, no
installation required. The tool changes the registry keys described below. A restart is required for
the changes to take effect.
Instead of using the IIS Crypto Tool the configuration can be set using the Windows Registry. The
following Registry keys apply to the newer Versions of Windows (Windows 7, Windows Server
2008, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Server 2012 and Windows Server 2012 R2). For detailed
information about the older versions see the Microsoft knowledgebase article. 3
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SecurityProviders\Schannel]
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SecurityProviders\Schannel\\
\Ciphers]
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SecurityProviders\Schannel\\
\CipherSuites]
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SecurityProviders\Schannel\\
\Hashes]
2 https://www.nartac.com/Products/IISCrypto/
3 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/245030/en-us
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 17 of 94
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SecurityProviders\Schannel\\
\KeyExchangeAlgorithms]
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SecurityProviders\Schannel\\
\Protocols]
Settings
When trying to avoid RC4 (RC4 biases) as well as CBC (BEAST-Attack) by using GCM and to support
perfect forward secrecy, Microsoft SChannel (SSL/TLS, Auth,.. Stack) supports ECDSA but lacks
support for RSA signatures (see ECC suite B doubts4 ).
Since one is stuck with ECDSA, an elliptic curve certificate needs to be used.
The configuration of cipher suites MS IIS will use, can be configured in one of the following ways:
1. Group Policy 5
2. Registry 6
3. IIS Crypto 7
4. Powershell
Table 2.1 shows the process of turning on one algorithm after another and the effect on the
supported clients tested using https://www.ssllabs.com.
SSL 3.0, SSL 2.0 and MD5 are turned off. TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.2 are turned on.
Table 2.1 shows the algorithms from strongest to weakest and why they need to be added in this
order. For example insisting on SHA-2 algorithms (only first two lines) would eliminate all versions
4 http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/rigid.html
5 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb870930(v=vs.85).aspx
6 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/245030
7 https://www.nartac.com/Products/IISCrypto/
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 18 of 94
of Firefox, so the last line is needed to support this browser, but should be placed at the bottom,
so capable browsers will choose the stronger SHA-2 algorithms.
1. Java 6
2. WinXP
3. Bing
Additional settings
You might want to redirect everything to https:// if possible. In IIS you can do this with the following
setting by Powershell:
Set-WebConfiguration -Location "$WebSiteName/$WebApplicationName"
-Filter 'system.webserver/security/access'
-Value "SslRequireCert"
References
• http://support.microsoft.com/kb/245030/en-us
• http://support.microsoft.com/kb/187498/en-us
8 http://www.iis.net/configreference/system.webserver/httpprotocol/customheaders
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 19 of 94
How to test
See appendix A
2.2. SSH
Please be advised that any change in the SSH-Settings of your server might cause problems
connecting to the server or starting/reloading the SSH-Daemon itself. So every time you config-
ure your SSH-Settings on a remote server via SSH itself, ensure that you have a second open
connection to the server, which you can use to reset or adapt your changes!
2.2.1. OpenSSH
Settings
Protocol 2
# HostKeys for protocol version 2
HostKey /etc/ssh/ssh_host_rsa_key
#HostKey /etc/ssh/ssh_host_dsa_key
#HostKey /etc/ssh/ssh_host_ecdsa_key
HostKey /etc/ssh/ssh_host_ed25519_key
PermitRootLogin no # or 'without-password' to allow SSH key based login
StrictModes yes
PermitEmptyPasswords no
Ciphers [email protected],[email protected],aes128-gcm@openssh.\
\com,aes256-ctr,aes128-ctr
MACs [email protected],[email protected],umac-128-\
\[email protected],hmac-sha2-512,hmac-sha2-256,hmac-ripemd160
KexAlgorithms [email protected],diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha256,\
\diffie-hellman-group14-sha1,diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha1
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 20 of 94
Settings
Protocol 2
# HostKeys for protocol version 2
HostKey /etc/ssh/ssh_host_rsa_key
#HostKey /etc/ssh/ssh_host_dsa_key
#HostKey /etc/ssh/ssh_host_ecdsa_key
HostKey /etc/ssh/ssh_host_ed25519_key
PermitRootLogin no # or 'without-password' to allow SSH key based login
StrictModes yes
PermitEmptyPasswords no
Ciphers [email protected],[email protected],aes256-ctr,aes128-ctr
MACs [email protected],[email protected],umac-128-\
\[email protected],hmac-sha2-512,hmac-sha2-256,hmac-ripemd160
KexAlgorithms diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha256,diffie-hellman-group14-sha1,\
\diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha1
Settings
Protocol 2
# HostKeys for protocol version 2
HostKey /etc/ssh/ssh_host_rsa_key
#HostKey /etc/ssh/ssh_host_dsa_key
#HostKey /etc/ssh/ssh_host_ecdsa_key
PermitRootLogin no # or 'without-password' to allow SSH key based login
StrictModes yes
PermitEmptyPasswords no
Ciphers aes256-ctr,aes128-ctr
MACs hmac-sha2-512,hmac-sha2-256,hmac-ripemd160
KexAlgorithms diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha256,diffie-hellman-group14-sha1,\
\diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha1
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 21 of 94
Note: Older Linux systems won’t support SHA2. PuTTY (Windows) does not support RIPE-MD160.
Curve25519, AES-GCM and UMAC are only available upstream (OpenSSH 6.6p1). DSA host keys
have been removed on purpose, the DSS standard does not support for DSA keys stronger than
1024bit 9 which is far below current standards (see section 3.4). Legacy systems can use this
configuration and simply omit unsupported ciphers, key exchange algorithms and MACs.
References
How to test
• 9.1(3)
Settings
Note: When the ASA is configured for SSH, by default both SSH versions 1 and 2 are allowed. In
addition to that, only a group1 DH-key-exchange is used. This should be changed to allow only SSH
version 2 and to use a key-exchange with group14. The generated RSA key should be 2048 bit (the
actual supported maximum). A non-cryptographic best practice is to reconfigure the lines to only
allow SSH-logins.
9 https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1647
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 22 of 94
References
• http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/asa91/configuration/general/admin_management.
html
How to test
Settings
line vty 0 15
transport input ssh
Note: Same as with the ASA, also on IOS by default both SSH versions 1 and 2 are allowed and the
DH-key-exchange only use a DH-group of 768 Bit. In IOS, a dedicated Key-pair can be bound to SSH
to reduce the usage of individual keys-pairs. From IOS Version 15.0 onwards, 4096 Bit rsa keys are
supported and should be used according to the paradigm "use longest supported key". Also, do
not forget to disable telnet vty access.
References
• http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/sec_user_services/configuration/guide/sec_cfg_secure_
shell.html
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 23 of 94
How to test
This section documents the most common mail (SMTP) and IMAPs/POPs servers. Another option
to secure IMAPs/POPs servers is to place them behind an stunnel server.
SMTP usually makes use of opportunistic TLS. This means that an MTA will accept TLS connections
when asked for it during handshake but will not require it. One should always support incoming
opportunistic TLS and always try TLS handshake outgoing.
• As MSA (Mail Submission Agent) your mailserver receives mail from your clients MUAs (Mail
User Agent).
• As receiving MTA (Mail Transmission Agent, MX)
• As sending MTA (SMTP client)
• correctly setup MX, A and PTR RRs without using CNAMEs at all.
• enable encryption (opportunistic TLS)
• do not use self signed certificates
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 24 of 94
• optionally use the recommended cipher suites if (and only if) all your connecting MUAs
support them
We strongly recommend to allow all cipher suites for anything but MSA mode, because the alter-
native is plain text transmission.
2.3.2. Dovecot
Settings
Additional info
Dovecot 2.0, 2.1: Almost as good as dovecot 2.2. Dovecot does not ignore unknown configuration
parameters. Does not support ssl_prefer_server_ciphers
Limitations
Dovecot currently does not support disabling TLS compression. Furthermore, DH parameters
greater than 1024bit are not supported. The most recent version 2.2.7 of Dovecot implements
configurable DH parameter length 10 .
10 http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.2/rev/43ab5abeb8f0
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 25 of 94
References
• http://wiki2.dovecot.org/SSL
How to test
2.3.3. cyrus-imapd
• 2.4.17
Settings
Limiting the ciphers provided may force (especially older) clients to connect without encryption at
all! Sticking to the defaults is recommended.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 26 of 94
allowplaintext: no
This way MUAs can only authenticate with plain text authentication schemes after issuing the
STARTTLS command. Providing CRAM-MD5 or DIGEST-MD5 methods is not recommended.
To support POP3/IMAP on ports 110/143 with STARTTLS and POP3S/IMAPS on ports 995/993 check
the SERVICES section in cyrus.conf
SERVICES {
imap cmd="imapd -U 30" listen="imap" prefork=0 maxchild=100
imaps cmd="imapd -s -U 30" listen="imaps" prefork=0 maxchild=100
pop3 cmd="pop3d -U 30" listen="pop3" prefork=0 maxchild=50
pop3s cmd="pop3d -s -U 30" listen="pop3s" prefork=0 maxchild=50
}
Limitations
cyrus-imapd currently (2.4.17, trunk) does not support elliptic curve cryptography. Hence, ECDHE
will not work even if defined in your cipher list.
