https://cxsecurity.com/issue/WLB-2013090100

# OpenSSL,OpenSSH ecdsa authentication code inconsistent return values

漏洞ID | 1044430 | 漏洞类型 | |

发布时间 | 2013-09-13 | 更新时间 | 2013-09-13 |

CVE编号 | N/A | CNNVD-ID | N/A |

漏洞平台 | N/A | CVSS评分 | N/A |

##### |漏洞来源

##### |漏洞详情

漏洞细节尚未披露

##### |漏洞EXP

```
Main menu
Skip to content
Home
About
Post navigation
← ProFTPd mod_sftp/mod_sftp_pam invalid pool allocation during kbdint authentication
OpenSSL,OpenSSH ecdsa authentication code inconsistent return values.. no vulnerability?
Posted on September 13, 2013
I am always looking for bugs ins OpenSSH as it is written in clear to read source code and has very strong security. Somehow I was suprised when I saw the new ecdsa authentication checks in OpenSSH and especially the transition to OpenSSL.
I did read the code and tested it and I doubt that OpenSSH or OpenSSL is vulnerable at all. I cannot verify this without a strong understanding of the math involved. Please don’t laugh at me if this leads to thin air.
Ecdsa is the authentication method used by newer OpenSSH versions aside with RSA and DSA public key authentication.
It uses elliptic curves and points on these elliptic curves to verify the connection is valid and authenticate. Inside the OpenSSH code I see that it will accept at least three curve types from the client. These are nistp256,nistp384 and nistp521 being identified by their bit count. nistp256 is used as a default curve. I could not validate if other curve types that are supported by OpenSSL can be used by a remote connection to go through OpenSSH authentication based on their bit count, as far as I have seen OpenSSH checks the bit count of the requested curve. I tried to supply OpenSSH with two dimensional curves that are supported by OpenSSL but it didn’t exactly succeed. Why is this important in a potential attack?
Because OpenSSH calls two functions in the transition to OpenSSL to validate authentication based on group types and more identifiers, these are:
EC_GROUP_cmp
EC_POINT_cmp
EC_GROUP_cmp should validate if two groups (the curves) are equal to each other.
Fun is that the top check done is checking the curve name, which again is the bit count of the curves supplied:
int EC_GROUP_cmp(const EC_GROUP *a,
const EC_GROUP *b,
BN_CTX *ctx)
…
479 /* compare the field types*/
480 if (EC_METHOD_get_field_type(EC_GROUP_method_of(a)) !=
481 EC_METHOD_get_field_type(EC_GROUP_method_of(b)))
482 return 1;
483 /* compare the curve name (if present) */
484 if (EC_GROUP_get_curve_name(a) && EC_GROUP_get_curve_name(b) &&
485 EC_GROUP_get_curve_name(a) == EC_GROUP_get_curve_name(b))
486 return 0;
If the bit count is equal then OpenSSL will return zero as a value for success. This is not particular wrong behaviour, still akward that it only checks for the bit count when it should check the curve itself. For me a curve is like a graph and the bit count is only a small factor of the real information that should be checked before returning success.
The second function OpenSSH calls for verifiying authentication is EC_POINT_cmp. This function compares two EC_POINT values that encode x,y and z coordinates as OpenSSL BIGNUM types, the first originates from the authorized_keys file, the second from the client.
This function has more suspicious code flow. It returns success in comparison of the points if the curves method doesn’t have a point compare function. I know that this is internal audit code but still it shouldn’t return zero indicating success to OpenSSH, a return value of 1 should be fine.
The second check in EC_POINT_cmp will return success in comparison if the curves method is different from the first points method or if the first points method is different from the second points method. Especially the second check is interesting because point two is user supplied. Again a return value of 1 would be secure even if this might be internal audit code.
int EC_POINT_cmp(const EC_GROUP *group,
const EC_POINT *a,
const EC_POINT *b,
BN_CTX *ctx)
992 {
993 if (group->meth->point_cmp == 0)
994 {
995 ECerr(EC_F_EC_POINT_CMP, ERR_R_SHOULD_NOT_HAVE_BEEN_CALLED);
996 return 0;
997 }
998 if ((group->meth != a->meth) || (a->meth != b->meth))
999 {
1000 ECerr(EC_F_EC_POINT_CMP, EC_R_INCOMPATIBLE_OBJECTS);
1001 return 0;
1002 }
1003 return group->meth->point_cmp(group, a, b, ctx);
1004 }
When all these checks are passed it will call the curves point compare routine that is bound to the curve type.
The default case is that ec_GFp_simple_cmp function gets called for a nistp256 curve.
This function checks at the very top if point a is at its infinity. If that is the case and point b is at its infinity too than zero is returned again as success. It might sound undoable but what if somebody manages to set both points to its infinity by manipulating either one of the points or the curve. A point is at infinity if its Z coordinate is zero.
Here is an interesting commit involving the function:
http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=1612&user=guest&pass=guest
These are the two authentication checks done in OpenSSH to verify a users certificate, here is the check in key.c:
299 if (EC_GROUP_cmp(EC_KEY_get0_group(a->ecdsa),
300 EC_KEY_get0_group(b->ecdsa), bnctx) != 0 ||
301 EC_POINT_cmp(EC_KEY_get0_group(a->ecdsa),
302 EC_KEY_get0_public_key(a->ecdsa),
303 EC_KEY_get0_public_key(b->ecdsa), bnctx) != 0) {
304 BN_CTX_free(bnctx);
305 return 0;
306 }
It much depends on the order the arguments are given to the OpenSSL functions because if EC_POINT_cmp takes the curve (named group here) as first argument it will do run authentication checks with this supplied curve. OpenSSH does that correctly by supplying the curve from the authorized_keys file as first argument whereas proftpd mod_sftp does supply the clients curve as the first argument and moreover the clients point BIGNUM coordinates as the first point in the arguments.
I personally do not trust this code, not because i don’t believe it’s secure but because it bluntly returns authentication success to OpenSSH when making internal audit checks. My personal opinion is that OpenSSH does not deserve this entry point of insecurity.
Cheers,
Kingcope
```

##### 检索漏洞

开始时间

结束时间