Re: [CFRG] Escalation: time commitment to fix *production* security bugs for BLS RFC v4?

Quan Thoi Minh Nguyen <msuntmquan@gmail.com> Fri, 23 April 2021 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <msuntmquan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144D43A1B03 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pPvh_Ij-NVvy for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D41203A1B04 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id o16so12108091plg.5 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=d6HBGmEBq0147UB5Qs+rgkEUR1xL4Ro5/4DltBXLyWU=; b=Z+2iSagAiFZZKO9sWUgIWJs18MmVZqCHZUwfAHBbt13kBvEZIwkYKBh1zhWDJTqCci u7278aTamLSPMmEMGjsQavsHSa1zVDqDo38dBDjfddRJxza0aURbb6Yfna7lN76zPorT 6fnTXB+wN+hOxkULegP3HFwPon6qj8PK3WWdYLA050q4LhHWCSQ+Eawfwfia4QX5yEh7 6HOuNm9s8ZDhoe+cY779JAd75nbjO5v+EF0EPRPtPk2muSKinRwQqCftVZ3H3ZPuAJfu DqyohclbSkkgFbe1BBScoEWEEc12IlOUeMY6GvumETYody0juYNKpBYJJOLaPOEBLF1U Xbxg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=d6HBGmEBq0147UB5Qs+rgkEUR1xL4Ro5/4DltBXLyWU=; b=Ks+oxCgD/N2TqeyHeArUzyuOa6r2MetWTtkY7d9XYTSS/Ah+jQvv5vtxsYkwVda5qm /6wn0WERbfqG2fvH24+FD1962V+Xt43au+jUFcRqEazPV3avSgfIIq/XetWli3p+u8vI sJX7uce2Rh6S05NBgeAbpE7SS7yr75RTSZiHV+Y4zhgeuBQ6eKyC3M6djrU0+lyf1A+3 u8l7aaprRQeDjL1XKaDNMMotod22jjcq9ckV6C2wWPVS2SutuYypK/3IE8eLesqKZ6by E1G6LoRfAgNiz9LZ4aeAhIqXD6NJ59U/InW5lrQwzqb8PLFo+9hzFHyNxcBOCHns5NPr IxZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5314+Y/ufylPSVVDWCezQslNZakjajYi9uAsFGhihQCy4StJVOQm EQn18j4PXe95a1C6nLjlb04gLOy0F/khZsB18ai9dMV2Oy4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz1LTFc9MugC/E0NFJH2A5cdOS+O1+d7+8qKqROaIB8KE/OZErJt8qW9gfiXz8LMMv8Tu9jwcfILpeFRXunML0=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d201:b029:ec:939f:3083 with SMTP id t1-20020a170902d201b02900ec939f3083mr5215338ply.20.1619206307529; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAAEB6g=tU=MF1_QKduEN55ft0rWe+7x0wBbywS083fJrjzP=XA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAEB6g=tU=MF1_QKduEN55ft0rWe+7x0wBbywS083fJrjzP=XA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Quan Thoi Minh Nguyen <msuntmquan@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:31:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAEB6gn=zACTNt0B_OyGdtnpxX1pOvMUDuR=m9f0BuqmX4753w@mail.gmail.com>
To: cfrg@irtf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c768ea05c0a8d8a6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/yKwD6fwCAQ92sPSiC9lWTM5G1Mw>
Subject: Re: [CFRG] Escalation: time commitment to fix *production* security bugs for BLS RFC v4?
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 19:31:51 -0000

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 9:13 AM Quan Thoi Minh Nguyen <msuntmquan@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'd like to escalate this issue to the CFRG chairs as a last resort. By
> responsibility disclosure mechanism, I reported the bugs *privately far
> before* I posted it publicly at
> https://github.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-bls-signature/issues/38. I did
> everything in my capability: reported the bugs, wrote proof-of-concept
> attack, wrote proof-of-concept fix.
>
> I'm curious what is the time commitment of the RFC's authors in resolving
> the following deadlock:
> + Libraries code (ethereum/py ecc, supranational/blst,
> herumi/bls,sigp/milagro bls) are deployed in *production*. They're not
> academic nor experimental code.
> + Libraries' authors can't fix the code because they have to follow the
> standard.
> + BLS RFC v4's authors don't move an inch in fixing it nor have any time
> commitment.
>
> The standard authors are in an extremely powerful position where they
> dictate what every library should do. Does it go with responsibility for
> responding in a timely manner for security bugs deployed in *production*?
> Even if they don't want to fix the message binding bug, should they at
> least fix a very obvious bug? AggregateVerify((PK_1, PK_2), (msg, msg), 0)
> = True, FastAggregateVerify((PK_1, PK_2), msg, 0) = False.
>
> Note that I'm not saying my proposed fix is correct and RFC's authors
> should follow it. What I'm asking is the BLS RFC authors' time commitments
> in resolving the security issues deployed in production?
>
> Thanks,
> - Quan
>
>