skip to main content
10.1145/2987443.2987480acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesimcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Measuring the Security Harm of TLS Crypto Shortcuts

Published:14 November 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

TLS has the potential to provide strong protection against network-based attackers and mass surveillance, but many implementations take security shortcuts in order to reduce the costs of cryptographic computations and network round trips. We report the results of a nine-week study that measures the use and security impact of these shortcuts for HTTPS sites among Alexa Top Million domains. We find widespread deployment of DHE and ECDHE private value reuse, TLS session resumption, and TLS session tickets. These practices greatly reduce the protection afforded by forward secrecy: connections to 38% of Top Million HTTPS sites are vulnerable to decryption if the server is compromised up to 24 hours later, and 10% up to 30 days later, regardless of the selected cipher suite. We also investigate the practice of TLS secrets and session state being shared across domains, finding that in some cases, the theft of a single secret value can compromise connections to tens of thousands of sites. These results suggest that site operators need to better understand the tradeoffs between optimizing TLS performance and providing strong security, particularly when faced with nation-state attackers with a history of aggressive, large-scale surveillance.

References

  1. D. Adrian, K. Bhargavan, Z. Durumeric, P. Gaudry, M. Green, J. A. Halderman, N. Heninger, D. Springall, E. Thomé, L. Valenta, B. VanderSloot, E. Wustrow, S. Zanella-Béguelin, and P. Zimmermann. Imperfect forward secrecy: How Diffie-Hellman fails in practice. In 22nd ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Oct. 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Alexa Internet, Inc. Alexa Top 1,000,000 Sites. http://s3.amazonaws.com/alexa-static/top-1m.csv.zip.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. Angwin, C. Savage, J. Larson, H. Moltke, L. Poitras, and J. Risen. AT&T helped U.S. spy on Internet on a vast scale. The New York Times, Aug. 16, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/us/politics/atthelped-nsa-spy-on-an-array-of-internet-traffic.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. N. Aviram, S. Schinzel, J. Somorovsky, N. Heninger, M. Dankel, J. Steube, L. Valenta, D. Adrian, J. A. Halderman, V. Dukhovni, E. Käsper, S. Cohney, S. Engels, C. Paar, and Y. Shavitt. DROWN: Breaking TLS with SSLv2. In 25th USENIX Security Symposium, Aug. 2016. https://drownattack.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. M. Belshe, R. Peon, and M. Thomson. Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2). RFC 7540 (Proposed Standard), May 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. B. Beurdouche, K. Bhargavan, A. Delignat-Lavaud, C. Fournet, M. Kohlweiss, A. Pironti, P.-Y. Strub, and J. K. Zinzindohoue. A messy state of the union: Taming the composite state machines of TLS. In 36th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. E. Burzstein and J. M. Picod. Recovering Windows secrets and EFS certificates offline. In 4th USENIX Workshop on Offensive Technologies, Aug. 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Cavium. Intelligent network adapters. http://www.cavium.com/Intelligent_Network_Adapters_NIC4E.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Checkoway, J. Maskiewicz, C. Garman, J. Fried, S. Cohney, M. Green, N. Heninger, R.-P. Weinmann, E. Rescorla, and H. Shacham. A systematic analysis of the Juniper Dual EC incident. In 23rd ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Oct. 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. CNE access to core mobile networks. Media leak. https://theintercept.com/document/2015/02/19/cne-access-core-mobile-networks-2/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Codenomicon. The Heartbleed bug. http://heartbleed.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. D. Cooper, S. Santesson, S. Farrell, S. Boeyen, R. Housley, and W. Polk. Internet X.509 public key infrastructure certificate and certificate revocation list (CRL) profile. RFC 5280 (Proposed Standard), May 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. T. Dierks and C. Allen. The TLS protocol version 1.0. RFC 2246 (Proposed Standard), Jan. 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. T. Dierks and E. Rescorla. The transport layer security (TLS) protocol version 1.2. RFC 5246 (Proposed Standard), Aug. 2008. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5246.txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. W. Diffie, P. C. Van Oorschot, and M. J. Wiener. Authentication and authenticated key exchanges. Designs, Codes and cryptography, 2(2):107--125, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Z. Durumeric, D. Adrian, A. Mirian, M. Bailey, and J. A. Halderman. Censys: A search engine backed by Internet-wide scanning. In 22nd ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Oct. 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Z. Durumeric, J. A. Halderman, et al. Internet-wide scan data repository. https://scans.io.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Z. Durumeric, J. Kasten, M. Bailey, and J. A. Halderman. Analysis of the HTTPS certificate ecosystem. In 13th ACM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC '13, pages 291--304, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Z. Durumeric, F. Li, J. Kasten, J. Amann, J. Beekman, M. Payer, N. Weaver, D. Adrian, V. Paxson, M. Bailey, and J. A. Halderman. The matter of Heartbleed. In 14th ACM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC '14, pages 475--488, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Z. Durumeric, E. Wustrow, and J. A. Halderman. ZMap: Fast Internet-wide scanning and its security applications. In 22nd USENIX Security Symposium, Aug. 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. R. Gallagher. Operation Socialist. The Intercept, Dec. 13, 2014. https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq-inside-story/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. S. Gallagher. Googlers say "f*** you" to NSA, company encrypts internal network. Ars Technica, Nov. 2013. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/googlers-say-f-you-to-nsa-companyencrypts-internal-network/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. B. Gellman and A. Soltani. NSA infiltrates links to Yahoo, Google data centers worldwide, Snowden documents say. The Washington Post, Oct. 30, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nationalsecurity/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-datacenters-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Google. Google for work: Enterprise solutions to work the way you live. https://www.google.com/work/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. N. Heninger, Z. Durumeric, E. Wustrow, and J. A. Halderman. Mining your Ps and Qs: Detection of widespread weak keys in network devices. In Proceedings of the 21st USENIX Security Symposium, Aug. 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. K. E. Hickman. The SSL protocol, Apr. 1995. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hickman-netscape-ssl-00.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. J. Hoffman-Andrews. Forward secrecy at Twitter, Nov. 2013. https://blog.twitter.com/2013/forward-secrecy-at-twitter.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. M. Holt. Caddy 0.8.3 released, Apr. 2016. https://caddyserver.com/blog/caddy-0_8_3-released.