How to test
2.3.4. Postfix
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 27 of 94
Settings
MX and SMTP client configuration: As discussed in section 2.3.1, because of opportunistic encryp-
tion we do not restrict the list of ciphers. There are still some steps needed to enable TLS, all in
main.cf:
# TLS parameters
smtpd_tls_cert_file=/etc/ssl/certs/ssl-cert-snakeoil.pem
smtpd_tls_key_file=/etc/ssl/private/ssl-cert-snakeoil.key
# use 0 for Postfix >= 2.9, and 1 for earlier versions
smtpd_tls_loglevel = 0
# enable opportunistic TLS support in the SMTP server and client
smtpd_tls_security_level = may
smtp_tls_security_level = may
smtp_tls_loglevel = 1
# if you have authentication enabled, only offer it after STARTTLS
smtpd_tls_auth_only = yes
tls_ssl_options = NO_COMPRESSION
MSA: For the MSA smtpd process, we first define the ciphers that are acceptable for the “manda-
tory” security level, again in main.cf:
smtpd_tls_mandatory_protocols = !SSLv2, !SSLv3
smtpd_tls_mandatory_ciphers=high
tls_high_cipherlist=EDH+CAMELLIA:EDH+aRSA:EECDH+aRSA+AESGCM:EECDH+aRSA+SHA384:\
\EECDH+aRSA+SHA256:EECDH:+CAMELLIA256:+AES256:+CAMELLIA128:+AES128:+SSLv3:!aNULL\
\:!eNULL:!LOW:!3DES:!MD5:!EXP:!PSK:!DSS:!RC4:!SEED:!ECDSA:CAMELLIA256-SHA:AES256\
\-SHA:CAMELLIA128-SHA:AES128-SHA
Then, we configure the MSA smtpd in master.cf with two additional options that are only used for
this instance of smtpd:
submission inet n - - - - smtpd
-o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
-o tls_preempt_cipherlist=yes
For those users who want to use EECDH key exchange, it is possible to customize this via:
smtpd_tls_eecdh_grade=ultra
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 28 of 94
Limitations
tls_ssl_options is supported from Postfix 2.11 onwards. You can leave the statement in the config-
uration for older versions, it will be ignored.
tls_preempt_cipherlist is supported from Postfix 2.8 onwards. Again, you can leave the statement
in for older versions.
References
Additional settings
Postfix has two sets of built-in DH parameters that can be overridden with the smtpd_tls_dh512_param_file
and smtpd_tls_dh1024_param_file options. The “dh512” parameters are used for export ciphers,
while the “dh1024” ones are used for all other ciphers.
The “bit length” in those parameter names is just a name, so one could use stronger parameter
sets; it should be possible to e.g. use the IKE Group14 parameters (see section 3.7) without much
interoperability risk, but we have not tested this yet.
How to test
You can check the effect of the settings with the following command:
$ zegrep "TLS connection established from.*with cipher" /var/log/mail.log | awk \
\'{printf("%s %s %s %s\n", $12, $13, $14, $15)}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
1 SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA
23 TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
60 TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA
270 TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
335 TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA
2.3.5. Exim
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 29 of 94
If you want to support legacy SMTPS on port 465, and STARTTLS on smtp(25)/submission(587)
ports set
daemon_smtp_ports = smtp : smtps : submission
tls_on_connect_ports = 465
warn hosts = *
control = submission/sender_retain
accept
This switches Exim to submission mode and allows addition of missing “Message-ID” and “Date”
headers.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 30 of 94
It is not advisable to restrict the default cipher list for MSA mode if you don’t know all connecting
MUAs. If you still want to define one please consult the Exim documentation or ask on the exim-
users mailinglist.
The cipher used is written to the logfiles by default. You may want to add
log_selector = <whatever your log_selector already contains> +\
\tls_certificate_verified +tls_peerdn +tls_sni
It is not advisable to restrict the default cipher list for opportunistic encryption as used by SMTP.
Do not use cipher lists recommended for HTTPS! If you still want to define one please consult the
Exim documentation or ask on the exim-users mailinglist.
If you want to request and verify client certificates from sending hosts set
tls_verify_certificates = /etc/pki/tls/certs/ca-bundle.crt
tls_try_verify_hosts = *
tls_try_verify_hosts only reports the result to your logfile. If you want to disconnect such clients
you have to use
tls_verify_hosts = *
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 31 of 94
The cipher used is written to the logfiles by default. You may want to add
log_selector = <whatever your log_selector already contains> +\
\tls_certificate_verified +tls_peerdn +tls_sni
Client mode (outgoing): Exim uses opportunistic encryption in the SMTP transport by default.
Client mode settings have to be done in the configuration section of the smtp transport (driver =
smtp).
If you want to use a client certificate (most server certificates can be used as client certificate, too)
set
tls_certificate = /etc/ssl/exim.crt
tls_privatekey = /etc/ssl/exim.pem
Do not limit ciphers without a very good reason. In the worst case you end up without encryption
at all instead of some weak encryption. Please consult the Exim documentation if you really need
to define ciphers.
Note: +all is misleading here since OpenSSL only activates the most common workarounds. But
that’s how SSL_OP_ALL is defined.
You do not need to set dh_parameters. Exim with OpenSSL by default uses parameter initialization
with the "2048-bit MODP Group with 224-bit Prime Order Subgroup" defined in section 2.2 of RFC
5114 [LK08] (ike23). If you want to set your own DH parameters please read the TLS documentation
of exim.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 32 of 94
Exim string expansion: Note that most of the options accept expansion strings. This way you can
e.g. set cipher lists or STARTTLS advertisement conditionally. Please follow the link to the official
Exim documentation to get more information.
Limitations: Exim currently (4.82) does not support elliptic curves with OpenSSL. This means that
ECDHE is not used even if defined in your cipher list. There already is a working patch to provide
support: http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1397
How to test
2.4. VPNs
2.4.1. IPsec
Settings
Assumptions: We assume the use of IKE (v1 or v2) and ESP for this document.
Authentication: IPSEC authentication should optimally be performed via RSA signatures, with
a key size of 2048 bits or more. Configuring only the trusted CA that issued the peer certificate
provides for additional protection against fake certificates.
The size of the PSK should not be shorter than the output size of the hash algorithm used in
IKE11 .
For a key composed of upper- and lowercase letters, numbers, and two additional symbols12 ,
table 2.2 gives the minimum lengths in characters.
11 Itis used in a HMAC, see RFC2104 [KBC97] and the discussion starting in http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec/02.ipsec/
msg00268.html.
12 64 possible values = 6 bits
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 33 of 94
SHA256 43
SHA384 64
SHA512 86
Configuration A Configuration B
Cryptographic Suites: IPSEC Cryptographic Suites are pre-defined settings for all the items of a
configuration; they try to provide a balanced security level and make setting up VPNs easier. 13
When using any of those suites, make sure to enable “Perfect Forward Secrecy“ for Phase 2, as this
is not specified in the suites. The equivalents to the recommended ciphers suites in section 3.2.3
are shown in table 2.3.
Phase 1: Alternatively to the pre-defined cipher suites, you can define your own, as described in
this and the next section.
Phase 1 is the mutual authentication and key exchange phase; table 2.4 shows the parameters.
Use only “main mode“, as “aggressive mode“ has known security vulnerabilities 14 .
Phase 2: Phase 2 is where the parameters that protect the actual data are negotiated; recom-
mended parameters are shown in table 2.5.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 34 of 94
Configuration A Configuration B
References
Settings
Please see section 2.4.1 for guidance on parameter choice. In this section, we will configure a
strong setup according to “Configuration A”.
This is based on the concept of a “VPN Community”, which has all the settings for the gateways
that are included in that community. Communities can be found in the “IPSEC VPN” tab of Smart-
Dashboard.
Either chose one of the encryption suites in the properties dialog (figure 2.2), or proceed to “Custom
Encryption...”, where you can set encryption and hash for Phase 1 and 2 (figure 2.3).
The Diffie-Hellman groups and Perfect Forward Secrecy Settings can be found under “Advanced
Settings” / “Advanced VPN Properties” (figure 2.4).
Additional settings
For remote Dynamic IP Gateways, the settings are not taken from the community, but set in the
“Global Properties” dialog under “Remote Access” / “VPN Authentication and Encryption”. Via the
“Edit...” button, you can configure sets of algorithms that all gateways support (figure 2.5).
Please note that these settings restrict the available algorithms for all gateways, and also influence
the VPN client connections.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 35 of 94
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 36 of 94
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 37 of 94
References
• Check Point VPN R77 Administration Guide (may require a UserCenter account to access)
2.4.3. PPTP
PPTP is considered insecure, Microsoft recommends to “use a more secure VPN tunnel”15 .
There is a cloud service that cracks the underlying MS-CHAPv2 authentication protocol for the price
of USD 20016 , and given the resulting MD4 hash, all PPTP traffic for a user can be decrypted.
The following settings reflect our recommendations as best as possible on the Cisco ASA platform.
These are - of course - just settings regarding SSL/TLS (i.e. Cisco AnyConnect) and IPsec. For further
security settings regarding this platform the appropriate Cisco guides should be followed.
