Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
public:papers:acsac2017 [2017-10-09 13:03] – xnemec1 | public:papers:acsac2017 [2017-12-04 19:54] – [Q&A section] xnemec1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
**Primary contact:** Petr Svenda < | **Primary contact:** Petr Svenda < | ||
- | **Abstract: | + | **Abstract: |
- | of RSA public keys.We do so by improving a recently proposed | + | |
- | method based on biases introduced by alternative implementations | + | |
- | of prime selection in different cryptographic libraries. We extend | + | |
- | the previous work by applying statistical inference to approximate | + | |
- | a share of libraries matching an observed distribution of RSA keys | + | |
- | in an inspected dataset (e.g., Internet-wide scan of TLS handshakes). | + | |
- | The sensitivity of our method is sufficient to detect transient events | + | |
- | such as a periodic insertion of keys from a specific library into Certificate | + | |
- | Transparency logs and inconsistencies in archived datasets. | + | |
- | We apply the method on keys from multiple Internet-wide scans | + | |
- | collected in years 2010 through 2017, on Certificate Transparency | + | |
- | logs and on separate datasets for PGP keys and SSH keys. The | + | |
- | results quantify a strong dominance of OpenSSL with more than | + | |
- | 84% TLS keys for Alexa 1M domains, steadily increasing since | + | |
- | the first measurement. OpenSSL is even more popular for GitHub | + | |
- | client-side SSH keys, with a share larger than 96%. Surprisingly, | + | |
- | new certificates inserted in Certificate Transparency logs on certain | + | |
- | days contain more than 20% keys most likely originating from Java | + | |
- | libraries, while TLS scans contain less than 5% of such keys. | + | |
- | Since the ground truth is not known, we compared our measurements | + | |
- | with other estimates and simulated different scenarios | + | |
- | to evaluate the accuracy of our method. To our best knowledge, | + | |
- | this is the first accurate measurement of the popularity of cryptographic | + | |
- | libraries not based on proxy information like web server | + | |
- | fingerprinting, | + | |
- | | + | //We apply the method on keys from multiple Internet-wide scans collected in years 2010 through 2017, on Certificate Transparency logs and on separate datasets for PGP keys and SSH keys. The results quantify a strong dominance of OpenSSL with more than 84% TLS keys for Alexa 1M domains, steadily increasing since the first measurement. OpenSSL is even more popular for GitHub client-side SSH keys, with a share larger than 96%. Surprisingly, |
- | * Download author pre-print of the paper: {{ fixme | pdf}} | + | |
+ | //Since the ground truth is not known, we compared our measurements with other estimates and simulated different scenarios to evaluate the accuracy of our method. To our best knowledge, this is the first accurate measurement of the popularity of cryptographic libraries not based on proxy information like web server fingerprinting, | ||
+ | |||
+ | | ||
+ | * Download author pre-print of the paper: {{ : | ||
* Download presentation: | * Download presentation: | ||
- | **Bibtex (regular paper):** | + | **Bibtex (regular paper)** |
@inproceedings{2017-acsac-nemec, | @inproceedings{2017-acsac-nemec, | ||
Author | Author | ||
Title = {Measuring Popularity of Cryptographic Libraries in Internet-Wide Scans}, | Title = {Measuring Popularity of Cryptographic Libraries in Internet-Wide Scans}, | ||
- | BookTitle | + | BookTitle |
Year = {2017}, | Year = {2017}, | ||
Pages = {??--??}, | Pages = {??--??}, | ||
Line 49: | Line 28: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Resources ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Measurement (classification) tool: [[https:// | ||
+ | * RSA keys from reference libraries: [[https:// | ||
+ | * Data processing (TLS, PGP): [[https:// | ||
+ | * Data processing (Certificate Transparency): | ||
===== Q&A section ===== | ===== Q&A section ===== | ||
- | <callout type=" | + | ==Q: What did you do?== |
+ | A: We used the fact that distributions of RSA public keys generated by cryptographic libraries are slightly biased, to measure the popularity of cryptographic libraries in Internet-wide scans. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Q: Does it mean the biased RSA key generation methods are broken?== | ||
+ | A: No, in general, the bias is not enough for key factorization. However, we did break the Infineon implementation in our recent paper [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Q: What libraries did you analyze? Can you tell all libraries apart?== | ||
+ | A: You can see all the analyzed sources in the following graph. Libraries in the same Group (Group number in square brackets) produce very similar distributions. The popularity of individual Groups can be measured. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
- | ==Q: So what did you do?== | + | ==Q: I want to know the popularity of library X, why wasn't it included? == |
- | A: FIXME | + | A: To suggest other sources that we can add to our analysis, please get in touch with us. If you can also provide keys generated by hardware, open-source and proprietary libraries, we will add them to the [[https:// |