RFR: 8076999: SunJCE support of password-based encryption scheme 2 params (PBES2) not working

[Valerie Peng]

Hi Jamil,

I looked at java.security.AlgorithmParameters and need to update my 
earlier comment below

> - By convention, each init() is a fresh start and wipes out the effect 
> previous init() calls. But in the current webrev, they seems to apply 
> changes on top of each other. This may not be the right model of how 
> things should be handled. In addition, with the existing code handles 
> both PBES2 and PBEwith<KDF>And<CIPHER>, we may need extra logic to 
> restore the fields back to when they are first constructed at the 
> beginning of every engineInit(...).

It turns out that AlgorithmParameters have an "initialized" flag which 
would only accept one successful init() call.

Subsequent call would be rejected by throwing either IOException or 
InvalidParameterSpecException. So, I guess we don't need to worry about 
multiple init() calls. Just that the supplied data is legit and is not 
conflicting with the assumed algorithm values if the object is requested 
under the "friendly" name.

Thanks,
Valerie
On 3/30/2020 8:25 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
>
> Hi Jamil,
>
> Thanks for being so patient. It take me sometime to play around with 
> the changes and think about various scenarios...
>
> Here are some comments:
>
> <RC5Parameters.java>
>
> - Line 38 has RFC 2268 which is for RC2, RC5 is in RFC 2040.
>
> - Line 48-51 comments can be simplified further, essentially, IV 
> (provided or not) shall have the same length as the block size. If not 
> provided explicitly, then its values are all 0s. Just some nit.
>
> <RC5ParametersTests.java>
>
> - line 187: variable name 'pbeSpec' should probably be named as 
> 'rc5Spec' as it has nothing to do with PBE.
>
> <PBES2ParametersTests.java>
>
> - The test is very extensive... May I ask how are the test vectors 
> generated? Are they from some RFCs or external website like NIST or 
> internally generated using these new impl? In particular, I wonder 
> about the test "HmacSHA256 and AES-256-CBC [No Enc parameters]", this 
> is expected to pass, but AES CBC requires IV and if no parameters are 
> explicitly specified, how do things work for decryption where IV is 
> required and cannot generate random values as default IV? I am also 
> not sure about the InitByDERAndEncodeTest, I think we should not alter 
> the given encoding based on our own assumptions/defaults. If given a 
> DER encoding bytes, the same (minor difference such as an absent null 
> params is ok) encoding should be returned when getEncoded() is called.
>
> - Line 143 expVals[4] should be expVals[3]?
>
> <PBES2Parameters.java>
>
> - Current changes are a bit too complicated and I am not sure if it's 
> worthwhile to support RC2, RC5, DESede and DES and do their 
> algorithm-specific checking. PBES2 AlgorithmParameters parsing is 
> already complicated due we support the original name (PBES2) and also 
> the "friendly"  JCA naming convention of including the cipher name and 
> KDF name. On top of it, the current webrev seem to trying to support 
> parsing of all possible algorithms stated in PKCS#5 even when SunJCE 
> provider only support the AES_xxx variants. If only parsing is done, 
> the overhead may be acceptable, but then when there is also algorithm 
> specific checking, I feel this is a bit much as I doubt that they will 
> ever be used.
>
> - There are a lot of String parsing inside the String-arg constructor 
> which can be avoided if we replace this String-arg constructor with a 
> 2-arg constructor with PrfType and EncType. This should simplify the 
> constructor code greatly and make it more robust. Then we probably can 
> remove the getByName() method for both enum types. No need for the 
> constructor to throw NoSuchAlgorithmException as all inputs are 
> provided by provider and unsupported algorithm should be detected 
> before calling this constructor.
>
> - Line 259, add "," after the word "key"?
>
> - The ordering of things under engineInit(AlgorithmParameterSpec 
> paramSpec) seems a bit un-intuitive. User-supplied values should only 
> be stored after pass validation. The assignment (line 324-326) should 
> be done after the various checks. The check at line 338 should be 
> moved up before assigning the default kdf type.
>
> - Missing PBE subclasses for AES_192?
>
> - Some of the static oid constants seems unnecessary as they are only 
> used inside the enum and can be moved there.
>
> - By convention, each init() is a fresh start and wipes out the effect 
> previous init() calls. But in the current webrev, they seems to apply 
> changes on top of each other. This may not be the right model of how 
> things should be handled. In addition, with the existing code handles 
> both PBES2 and PBEwith<KDF>And<CIPHER>, we may need extra logic to 
> restore the fields back to when they are first constructed at the 
> beginning of every engineInit(...).
>
> - I am not too sure about the usefulness of "pbes2AlgorithmName" 
> field. In the current impl, it is set in various places. If it is 
> meant to reflect the latest KDF and CIPHER algorithm used, it's more 
> robust to construct its value when needed. Otherwise, we need to 
> remember updating this value whenever one of these 3 values, i.e. KDF, 
> CIPHER, and keysize, changed.
>
> - Consider grouping the fields of salt, iteration count, keysize, 
> prfType into separate class and move the PBKDF2 parsing/encoding code 
> there. This simplifies the validation and setting of these 4 fields.
>
> - Avoid algorithm-specific checking in this class as it is not 
> scalable and duplicates the checking in the algorithm-specific 
> classes. If you feel they must be done, delegate to the 
> algorithm-specific classes as much as possible. Instead of explicitly 
> checking the parameter spec, use the sequence of 