Settings
15 http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/advisory/2743314
16 https://www.cloudcracker.com/blog/2012/07/29/cracking-ms-chap-v2/
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 38 of 94
New IPsec policies have been defined which do not make use of ciphers that may be cause for
concern. Policies have a "Fallback" option to support legacy devices.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 39 of 94
3DES has been completely disabled as such Windows XP AnyConnect Clients will no longer be able
to connect.
The Cisco ASA platform does not currently support RSA Keys above 2048bits.
Legacy ASA models (e.g. 5505, 5510, 5520, 5540, 5550) do not offer the possibility to configure for
SHA256/SHA384/SHA512 nor AES-GCM for IKEv2 proposals.
References
• http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/roadmap/asaroadmap.html
• http://www.cisco.com/web/about/security/intelligence/nextgen_crypto.html
2.4.5. Openswan
Settings
Note: the available algorithms depend on your kernel configuration (when using protostack=netkey)
and/or build-time options.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 40 of 94
How to test
and look for ’IKE algorithms wanted/found’ and ’ESP algorithms wanted/loaded’.
References
• https://www.openswan.org/
2.4.6. tinc
Defaults
tinc uses 2048 bit RSA keys, Blowfish-CBC, and SHA1 as default settings and suggests the usage of
CBC mode ciphers. Any key length up to 8196 is supported and it does not need to be a power of
two. OpenSSL Ciphers and Digests are supported by tinc.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 41 of 94
2.5. PGP/GPG - Pretty Good Privacy 2.5. PGP/GPG - Pretty Good Privacy
Settings
Generate keys with
tincd -n NETNAME -K8196
Old keys will not be deleted (but disabled), you have to delete them manually. Add the following
lines to your tinc.conf on all machines
Cipher = aes-256-cbc
Digest = SHA512
References
The OpenPGP protocol 17 uses asymmetric encryption to protect a session key which is used to
encrypt a message. Additionally, it signs messages via asymmetric encryption and hash functions.
Research on SHA-1 conducted back in 200518 has made clear that collision attacks are a real threat
to the security of the SHA-1 hash function. PGP settings should be adapted to avoid using SHA-1.
When using PGP, there are a couple of things to take care of:
Properly dealing with key material, passphrases and the web-of-trust is outside of the scope of
this document. The GnuPG website19 has a good tutorial on PGP.
This Debian How-to20 is a great resource on upgrading your old PGP key as well as on safe default
settings. This section is built based on the Debian How-to.
17 https://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc4880
18 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html
19 http://www.gnupg.org/
20 https://www.debian-administration.org/users/dkg/weblog/48
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 42 of 94
2.7. Instant Messaging Systems 2.6. IPMI, ILO and other lights out management solutions
Hashing
Before you generate a new PGP key, make sure there is enough entropy available (see subsection
3.3.2).
We strongly recommend that any remote management system for servers such as ILO, iDRAC, IPMI
based solutions and similar systems never be connected to the public internet. Consider creating
an unrouted management VLAN and access that only via VPN.
For servers, we mostly recommend to apply what’s proposed by the Peter’s manifesto21 .
In short:
• require the use of TLS for both client-to-server and server-to-server connections
• prefer or require TLS cipher suites that enable forward secrecy
• deploy certificates issued by well-known and widely-deployed certification authorities (CAs)
The last point being out-of-scope for this section, we will only cover the first two points.
2.7.2. ejabberd
21 https://github.com/stpeter/manifesto
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 43 of 94
Settings
ejabberd is one of the popular Jabber servers. In order to be compliant with the manifesto, you
should adapt your configuration22 :
{listen,
[
{5222, ejabberd_c2s, [
{access, c2s},
{shaper, c2s_shaper},
{max_stanza_size, 65536},
starttls,
starttls_required,
{certfile, "/etc/ejabberd/ejabberd.pem"}
]},
]}.
{s2s_use_starttls, required_trusted}.
{s2s_certfile, "/etc/ejabberd/ejabberd.pem"}.
Additional settings
Older versions of ejabberd (< 2.0.0) need to be patched23 to be able to parse all of the certificates
in the CA chain.
Newer versions of ejabberd now support specifying the cipher string in the config file. See the com-
mit message: https://github.com/processone/ejabberd/commit/1dd94ac0d06822daa8c394ea2da20d91c8209124.
However, this change did not yet make it into the stable release at the time of this writing.
References
How to test
22 http://www.process-one.net/docs/ejabberd/guide_en.html
23 http://hyperstruct.net/2007/06/20/installing-the-startcom-ssl-certificate-in-ejabberd/
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 44 of 94
2.7. Instant Messaging Systems 2.7.3. Chat privacy - Off-the-Record Messaging (OTR)
The OTR protocol works on top of the Jabber protocol24 . It adds to popular chat clients (Adium,
Pidgin...) the following properties for encrypted chats:
• Authentication
• Integrity
• Confidentiality
• Forward secrecy
It basically uses Diffie-Hellman, AES and SHA1. Communicating over an insecure instant messaging
network, OTR can be used for end to end encryption.
There are no specific configurations required but the protocol itself is worth to be mentioned.
2.7.4. Charybdis
There are numerous implementations of IRC servers. In this section, we choose Charybdis which
serves as basis for ircd-seven25 , developed and used by freenode. Freenode is actually the biggest
IRC network26 . Charybdis is part of the Debian & Ubuntu distributions.
/* Extensions */
#loadmodule "extensions/chm_sslonly_compat.so";
loadmodule "extensions/extb_ssl.so";
serverinfo {
ssl_private_key = "etc/test.key";
ssl_cert = "etc/test.cert";
ssl_dh_params = "etc/dh.pem";
# set ssld_count as number of cores - 1
ssld_count = 1;
};
listen {
sslport = 6697;
};
2.7.5. SILC
SILC27 is instant messaging protocol publicly released in 2000. SILC is a per-default secure chat
protocol thanks to a generalized usage of symmetric encryption. Keys are generated by the server
meaning that if compromised, communication could be compromised.
24 https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/Protocol-v3-4.0.0.html
25 https://dev.freenode.net/redmine/projects/ircd-seven
26 http://irc.netsplit.de/networks/top10.php
27 http://www.silcnet.org/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SILC_(protocol)
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 45 of 94
2.8.1. Oracle
• We do not test this here, since we only reference other papers for Oracle so far.
References
• Technical safety requirements by Deutsche Telekom AG (German). Please read section 17.12
or pages 129 and following (Req 396 and Req 397) about SSL and ciphersuites http://www.
telekom.com/static/-/155996/7/technische-sicherheitsanforderungen-si
2.8.2. MySQL
Settings
[mysqld]
ssl
ssl-ca=/etc/mysql/cacert.pem
ssl-cert=/etc/mysql/server-cert.pem
ssl-key=/etc/mysql/server-key.pem
# needs OpennSSL build
ssl-cipher=DH+CAMELLIA:EDH+aRSA:EECDH+aRSA+AESGCM:EECDH+aRSA+SHA384:EECDH+aRSA+\
\SHA256:EECDH:+CAMELLIA256:+AES256:+CAMELLIA128:+AES128:+SSLv3:!aNULL:!eNULL:!\
\LOW:!3DES:!MD5:!EXP:!PSK:!DSS:!RC4:!SEED:!ECDSA:CAMELLIA256-SHA:AES256-SHA:\
\CAMELLIA128-SHA:AES128-SHA
References
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 46 of 94
How to test
After restarting the server run the following query to see if the ssl settings are correct:
show variables like '%ssl%';
2.8.3. DB2
• We do not test this here, since we only reference other papers for DB2 so far.
Settings
ssl_cipherspecs: In the link above the whole SSL-configuration is described in-depth. The following
command shows only how to set the recommended ciphersuites.
# recommended and supported ciphersuites
References
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 47 of 94
2.8.4. PostgreSQL
Settings
To start in SSL mode the server.crt and server.key must exist in the server’s data directory $PG-
DATA.
Starting with version 9.2, you have the possibility to set the path manually.
ssl_cert_file = 'server.crt' # (change requires restart)
ssl_key_file = 'server.key' # (change requires restart)
ssl_ca_file = 'root.crt' # (change requires restart)
References
How to test
To test your ssl settings, run psql with the sslmode parameter:
psql "sslmode=require host=postgres-server dbname=database" your-username
28 http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/runtime-config-connection.html
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 48 of 94
2.9. Intercepting proxy solutions and reverse proxies 2.9. Intercepting proxy solutions and reverse proxies
Within enterprise networks and corporations with increased levels of paranoia or at least some
defined security requirements it is common not to allow direct connections to the public internet.
For this reason proxy solutions are deployed on corporate networks to intercept and scan the
traffic for potential threats within sessions.
While the latest solution might be the most "up to date", it arises a new front in the context
of this paper, because the most secure part of a client’s connection could only be within the
corporate network, if the proxy-server handles the connection to the destination server in an
insecure manner.
Conclusion: Don’t forget to check your proxy solutions SSL-capabilities. Also do so for your reverse
proxies!