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. R. Holz, L. Braun, N. Kammenhuber, and G. Carle. The SSL landscape: a thorough analysis of the X.509 PKI using active and passive measurements. In 11th ACM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC '11, pages 427--444, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Internet Security Research Group. Let's Encrypt certificate authority. https://letsencrypt.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Jimdo. Website builder: Create a free website. http://www.jimdo.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. D. Korobov. Yandex worker stole search engine source code, tried selling for just 28k. Ars Technica, Dec. 2015. http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/yandex-employee-stole-search-engine-source-codetried-to-sell-it-for-just-27000-2/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. A. Langley. How to botch TLS forward secrecy, June 2013. https://www.imperialviolet.org/2013/06/27/botchingpfs.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Z. Lin. TLS session resumption: Full-speed and secure, Feb. 2015. https://blog.cloudflare.com/tls-session-resumption-full-speed-and-secure/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. I. Lovecruft. Twitter, Dec. 2015. https://twitter.com/isislovecruft/status/681590393385914368.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. M. Marquis-Boire, G. Greenwald, and M. Lee. XKEYSCORE: NSA's Google for the world's private communications. The Intercept, July 2015. https://theintercept.com/2015/07/01/nsas-google-worlds-private-communications/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. J. McLaughlin. Spy chief complains that Edward Snowden sped up spread of encryption by 7 years, Apr. 2016. https://theintercept.com/2016/04/25/spy-chief-complains-that-edward-snowden-sped-upspread-of-encryption-by-7-years/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. media-34103. Media leak. http://www.spiegel.de/media/media-34103.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. P. Membrey, D. Hows, and E. Plugge. SSL load balancing. In Practical Load Balancing, pages 175--192. Springer, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Microsoft. TLS/SSL settings, Nov. 2015. https:// technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn786418.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. mod_ssl: Apache HTTP server version 2.4. https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_ssl.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Module ngx_http_ssl_module. http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_ssl_module.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Mozilla Telemetry. https://telemetry.mozilla.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. OpenSSL security advisory, Jan. 2016. https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20160128.txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. PCS harvesting at scale. Media leak. https://theintercept.com/document/2015/02/19/pcs-harvesting-scale/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. K. Poulsen. Snowden's email provider loses appeal over encryption keys. Wired, Apr. 2014. https://www.wired.com/2014/04/lavabit-ruling/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. QUIC, a multiplexed stream transport over UDP. https://www.chromium.org/quic.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. E. Rescorla. The Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol version 1.3 draft-ietf-tls-tls13-15, Aug. 2016. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. I. Ristic. Twitter, Apr. 2014. https://twitter.com/ivanristic/status/453280081897467905.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. I. Ristic. SSL/TLS deployment best practices, Dec. 2014. https://www.ssllabs.com/downloads/SSL_TLS_Deployment_Best_Practices.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. J. Salowey, H. Zhou, P. Eronen, and H. Tschofenig. Transport layer security (TLS) session resumption without server-side state. RFC 4507 (Proposed Standard), May 2006. Obsoleted by RFC 5077.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. J. Salowey, H. Zhou, P. Eronen, and H. Tschofenig. Transport layer security (TLS) session resumption without server-side state. RFC 5077 (Proposed Standard), Jan. 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. J. Schahill and J. Begley. The great SIM heist. The Intercept, Feb. 19, 2015. https://theintercept.com/2015/02/19/great-sim-heist/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. T. Taubert. Botching forward secrecy: The sad state of server-side TLS session resumption implementations, Nov. 2014. https://timtaubert.de/blog/2014/11/the-sad-state-ofserver-side-tls-session-resumption-implementations/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. N. Weaver. In defense of bulk surveillance: It works, Sept. 2015. https://www.lawfareblog.com/defense-bulk-surveillance-it-works.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. K. Zetter. Google hack attack was ultra sophisticated, new details show. Wired, Jan. 2010. https://www.wired.com/2010/01/operation-aurora/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Y. Zhu. Why the web needs perfect forward secrecy more than ever. EFF Deeplinks Blog, Apr. 2014. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/why-web-needs-perfect-forward-secrecy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Measuring the Security Harm of TLS Crypto Shortcuts

                                Recommendations

                                Comments

                                Login options

                                Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                                Sign in
                                • Published in

                                  cover image ACM Conferences
                                  IMC '16: Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference
                                  November 2016
                                  570 pages
                                  ISBN:9781450345262
                                  DOI:10.1145/2987443

                                  Copyright © 2016 Owner/Author

                                  Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

                                  Publisher

                                  Association for Computing Machinery

                                  New York, NY, United States

                                  Publication History

                                  • Published: 14 November 2016

                                  Check for updates

                                  Qualifiers

                                  • research-article

                                  Acceptance Rates

                                  IMC '16 Paper Acceptance Rate48of184submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate277of1,083submissions,26%

                                  Upcoming Conference

                                  IMC '24
                                  ACM Internet Measurement Conference
                                  November 4 - 6, 2024
                                  Madrid , AA , Spain

                                PDF Format

                                View or Download as a PDF file.

                                PDF

                                eReader

                                View online with eReader.

                                eReader