> AlgorithmParameters.getInstance(String), and its init(...) call and 
> see if the call passes.
>
> - There are also code which sets the keysize for RC2 and RC5 key sizes 
> based on the PBKDF2 and cipher parameters. I think it's reasonable to 
> derive the value from the PBKDF2 params, but not cipher parameters. In 
> the case of RC5, it even assigns a default value (line 760) when all 
> else is failed. Given the purpose of this class is for PBES2 algorithm 
> parameters and we don't support PBES2 cipher with RC2 or RC5, I think 
> we should not go this far. Is there anything that I missed for 
> requiring to set the keysize in this class? If "PBES2" 
> AlgorithmParameters are requested and initialized with DER encoding, 
> we should return the same encoding (unless it's mistakenly encoded as 
> stated in line )  when getEncoded() is called. It's also somewhat 
> strange that the toString() method returns only the "friendly" 
> expanded name without other info. This is different from other 
> AlgorithmParameters impl. But this is just nit comparing to other things.
>
> I adapted your changes with most of my feedback above (except the one 
> on each engineInit() call being independent) and you can find the 
> changes here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/pbes2Exp/webrev/ 
> (The regression test PBES2ParametersTest.java has to be updated a 
> little in order to pass). Hope this can help you understand my comments.
>
> Thanks!
> Valerie
>
>
> On 3/18/2020 3:59 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
>>
>>
>> Right, I recall reviewing this and made some comments. Will take a 
>> look at the updated webrev.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Valerie
>> On 3/17/2020 4:48 PM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I'm finally getting back around to this after dusting off the cobwebs.
>>>
>>> Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jnimeh/reviews/8076999/webrev.03
>>>
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076999
>>>
>>> Valerie, you had some comments from way back (7/9/2019). Just a 
>>> short summary of what's been done to address them:
>>>
>>>   * Removed unused imports
>>>   * Added a default "PBES2" string value for when the toString
>>>     method is called on a PBES2Parameters object before the init()
>>>     method.
>>>   * Tested encoding of PBKDF2 parameters AlgorithmIdentifiers with
>>>     the optional parameters field not present (as opposed to an
>>>     ASN.1 NULL).  OpenSSL seems happy with it so that's how we'll
>>>     encode those.
>>>   * Switched order on the IV and keysize parsing for RC2 parameters
>>>   * Using KEYLEN_ANY (changed to KEYLEN_UNSPEC) now in lieu of -1 in
>>>     the conditionals you cited.
>>>   * For algorithms where the key length is implicit either due to
>>>     the algorithm or the specific OID, we no longer assert the key
>>>     length in the KDF parameters.  This is consistent with other
>>>     implementations such as OpenSSL.
>>>   * Regarding the comment from the parsing in engineInit(byte[])
>>>
>>> "By calling data.getDerValue(), we are essentially peeling one layer 
>>> off, right? If you still agree with me at this point, then note that 
>>> pBES2_params is a local variable and its value should be the same 
>>> unless explicitly re-assigned (as on line 413). Thus, per my reading 
>>> of the code, the tag that you are checking on line 419 is not the 
>>> one for encryption scheme, but rather the outer sequence tag 
>>> encapsulating kdf and encryption scheme. Its current location is 
>>> very misleading though, in between kdf and encryption scheme. To 
>>> really check the tag for kdf and encryption scheme, the tag checking 
>>> should be in parseKDF(...) and parseES(...) against the DerValue 
>>> argument."
>>>
>>> I did add a DerValue check in parseKDF because it is appropriate as 
>>> you stated.  I also removed the check from line 419 in the old 
>>> webrev.  With the new code that check is redundant as we are using 
>>> AlgorithmId.parse() now as the initial operation in parseES, which 
>>> in turn does the sequence tag check for us.
>>>
>>> The check itself on 419 though is testing the ASN.1 tag for the 
>>> Encryption scheme, not the higher level sequence for PBES2-params.  
>>> Otherwise neither the KDF nor the encryption scheme would parse 
>>> properly and none of the tests would pass.
>>>
>>> With this new code, parseKDF and parseES are testing the outer 
>>> SEQUENCE tags for each of the AlgorithmIdentifier objects described 
>>> by keyDerivationFunc and encryptionScheme per RFC 8018.
>>>
>>>   * keysize setting: This one is a bit tricky because key size is
>>>     specified in multiple ways.  The basic flow is this.  Key size
>>>     will start as KEYLEN_UNSPEC.  If it is at any point specified,
>>>     either via the constructor, by KDF params, or by enc params then
>>>     that is the value that is set.  At near the end of parsing a
>>>     validation of the encryption parameters occurs and at that point
>>>     the key length is checked against the algorithm.  If it is an
>>>     alg that uses a fixed value then keysize has to be consistent
>>>     with it.  If it is variable length and it is still
>>>     KEYSIZE_UNSPEC that is also a failure (since something needs to
>>>     be specified to distinguish RC2_40 from RC2_128, for example).
>>>       o This approach seems to work and catches the issue you found
>>>         where certain DER encodings could yield things like
>>>         PBEWithHmacSHA256AndRC5_-1.
>>>   * Added some new tests to handle the changes listed above.
>>>
>>> I'll be updating the CSR shortly to reflect comments there and I'll 
>>> send a separate review notice for that.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> --Jamil
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/security-dev/attachments/20200331/bbb75e10/attachment.htm>