2.9.1. Bluecoat
• SGOS 6.5.x
BlueCoat Proxy SG Appliances can be used as forward and reverse proxies. The reverse proxy
feature is rather under-developed, and while it is possible and supported, there only seems to be
limited use of this feature "in the wild" - nonetheless there are a few cipher suites to choose from,
when enabling SSL features.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 49 of 94
The same protocols are available for forward proxy settings and should be adjusted accordingly:
In your local policy file add the following section:
<ssl>
DENY server.connection.negotiated_ssl_version=(SSLV2, SSLV3)
Disabling protocols and ciphers in a forward proxy environment could lead to unexpected results
on certain (misconfigured?) webservers (i.e. ones accepting only SSLv2/3 protocol connections)
2.9.2. Pound
• Pound 2.6
Settings
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 50 of 94
Address 10.10.0.10
Port 443
AddHeader "Front-End-Https: on"
Cert "/path/to/your/cert.pem"
## See 'man ciphers'.
Ciphers "TLSv1.2:TLSv1.1:!SSLv3:!SSLv2:EDH+CAMELLIA:EDH+aRSA:EECDH+aRSA+AESGCM\
\:EECDH+aRSA+SHA384:EECDH+aRSA+SHA256:EECDH:+CAMELLIA256:+AES256:+CAMELLIA128\
\:+AES128:+SSLv3:!aNULL:!eNULL:!LOW:!3DES:!MD5:!EXP:!PSK:!DSS:!RC4:!SEED:!\
\ECDSA:CAMELLIA256-SHA:AES256-SHA:CAMELLIA128-SHA:AES128-SHA"
Service
BackEnd
Address 10.20.0.10
Port 80
End
End
End
2.9.3. stunnel
• stunnel 4.53-1.1ubuntu1 on Ubuntu 14.04 Trusty with OpenSSL 1.0.1f, without disabling
Secure Client-Initiated Renegotiation
• stunnel 5.02-1 on Ubuntu 14.04 Trusty with OpenSSL 1.0.1f
• stunnel 4.53-1.1 on Debian Wheezy with OpenSSL 1.0.1e, without disabling Secure Client-
Initiated Renegotiation
Settings
ciphers = EDH+CAMELLIA:EDH+aRSA:EECDH+aRSA+AESGCM:EECDH+aRSA+SHA384:EECDH+aRSA+\
\SHA256:EECDH:+CAMELLIA256:+AES256:+CAMELLIA128:+AES128:+SSLv3:!aNULL!eNULL:!LOW\
\:!3DES:!MD5:!EXP:!PSK:!DSS:!RC4:!SEED:!ECDSA:CAMELLIA256-SHA:AES256-SHA:\
\CAMELLIA128-SHA:AES128-SHA
curve = secp384r1
options = NO_SSLv2
options = NO_SSLv3
options = cipher_server_preference
; Secure Client-Initiated Renegotiation can only be disabled wit stunnel >= 4.54
;renegotiation = no
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 51 of 94
Additional information
Secure Client-Initiated Renegotiation can only be disabled for stunnel versions >= 4.54, when the
renegotiation parameter has been added (See changelog).
References
How to test
See appendix A
2.10. Kerberos
This section discusses various implementations of the Kerberos 5 authentication protocol on Unix
and Unix-like systems as well as on Microsoft Windows.
2.10.1. Overview
Kerberos provides mutual authentication of two communicating parties, e.g. a user using a net-
work service. The authentication process is mediated by a trusted third party, the Kerberos key
distribution centre (KDC). Kerberos implements secure single-sign-on across a large number of
network protocols and operating systems. Optionally, Kerberos can be used to create encrypted
communications channels between the user and service.
The Kerberos protocol over time has been extended with a variety of extensions and Kerberos
implementations provide additional services in addition to the aforementioned KDC. All discussed
implementations provide support for trust relations between multiple realms, an administrative
network service (kerberos-adm, kadmind) as well as a password changing service (kpasswd). Some-
times, alternative database backends for ticket storage, X.509 and SmartCard authentication are
provided. Of those, only administrative and password changing services will be discussed.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 52 of 94
Only the Kerberos 5 protocol and implementation will be discussed. Kerberos 4 is obsolete, inse-
cure and its use is strongly discouraged.
The aim of Kerberos is to unify authentication across a wide range of services, for many different
users and use cases and on many computer platforms. The resulting complexity and attack surface
make it necessary to carefully plan and continuously evaluate the security of the overall ecosystem
in which Kerberos is deployed. Several assumptions are made on which the security of a Kerberos
infrastructure relies:
• Every KDC in a realm needs to be trustworthy. The KDC’s principal database must not become
known to or changed by an attacker. The contents of the principal database enables the
attacker to impersonate any user or service in the realm.
• Synchronisation between KDCs must be secure, reliable and frequent. An attacker that is
able to intercept or influence synchronisation messages obtains or influences parts of the
principal database, enabling impersonation of affected principals. Unreliable or infrequent
synchronisation enlarges the window of vulnerability after disabling principals or changing
passwords that have been compromised or lost.
• KDCs must be available. An attacker is able to inhibit authentication for services and users
by cutting off their access to a KDC.
• Service keytabs need to be secured against unauthorized access similarly to SSL/TLS server
certificates. Obtaining a service keytab enables an attacker to impersonate a service.
• DNS infrastructure must be secure and reliable. Hosts that provide services need consistent
forward and reverse DNS entries. The identity of a service is tied to its DNS name, similarly
the realm a client belongs to as well as the KDC, kpasswd and kerberos-adm servers may
be specified in DNS TXT and SRV records. Spoofed DNS entries will cause denial-of-service
situations and might endanger[MIT13, HA00] the security of a Kerberos realm.
• Clients and servers in Kerberos realms need to have synchronized clocks. Tickets in Kerberos
are created with a limited, strictly enforced lifetime. This limits an attacker’s window of
opportunity for various attacks such as the decryption of tickets in sniffed network traffic or
the use of tickets read from a client computer’s memory. Kerberos will refuse tickets with
old timestamps or timestamps in the future. This would enable an attacker with access to a
systems clock to deny access to a service or all users logging in from a specific host.
Therefore we suggest:
• Secure all KDCs at least as strongly as the most secure service in the realm.
• Dedicate physical (i.e. non-VM) machines to be KDCs. Do not run any services on those
machines beyond the necessary KDC, kerberos-adm, kpasswd and kprop services.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 53 of 94
• Restrict physical and administrative access to the KDCs as severely as possible. E.g. ssh
access should be limited to responsible adminstrators and trusted networks.
• Use DNSSEC. If that is not possible, at least ensure that all servers and clients in a realm use
a trustworthy DNS server contacted via secure network links.
• Avoid services that require the user to enter a password which is then checked against
Kerberos. Prefer services that are able to use authentication via service tickets, usually not
requiring the user to enter a password except for the initial computer login to obtain a
ticket-granting-ticket (TGT). This limits the ability of attackers to spy out passwords through
compromised services.
2.10.2. Implementations
Along the lines of cipher string B, the following etypes are recommended: aes256-cts-hmac-sha1-96
camellia256-cts-cmac aes128-cts-hmac-sha1-96 camellia128-cts-cmac.
Existing installations The configuration samples below assume new installations without preex-
isting principals.
• Be aware that for existing setups, the master_key_type can not be changed easily since it
requires a manual conversion of the database. When in doubt, leave it as it is.
• When changing the list of supported_enctypes, principals where all enctypes are no longer
supported will cease to work.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 54 of 94
Table 2.6.: Commonly supported Kerberos encryption types by implementation. Algorithm names ac-
cording to RFC3961, except where aliases can be used or the algorithm is named differently altogether
as stated [Rae05a, Hud12, Rae05b, NYHR05, NYHR05, krb10, Jav, Shi].
1 des-cbc-crc ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
2 des-cbc-md4 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✘
3 des-cbc-md5 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
6 des3-cbc-none ✘ ✔ ✔ ✘
a
7 des3-cbc-sha1 ✘ ✔ ✘ ✘
16 des3-cbc-sha1-kd ✔b ✔c ✔ ✘
17 aes128-cts-hmac-sha1-96 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔d
18 aes256-cts-hmac-sha1-96 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔e
23 rc4-hmac ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
24 rc4-hmac-exp ✔ ✘ ✔ ✔
f
25 camellia128-cts-cmac ✔ ✘ ✘ ✘
f
26 camellia256-cts-cmac ✔ ✘ ✘ ✘
a b
named old-des3-cbc-sha1 alias des3-cbc-sha1, des3-hmac-sha1 c named des3-cbc-sha1 d since Vista,
Server 2008 e since 7, Server 2008R2 f since 1.9
• Principals with weak enctypes pose an increased risk for password bruteforce attacks if an
attacker gains access to the database.
To get rid of principals with unsupported or weak enctypes, a password change is usually the
easiest way. Service principals can simply be recreated.
MIT krb5
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 55 of 94
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 56 of 94
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 57 of 94
3. Theory
3.1. Overview
This chapter provides the necessary background information on why chapter 2 recommended
cipher string B.
We start off by explaining the structure of cipher strings in section 3.2.1 (architecture) and define
perfect forward secrecy ( P F S ) in 3.2.2. Next we present Cipher String A and Cipher String B in section
3.2.3. This concludes the section on cipher strings. In theory, the reader should now be able to
construct his or her own cipher string. However, the question why certain settings were chosen still
remains. To answer this part, we need to look at recommended keylengths, problems in specific
algorithms and hash functions and other cryptographic parameters. As mentioned initially in
section 1.2, the ENISA [ENI13], ECRYPT 2 [IS12] and BSI [fSidIB13] reports go much more into these
topics and should be consulted in addition.
We try to answer the questions by explaining issues with random number generators (section 3.3),
keylengths (section 3.4), current issues in ECC (section 3.5), a note of warning on SHA-1 (section
3.6) and some comments on Diffie Hellman key exchanges (section 3.7). All of this is important in
understanding why certain choices were made for Cipher String A and B. However, for most system
administrators, the question of compatibility is one of the most pressing ones. Having the freedom
to be compatible with any client (even running on outdated operating systems) of course, reduces
the security of our cipher strings. We address these topics in section 3.2.4. All these sections will
allow a system administrator to balance his or her needs for strong encryption with usability and
compatibility.
Last but not least, we finish this chapter by talking about issues in PKIs (section 3.8), Certificate
Authorities and on hardening a PKI. Note that these last few topics deserve a book on their own.
Hence this guide can only mention a few current topics in this area.
This section defines some terms which will be used throughout this guide.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 58 of 94
A cipher suite is a standardized collection of key exchange algorithms, encryption algorithms (ci-
phers) and Message authentication codes (MAC) algorithm that provides authenticated encryption
schemes. It consists of the following components:
Key exchange protocol: “An (interactive) key exchange protocol is a method whereby parties who
do not share any secret information can generate a shared, secret key by communicating over
a public channel. The main property guaranteed here is that an eavesdropping adversary
who sees all the messages sent over the communication line does not learn anything about
the resulting secret key.” [KL08]
Example: DHE
Authentication: The client authenticates the server by its certificate. Optionally the server may
authenticate the client certificate.
Example: RSA
Cipher: The cipher is used to encrypt the message stream. It also contains the key size and mode
used by the suite.
Example: AES256
Message authentication code (MAC): A MAC ensures that the message has not been tampered
with (integrity).
Examples: SHA256
Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD): AEAD is a class of authenticated encryp-
tion block-cipher modes which take care of encryption as well as authentication (e.g. GCM,
CCM mode).
Example: AES256-GCM
A note on nomenclature: there are two common naming schemes for cipher strings – IANA names
(see appendix B) and the more well known OpenSSL names. In this document we will always use
OpenSSL names unless a specific service uses IANA names.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 59 of 94
Forward Secrecy or Perfect Forward Secrecy is a property of a cipher suite that ensures confiden-
tiality even if the server key has been compromised. Thus if traffic has been recorded it can not be
decrypted even if an adversary has got hold of the server key 1 2 3 .
In principle system administrators who want to improve their communication security have to
make a difficult decision between effectively locking out some users and keeping high cipher
suite security while supporting as many users as possible. The website https://www.ssllabs.com/
gives administrators and security engineers a tool to test their setup and compare compatibility
with clients. The authors made use of ssllabs.com to arrive at a set of cipher suites which we will
recommend throughout this document.
At the time of writing, our recommendation is to use the following set of strong cipher suites
which may be useful in an environment where one does not depend on many, different clients
and where compatibility is not a big issue. An example of such an environment might be machine-
to-machine communication or corporate deployments where software that is to be used can be
defined without restrictions.
• TLS 1.2
• Perfect forward secrecy / ephemeral Diffie Hellman
• strong MACs (SHA-2) or
• GCM as Authenticated Encryption scheme
EDH+aRSA+AES256:EECDH+aRSA+AES256:!SSLv3’
Compatibility: At the time of this writing only Win 7 and Win 8.1 crypto stack, OpenSSL ≥ 1.0.1e,
Safari 6 / iOS 6.0.1 and Safar 7 / OS X 10.9 are covered by that cipher string.
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_secrecy
2 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/pushing-perfect-forward-secrecy-important-web-privacy-protection
3 http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/06/25/ssl-intercepted-today-decrypted-tomorrow.html
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 60 of 94
In this section we propose a slightly weaker set of cipher suites. For example, there are known
weaknesses for the SHA-1 hash function that is included in this set. The advantage of this set of
cipher suites is not only better compatibility with a broad range of clients, but also less computa-
tional workload on the provisioning hardware.
EDH+CAMELLIA:EDH+aRSA:EECDH+aRSA+AESGCM:EECDH+aRSA+SHA256:EECDH:+CAMELLIA128:+AES1
28:+SSLv3:!aNULL:!eNULL:!LOW:!3DES:!MD5:!EXP:!PSK:!DSS:!RC4:!SEED:!IDEA:!ECDSA:kED
H:CAMELLIA128-SHA:AES128-SHA
Compatibility: Note that these cipher suites will not work with Windows XP’s crypto stack (e.g.
IE, Outlook), We could not verify yet if installing JCE also fixes the Java 7 DH-parameter length
limitation (1024 bit). TODO: do that!
Explanation: For a detailed explanation of the cipher suites chosen, please see ??. In short,
finding a single perfect cipher string is practically impossible and there must be a tradeoff between
compatibility and security. On the one hand there are mandatory and optional ciphers defined
in a few RFCs, on the other hand there are clients and servers only implementing subsets of the
specification.
Straight forward, the authors wanted strong ciphers, forward secrecy 4 and the best client com-
patibility possible while still ensuring a cipher string that can be used on legacy installations (e.g.
OpenSSL 0.9.8).
4 http://nmav.gnutls.org/2011/12/price-to-pay-for-perfect-forward.html
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 61 of 94
Our recommended cipher strings are meant to be used via copy and paste and need to work "out
of the box".
• TLSv1.2 is preferred over TLSv1.0 (while still providing a useable cipher string for TLSv1.0
servers).
• AES256 and CAMELLIA256 count as very strong ciphers at the moment.
• AES128 and CAMELLIA128 count as strong ciphers at the moment
• DHE or ECDHE for forward secrecy
• RSA as this will fit most of today’s setups
• AES256-SHA as a last resort: with this cipher at the end, even server systems with very
old OpenSSL versions will work out of the box (version 0.9.8 for example does not provide
support for ECC and TLSv1.1 or above).
Note however that this cipher suite will not provide forward secrecy. It is meant to provide
the same client coverage (eg. support Microsoft crypto libraries) on legacy setups.
3.2.4. Compatibility
TODO: write this section. The idea here is to first document which server (and openssl) version
we assumed. Once these parameters are fixed, we then list all clients which are supported for
Variant A) and B). Therefore we can document compatibilities to some extent. The sysadmin can
then choose roughly what he looses or gains by omitting certain cipher suites.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 62 of 94
A good source of random numbers is essential for many crypto operations. The key feature of a
good random number generator is the non-predictability of the generated numbers. This means
that hardware support for generating entropy is essential.
Random number generators can fail – returning predictable non-random numbers – if not enough
entropy is available when random numbers should be generated.
This typically occurs for embedded devices and virtual machines. Embedded devices lack some
entropy sources other devices have, e.g.:
Virtual machines emulate some hardware components so that the generated entropy is over-
estimated. The most critical component that has been shown to return wrong results in an emu-
lated environment is the timing source [Eng11, POL11].
Typically the most vulnerable time where low-entropy situations occur is shortly after a reboot.
Unfortunately many operating system installers create cryptographic keys shortly after a re-
boot [HDWH12].
Another problem is that OpenSSL seeds its internal random generator only seldomly from the
hardware random number generator of the operating system. This can lead to situations where a
daemon that is started at a time when entropy is low keeps this low-entropy situation for hours
leading to predictable session keys [HDWH12].
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 63 of 94
3.3.2. Linux
On Linux there are two devices that return random bytes when read; the /dev/random can block
until sufficient entropy has been collected while /dev/urandom will not block and return whatever
(possibly insufficient) entropy has been collected so far.
Unfortunately most crypto implementations are using /dev/urandom and can produce predictable
random numbers if not enough entropy has been collected [HDWH12].
Linux supports the injection of additional entropy into the entropy pool via the device /dev/random.
On the one hand this is used for keeping entropy across reboots by storing output of /dev/random
into a file before shutdown and re-injecting the contents during the boot process. On the other
hand this can be used for running a secondary entropy collector to inject entropy into the kernel
entropy pool.
On Linux you can check how much entropy is available with the command:
$ cat /proc/sys/kernel/random/entropy_avail
3.3.3. Recommendations
To avoid situations where a newly deployed server doesn’t have enough entropy it is recommended
to generate keys (e.g. for SSL or SSH) on a system with a sufficient amount of entropy available and
transfer the generated keys to the server. This is especially advisable for small embedded devices
or virtual machines.
For embedded devices and virtual machines deploying additional userspace software that gen-
erates entropy and feeds this to kernel entropy pool (e.g. by writing to /dev/random on Linux)
is recommended. Note that only a process with root rights can update the entropy counters in
the kernel; non-root or user processes can still feed entropy to the pool but cannot update the
counters [Wik13a].
For Linux the haveged implementation [HAV13a] based on the HAVEGE [SS03] strong random
number generator currently looks like the best choice. It can feed its generated entropy into the
kernel entropy pool and recently has grown a mechanism to monitor the quality of generated
random numbers [HAV13b]. The memory footprint may be too high for small embedded devices,
though.
For systems where – during the lifetime of the keys – it is expected that low-entropy situations
occur, RSA keys should be preferred over DSA keys: For DSA, if there is ever insufficient entropy
at the time keys are used for signing this may lead to repeated ephemeral keys. An attacker who
can guess an ephemeral private key used in such a signature can compromise the DSA secret
key. For RSA this can lead to discovery of encrypted plaintext or forged signatures but not to the
compromise of the secret key [HDWH12].
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 64 of 94
3.4. Keylengths
Recommendations on keylengths need to be adapted regularly. Since this document first of all is
static and second of all, does not consider itself to be authoritative on keylengths, we would rather
refer to existing publications and websites. Recommending a safe key length is a hit-and-miss
issue.
Furthermore, when choosing an encryption algorithm and key length, the designer/sysadmin
always needs to consider the value of the information and how long it must be protected. In other
words: consider the number of years the data needs to stay confidential.
The ECRYPT II publication [IS12] gives a fascinating overview of strengths of symmetric keys in
chapter 5 and chapter 7. Summarizing ECRYPT II, we recommend 128 bit of key strength for
symmetric keys. In ECRYPT II, this is considered safe for security level 7, long term protection.
In the same ECRYPT II publication you can find a practical comparison of key size equivalence
between symmetric key sizes and RSA, discrete log (DLOG) and EC keylengths. ECRYPT II arrives at
the interesting conclusion that for an equivalence of 128 bit symmetric size, you will need to use
an 3248 bit RSA key [IS12, chapter 7, page 30].
There are a couple of other studies comparing keylengths and their respective strengths. The
website http://www.keylength.com/ compares these papers and offers a good overview of ap-
proximations for key lengths based on recommendations by different standardization bodies and
academic publications. Figure 3.3 shows a typical comparison of keylengths on this web site.
Summary
• For asymmetric public-key cryptography we consider any key length below 3248 bits to be
deprecated at the time of this writing (for long term protection).
• For elliptic curve cryptography we consider key lengths below 256 bits to be inadequate for
long term protection.
• For symmetric algorithms we consider anything below 128 bits to be inadequate for long
term protection.
Special remark on 3DES: We want to note that 3DES theoretically has 168 bits of security, however
based on the NIST Special Publication 800-57 5 , it is clear that 3DES can only be considered to
provide for 80 bits / 112 bits security.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 65 of 94
3.5. A note on Elliptic Curve Cryptography 3.5. A note on Elliptic Curve Cryptography
Figure 3.3.: Screenshot of http://www.keylength.com for 128 bit symmetric key size equivalents
Elliptic Curve Cryptography (simply called ECC from now on) is a branch of cryptography that
emerged in the mid-1980s. The security of the RSA algorithm is based on the assumption that
factoring large numbers is infeasible. Likewise, the security of ECC, DH and DSA is based on the
discrete logarithm problem [Wik13b, McC90, Wol13]. Finding the discrete logarithm of an elliptic
curve from its public base point is thought to be infeasible. This is known as the Elliptic Curve
Discrete Logarithm Problem (ECDLP). ECC and the underlying mathematical foundation are not
easy to understand - luckily, there have been some great introductions on the topic lately 6 7 8 . ECC
provides for much stronger security with less computationally expensive operations in comparison
to traditional asymmetric algorithms (See the Section 3.4). The security of ECC relies on the elliptic
curves and curve points chosen as parameters for the algorithm in question. Well before the NSA-
leak scandal there has been a lot of discussion regarding these parameters and their potential
subversion. A part of the discussion involved recommended sets of curves and curve points chosen
by different standardization bodies such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology
6 http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/10/a-relatively-easy-to-understand-primer-on-elliptic-curve-cryptography
7 https://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/12/04/ecc.html
8 http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/~sdg/ecc.html
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 66 of 94
(NIST) 9 which were later widely implemented in most common crypto libraries. Those parameters
came under question repeatedly from cryptographers [BL13, Sch13b, W.13]. At the time of writing,
there is ongoing research as to the security of various ECC parameters [DJB13]. Most software
configured to rely on ECC (be it client or server) is not able to promote or black-list certain curves.
It is the hope of the authors that such functionality will be deployed widely soon. The authors of
this paper include configurations and recommendations with and without ECC - the reader may
choose to adopt those settings as he finds best suited to his environment. The authors will not
make this decision for the reader.
A word of warning: One should get familiar with ECC, different curves and parameters if one
chooses to adopt ECC configurations. Since there is much discussion on the security of ECC, flawed
settings might very well compromise the security of the entire system!
In the last years several weaknesses have been shown for SHA-1. In particular, collisions on SHA-1
can be found using 263 operations, and recent results even indicate a lower complexity. Therefore,
ECRYPT II and NIST recommend against using SHA-1 for generating digital signatures and for other
applications that require collision resistance. The use of SHA-1 in message authentication, e.g.
HMAC, is not immediately threatened.
We recommend using SHA-2 whenever available. Since SHA-2 is not supported by older versions
of TLS, SHA-1 can be used for message authentication if a higher compatibility with a more diverse
set of clients is needed.
Our configurations A and B reflect this. While configuration A does not include SHA-1, configuration
B does and thus is more compatible with a wider range of clients.
A common question is which Diffie Hellman (DH) Parameters should be used for Diffie Hellman
key exchanges10 . We follow the recommendations in ECRYPT II [IS12, chapter 16]
Where configurable, we recommend using the Diffie Hellman groups defined for IKE, specifically
groups 14-18 (2048–8192 bit MODP [KK03]). These groups have been checked by many eyes and
can be assumed to be secure.
9 http://www.nist.gov
10 http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/1963/how-large-should-a-diffie-hellman-p-be
11 https://www.bettercrypto.org/static/dhparams/
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 67 of 94
Public-Key Infrastructures try to solve the problem of verifying whether a public key belongs to a
given entity, so as to prevent Man In The Middle attacks.
There are two approaches to achieve that: Certificate Authorities and the Web of Trust.
Certificate Authorities (CAs) sign end-entities’ certificates, thereby associating some kind of identity
(e.g. a domain name or an email address) with a public key. CAs are used with TLS and S/MIME
certificates, and the CA system has a big list of possible and real problems which are summarized
in section 3.8.2 and [DKBH13].
The Web of Trust is a decentralized system where people sign each others keys, so that there is a
high chance that there is a “trust path” from one key to another. This is used with PGP keys, and
while it avoids most of the problems of the CA system, it is more cumbersome.
As alternatives to these public systems, there are two more choices: running a private CA, and
manually trusting keys (as it is used with SSH keys or manually trusted keys in web browsers).
The first part of this section addresses how to obtain a certificate in the CA system. The second
part offers recommendations on how to improve the security of your PKI.
In order to get a certificate, you can find an external CA willing to issue a certificate for you, run
your own CA, or use self-signed certificates. As always, there are advantages and disadvantages
for every one of these options; a balance of security versus usability needs to be found.
There is a fairly large number of commercial CAs that will issue certificates for money. Some
of the most ubiquitous commercial CAs are Verisign, GoDaddy, and Teletrust. However, there
are also CAs that offer certificates for free. The most notable examples are StartSSL, which is a
company that offers some types of certificates for free, and CAcert, which is a non-profit volunteer-
based organization that does not charge at all for issuing certificates. Finally, in the research and
education field, a number of CAs exist that are generally well-known and well-accepted within the
higher-education community.
When requesting a certificate from a CA, it is vital that you generate the key pair yourself. In
particular, the private key should never be known to the CA. If a CA offers to generate the key pair
for you, you should not trust that CA.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 68 of 94
Generating a key pair and a certificate request can be done with a number of tools. On Unix-like
systems, it is likely that the OpenSSL suite is available to you. In this case, you can generate a
private key and a corresponding certificate request as follows:
% openssl req -new -nodes -keyout <servername>.key -out <servername>.csr -newkey \
\rsa:<keysize>
Country Name (2 letter code) [AU]:DE
State or Province Name (full name) [Some-State]:Bavaria
Locality Name (eg, city) []:Munich
Organization Name (eg, company) [Internet Widgits Pty Ltd]:Example
Organizational Unit Name (eg, section) []:Example Section
Common Name (e.g. server FQDN or YOUR name) []:example.com
Email Address []:[email protected]
In some situations it is advisable to run your own certificate authority. Whether this is a good idea
depends on the exact circumstances. Generally speaking, the more centralized the control of the
systems in your environment, the fewer pains you will have to go through to deploy your own CA.
On the other hand, running your own CA maximizes the trust level that you can achieve because it
minimizes external trust dependencies.
Again using OpenSSL as an example, you can set up your own CA with the following commands on
a Debian system:
% cd /usr/lib/ssl/misc
% sudo ./CA.pl -newca
Answer the questions according to your setup. Now that you have configured your basic settings
and issued a new root certificate, you can issue new certificates as follows:
% cd /usr/lib/ssl/misc
% sudo ./CA.pl -newreq
Alternatively, software such as TinyCA [Wik13d] that acts as a “wrapper” around OpenSSL and tries
to make life easier is available.
If the desired trust level is very high and the number of systems involved is limited, the easiest way
to set up a secure environment may be to use self-signed certificates. A self-signed certificate is
not issued by any CA at all, but is signed by the entity that it is issued to. Thus, the organizational
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 69 of 94
overhead of running a CA is eliminated at the expense of having to establish all trust relationships
between entities manually.
With OpenSSL, you can self-sign a previously created certificate with this command:
% openssl req -new -x509 -key privkey.pem -out cacert.pem -days 1095
The resulting certificate will by default not be trusted by anyone at all, so in order to be useful, the
certificate will have to be made known a priori to all parties that may encounter it.
In recent years several CAs were compromised by attackers in order to get a hold of trusted
certificates for malicious activities. In 2011 the Dutch CA Diginotar was hacked and all certificates
were revoked [Eli11]. Recently Google found certificates issued to them, which were not used by
the company [Dam11]. The concept of PKIs heavily depends on the security of CAs. If they get
compromised the whole PKI system will fail. Some CAs tend to incorrectly issue certificates that
were designated to do a different job than what they were intended to by the CA [Ada13b].
Therefore several security enhancements were introduced by different organizations and ven-
dors [H. 13]. Currently two methods are used, DANE [HS12] and Certificate Pinning [C. 13]. Google
recently proposed a new system to detect malicious CAs and certificates called Certificate Trans-
parency [Ada13a].
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) is a web security policy mechanism. HSTS is realized through
HTTP header by which a web server declares that complying user agents (web browsers) should
interact with it by using only secure HTTPS connections12 .
HSTS header is bound to a DNS name or domain by which the server was accessed. For example if
server serves content for two domains and it is HTTPS enabled only for one domain, the browser
won’t enforce HSTS for the latter.
12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 70 of 94
3.9. TLS and its support mechanisms 3.9.1. HTTP Strict Transport Security
HSTS reduces the risk of active man-in-the-middle attacks such as SSL stripping, and impersonation
attacks with untrusted certificate. HSTS also helps to avoid unintentional mistakes such as insecure
links to a secure web site (missing HTTPS links13 ), and mistyped HTTPS URLs.
After the web browser receives a HSTS header in a correctly 14 prepared SSL session it will automat-
ically use secure HTTPS links for accessing the server. This prevents unencrypted HTTP access (SSL
striping, mistyped HTTPS URLs, etc.) when the server is accessed later by the client.
When a server (that previously emitted a HSTS header) starts using untrusted certificate, complying
user agent must show an error message and block the server connection. Thus impersonation MITM
attack with untrusted certificate cannot occur.
For the initial setup HSTS header needs a trusted secure connection over HTTPS. This limitation
can be addressed by compiling a list of STS enabled sites directly into a browser15 .
• max-age=<number-of-seconds>
• includeSubdomains
max-age is a required directive. This directive indicates the number of seconds during which the
user agent should enforce the HSTS policy (after the reception of the STS header field from a
server).
includeSubdomains is an optional directive. This directive indicates that the HSTS Policy applies to
this HSTS Host as well as any subdomains of the host’s domain name.
13 Thus, it might be useful for fixing HTTPS mixed-content related errors, see https://community.qualys.com/blogs/
securitylabs/2014/03/19/https-mixed-content-still-the-easiest-way-to-break-ssl.
14 Website must load without SSL/TLS browser warnings (certificate is issued by a trusted CA, contains correct DNS name, it
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 71 of 94
3.9. TLS and its support mechanisms 3.9.1. HTTP Strict Transport Security
HSTS Considerations
It is recommended to serve all content using HTTPS, but there are exceptions to this rule as
well. Consider running a private PKI18 . CRLs and OCSP responses are published typically by HTTP
protocol. If HSTS is enabled on the site where OCSP and CRLs are published the browser might fail
fetching CRL or validating OCSP response.
Similar reasoning goes for includeSubdomains. One needs to be sure that HTTPS can be enforced
for all subdomains. Moreover the administrators are advised to watch for expiration of the SSL
certificate and handle the renewal process with caution. If a SSL certificate is renewed after expira-
tion or misses a (HSTS enabled) domain name, the connection to site will break (without providing
override mechanism to the end user).
Finally HSTS should be tested with lower max-age values and deployed with higher max-age val-
ues.
Testing HSTS
For local testing it is possible to utilize Chrome Web browser UI by typing chrome://net-internals/
#hsts19 in the address bar.
Testing over the Internet can be conducted by Qualys SSL Labs test https://www.ssllabs.com/
ssltest/. Strict Transport Security (HSTS) information is located in the Protocol Details section.
References
17 http://status.modern.ie/httpstricttransportsecurityhsts
18 see Public Key Infrastructures
19 see http://blog.chromium.org/2011/06/new-chromium-security-features-june.html
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 72 of 94
3.9. TLS and its support mechanisms 3.9.1. HTTP Strict Transport Security
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 73 of 94
Listings
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 74 of 94
Listings Listings
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 75 of 94
A. Tools
• ssllabs.com offers a great way to check your webserver for misconfigurations. See https://
www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/. Furthermore, ssllabs.com has a good best practices tutorial, which
focuses on avoiding the most common mistakes in SSL.
• SSL Server certificate installation issues https://www.sslshopper.com/ssl-checker.html
• Check SPDY protocol support and basic TLS setup http://spdycheck.org/
• XMPP/Jabber Server check (Client-to-Server and Server-to-Server) https://xmpp.net/
• Luxsci SMTP TLS Checker https://luxsci.com/extranet/tlschecker.html
• Does your mail server support StartTLS? https://starttls.info/
• http://checktls.com is a tool for testing arbitrary TLS services.
• TLS and SSH key check https://factorable.net/keycheck.html
• http://tls.secg.org is a tool for testing interoperability of HTTPS implementations for ECC
cipher suites.
• http://www.whynopadlock.com/ Testing for mixed SSL parts loaded via http that can totally
lever your HTTPS.
Browser checks
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 76 of 94
A.3. RNGs
• ENT is a pseudo random number generator sequence tester.
• HaveGE is a tool which increases the Entropy of the Linux random number generator devices.
It is based on the HAVEGE algorithm. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=945516
• Dieharder a random number generator testing tool.
• CAcert Random another random number generator testing service.
A.4. Guides
• See: https://www.ssllabs.com/downloads/SSL_TLS_Deployment_Best_Practices.pdf.
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 77 of 94
B. Links
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 78 of 94
C. Suggested Reading
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 79 of 94
This table shows the cipher suite names as IANA defined them, the names OpenSSL uses, and the
respective codes.
The list of IANA cipher suite names was retrieved from https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/
tls-parameters-4.csv on Tue Jun 3 22:36:58 2014.
The list of OpenSSL Ciphers was generated with OpenSSL 1.0.1e 11 Feb 2013.
0x00,0x00 TLS_NULL_WITH_NULL_NULL
0x00,0x01 TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_MD5 NULL-MD5
0x00,0x02 TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_SHA NULL-SHA
0x00,0x03 TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC4_40_MD5 EXP-RC4-MD5
0x00,0x04 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 RC4-MD5
0x00,0x05 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA RC4-SHA
0x00,0x06 TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC2_CBC_40_MD5 EXP-RC2-CBC-MD5
0x00,0x07 TLS_RSA_WITH_IDEA_CBC_SHA
0x00,0x08 TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA EXP-DES-CBC-SHA
0x00,0x09 TLS_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA DES-CBC-SHA
0x00,0x0A TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA DES-CBC3-SHA
0x00,0x0B TLS_DH_DSS_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA
0x00,0x0C TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA
0x00,0x0D TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
0x00,0x0E TLS_DH_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA
0x00,0x0F TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA
0x00,0x10 TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
0x00,0x11 TLS_DHE_DSS_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA EXP-EDH-DSS-DES-CBC-SHA
0x00,0x12 TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA EDH-DSS-DES-CBC-SHA
0x00,0x13 TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA EDH-DSS-DES-CBC3-SHA
0x00,0x14 TLS_DHE_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA EXP-EDH-RSA-DES-CBC-SHA
0x00,0x15 TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA EDH-RSA-DES-CBC-SHA
0x00,0x16 TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA
0x00,0x17 TLS_DH_anon_EXPORT_WITH_RC4_40_MD5 EXP-ADH-RC4-MD5
0x00,0x18 TLS_DH_anon_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 ADH-RC4-MD5
0x00,0x19 TLS_DH_anon_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA EXP-ADH-DES-CBC-SHA
0x00,0x1A TLS_DH_anon_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA ADH-DES-CBC-SHA
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 80 of 94
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 81 of 94
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 82 of 94
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 83 of 94
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 84 of 94
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 85 of 94
0xC0,0x55 TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x56 TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x57 TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x58 TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x59 TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x5A TLS_DH_anon_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x5B TLS_DH_anon_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x5C TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x5D TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x5E TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x5F TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x60 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x61 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x62 TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x63 TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x64 TLS_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
0xC0,0x65 TLS_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
0xC0,0x66 TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
0xC0,0x67 TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
0xC0,0x68 TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
0xC0,0x69 TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
0xC0,0x6A TLS_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x6B TLS_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x6C TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x6D TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x6E TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x6F TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x70 TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
0xC0,0x71 TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
0xC0,0x72 TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
0xC0,0x73 TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA384
0xC0,0x74 TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
0xC0,0x75 TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA384
0xC0,0x76 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
0xC0,0x77 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA384
0xC0,0x78 TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
0xC0,0x79 TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA384
0xC0,0x7A TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x7B TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x7C TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 86 of 94
0xC0,0x7D TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x7E TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x7F TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x80 TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x81 TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x82 TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x83 TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x84 TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x85 TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x86 TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x87 TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x88 TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x89 TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x8A TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x8B TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x8C TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x8D TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x8E TLS_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x8F TLS_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x90 TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x91 TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x92 TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
0xC0,0x93 TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
0xC0,0x94 TLS_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
0xC0,0x95 TLS_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA384
0xC0,0x96 TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
0xC0,0x97 TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA384
0xC0,0x98 TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
0xC0,0x99 TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA384
0xC0,0x9A TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
0xC0,0x9B TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA384
0xC0,0x9C TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM
0xC0,0x9D TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM
0xC0,0x9E TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM
0xC0,0x9F TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM
0xC0,0xA0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8
0xC0,0xA1 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM_8
0xC0,0xA2 TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8
0xC0,0xA3 TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM_8
0xC0,0xA4 TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 87 of 94
0xC0,0xA5 TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CCM
0xC0,0xA6 TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM
0xC0,0xA7 TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CCM
0xC0,0xA8 TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8
0xC0,0xA9 TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CCM_8
0xC0,0xAA TLS_PSK_DHE_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8
0xC0,0xAB TLS_PSK_DHE_WITH_AES_256_CCM_8
0xC0,0xAC TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM
0xC0,0xAD TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM
0xC0,0xAE TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8
0xC0,0xAF TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM_8
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 88 of 94
E. Further research
The following is a list of services, software packages, hardware devices or protocols that we consid-
ered documenting but either did not manage to document yet or might be able to document later.
We encourage input from the Internet community.
1 e.g.,
all the REFEDS folks (https://refeds.org/)), including InCommon (http://www.incommon.org/federation/metadata.
html https://wiki.shibboleth.net/confluence/display/SHIB2/TrustManagement
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 89 of 94
Bibliography
[Ada13a] Adam Langley, Ben Laurie, Emilia Kasper. Certificate Transparency. http://www.
certificate-transparency.org https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6962/, 07 2013.
[Ada13b] Adam Langley, et. al. Go X.509 Verification Source Code. https://code.google.com/p/go/
source/browse/src/pkg/crypto/x509/verify.go#173, 12 2013.
[BL13] D. J. Bernstein and Tanja Lange. Security dangers of the NIST curves. Presentation slides,
September 2013. http://cr.yp.to/talks/2013.09.16/slides-djb-20130916-a4.pdf
[C. 13] C. Evans and C. Palmer. Public Key Pinning Extension for HTTP. https://tools.ietf.org/
html/draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-09, November 2013.
[Dam11] Damon Poeter. Fake Google Certificate Puts Gmail at Risk. http://www.pcmag.com/
article2/0,2817,2392063,00.asp, August 2011.
[DJB13] Safecurves: choosing safe curves for elliptic-curve cryptography. Technical background,
December 2013. Accessed 2013-12-09. http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/rigid.html
[DKBH13] Zakir Durumeric, James Kasten, Michael Bailey, and J. Alex Halderman. Analysis of the
HTTPS certificate ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 13th Internet Measurement Conference,
October 2013. https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/https-imc13.pdf
[EHS10] Rachel Engel, Brad Hill, and Scott Stender. Attacking kerberos deployments.
Slides, 2010. https://media.blackhat.com/bh-us-10/presentations/Stender_Engel_Hill/
BlackHat-USA-2010-Stender-Engel-Hill-Attacking-Kerberos-Deployments-slides.pdf
[Eng11] Jakob Engblom. Evaluating HAVEGE randomness. Blog: Observations from uppsala,
February 2011. http://jakob.engbloms.se/archives/1374
[ENI13] ENISA and Vincent Rijmen, Nigel P. Smart, Bogdan warinschi, Gaven Wat-
son. Enisa - algorithms, key sizes and parameters report. Technical report,
Oct 2013. http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/identity-and-trust/library/deliverables/
algorithms-key-sizes-and-parameters-report
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 90 of 94
Bibliography Bibliography
[fSidIB13] Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI). Bsi tr-02102 kryptographis-
che verfahren. Technical report, Jan 2013. https://www.bsi.bund.de/SharedDocs/
Downloads/DE/BSI/Publikationen/TechnischeRichtlinien/TR02102/BSI-TR-02102_pdf
[H. 13] H. Tschofenig and E. Lear. Evolving the Web Public Key Infrastructure. https://tools.ietf.
org/html/draft-tschofenig-iab-webpki-evolution-01.txt, November 2013.
[HA00] Ken Hornstein and Jeffrey Altman. Distributing kerberos kdc and realm information
with dns. Internet draft, IETF, March 2000. https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/48/I-D/
cat-krb-dns-locate-02.txt
[HAV13a] haveged – a simple entropy daemon. Software homepage, December 2013. Accessed
2013-12-06. http://www.issihosts.com/haveged/
[HAV13b] haveged – a simple entropy daemon: Runtime testing. Technical background, December
2013. Accessed 2013-12-06. http://www.issihosts.com/haveged/
[HDWH12] Nadia Heninger, Zakir Durumeric, Eric Wustrow, and J. Alex Halderman. Mining your Ps
and Qs: Detection of widespread weak keys in network devices. In Proceedings of the 21st
USENIX Security Symposium, August 2012. https://factorable.net/weakkeys12.extended.
pdf
[Hof05] P. Hoffman. Cryptographic Suites for IPsec. RFC 4308 (Proposed Standard), December
2005. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4308.txt
[HS12] P. Hoffman and J. Schlyter. The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE)
Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA. RFC 6698 (Proposed Standard), August
2012. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6698.txt
[Hud12] G. Hudson. Camellia Encryption for Kerberos 5. RFC 6803 (Informational), November
2012. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6803.txt
[IS12] ECRYPT II and D SYM. Ecrypt ii. pages 79–86, 2012. http://www.ecrypt.eu.org/documents/
D.SPA.20.pdf
[Jav] Java generic security services: (java gss) and kerberos. Documentation, Oracle. http:
//docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/security/jgss/jgss-features.html
[Jiv12] A. Jivsov. Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) in OpenPGP. RFC 6637 (Proposed Standard),
June 2012. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6637.txt
[KBC97] H. Krawczyk, M. Bellare, and R. Canetti. HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authen-
tication. RFC 2104 (Informational), February 1997. Updated by RFC 6151. https:
//www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2104.txt
[KK03] T. Kivinen and M. Kojo. More Modular Exponential (MODP) Diffie-Hellman groups for
Internet Key Exchange (IKE). RFC 3526 (Proposed Standard), May 2003. https://www.ietf.
org/rfc/rfc3526.txt
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 91 of 94
Bibliography Bibliography
[KL08] J. Katz and Y. Lindell. Introduction to modern cryptography. Chapman and Hall/CRC
Cryptography and Network Security Series. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2008. http://books.
google.at/books?id=WIc_AQAAIAA J
[krb10] Kerberos 5 release 1.9. Release notes, MIT, December 2010. http://web.mit.edu/
kerberos/krb5-1.9/
[LK08] M. Lepinski and S. Kent. Additional Diffie-Hellman Groups for Use with IETF Standards.
RFC 5114 (Informational), January 2008. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5114.txt
[LS11] L. Law and J. Solinas. Suite B Cryptographic Suites for IPsec. RFC 6379 (Informational),
October 2011. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6379.txt
[McC90] Kevin S. McCurley. The discrete logarithm problem. In Cryptology and Computational
Number Theory, Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics, volume 42, pages 49–74,
1990. http://www.mccurley.org/papers/dlog.pdf
[NYHR05] C. Neuman, T. Yu, S. Hartman, and K. Raeburn. The Kerberos Network Authentication
Service (V5). RFC 4120 (Proposed Standard), July 2005. Updated by RFCs 4537, 5021,
5896, 6111, 6112, 6113, 6649, 6806. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4120.txt
[Rae05a] K. Raeburn. Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Encryption for Kerberos 5. RFC 3962
(Proposed Standard), February 2005. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3962.txt
[Rae05b] K. Raeburn. Encryption and Checksum Specifications for Kerberos 5. RFC 3961 (Proposed
Standard), February 2005. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3961.txt
[Sch13a] Bruce Schneier. The NSA is breaking most encryption on the internet. Blog: Schneier on
security, September 2013. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/the_nsa_
is_brea.html
[Sch13b] Bruce Schneier. The NSA is breaking most encryption on the internet. Answer to blog
comment, September 2013. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/the_nsa_
is_brea.html#c1675929
[SS03] A. Seznec and N. Sendrier. HAVEGE: a user-level software heuristic for generating em-
pirically strong random numbers. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Sim-
ulation, 13(4):334–346, October 2003. http://www.irisa.fr/caps/projects/hipsor/scripts/
down.php?id=13781296&ext=.pdf
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 92 of 94
Bibliography Bibliography
[Wik13b] Discrete logarithm. Wikipedia, Wikipedia, December 2013. Accessed 2013-12-12. https:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_logarithm
[Wol13] Elliptic curve. Math dictionary entry, Wolfram Research Mathworld, December 2013.
Accessed 2013-12-12. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EllipticCurve.html
[YF13] Yuval Yarom and Katrina Falkner. Flush+ reload: a high resolution, low noise, l3 cache
side-channel attack, 2013. http://eprint.iacr.org/2013/448.pdf
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 93 of 94
Index
L Linux 21
Applied Crypto Hardening • Draft revision: 7b6fd17 (2015-02-18 19:45:16 +0100) Aaron Zauner page 94 of 94