Security/SR-1 - Revision history

Fireduck at 04:07, 21 April 2022

2022-04-21T04:07:21Z

Fireduck at 04:06, 21 April 2022

2022-04-21T04:06:28Z

Fireduck at 04:05, 21 April 2022

2022-04-21T04:05:19Z

Fireduck at 04:04, 21 April 2022

2022-04-21T04:04:28Z

Fireduck: Created page with "Security Review 1 - CVE-2022-21449: Psychic Signatures in Java ## Overview In this CVE some versions of Java do not do proper validation of ECDSA signatures and the signatur..."

2022-04-21T04:01:45Z

Created page with "Security Review 1 - CVE-2022-21449: Psychic Signatures in Java ## Overview In this CVE some versions of Java do not do proper validation of ECDSA signatures and the signatur..."

New page

Security Review 1 - CVE-2022-21449: Psychic Signatures in Java

## Overview

In this CVE some versions of Java do not do proper validation of ECDSA signatures and the signatures can be trivially faked.

This of course seems alarming since Snowblossom makes extensive use of ECDSA signatures, especially for seed based wallets.

However, in review of the issue it was found that while the flaw does absolutely exist in some versions of Java, no version of Snowblossom
uses the Java provided security provider for ECDSA signatures.

In the relevant section of Snowblossom code, we are always explicitly using the Bouncy Castle (BC) cryptographic provider.

Signature sig_engine = Signature.getInstance(algo, Globals.getCryptoProviderName());

## References

https://neilmadden.blog/2022/04/19/psychic-signatures-in-java/

## Test Proceedure

On a system with the problematic java versions the test code was run to reproduce the issue.
<code>
Testing blank signature with bouncycastle:
Should report false meaning bad signature did not validate
false

Testing blank signature java provider:
Should report false meaning bad signature did not validate
true
</code>

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:07, 21 April 2022
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Signature sig_engine = Signature.getInstance(algo, Globals.getCryptoProviderName());		Signature sig_engine = Signature.getInstance(algo, Globals.getCryptoProviderName());
		+
		+	== Impact ==
		+
		+	None. No version of Snowblossom will use the Java ECDSA provider for signatures so we don't care.

	== References ==		== References ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:06, 21 April 2022
Line 17:		Line 17:

	https://neilmadden.blog/2022/04/19/psychic-signatures-in-java/		https://neilmadden.blog/2022/04/19/psychic-signatures-in-java/
		+
		+	https://github.com/snowblossomcoin/snowblossom/blob/eaa43613032f709df0e573a3a911c946f1f892e6/lib/src/SignatureUtil.java#L95

	== Test Procedure ==		== Test Procedure ==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Security Review 1 - CVE-2022-21449: Psychic Signatures in Java
-## Overview
+== Overview ==
 In this CVE some versions of Java do not do proper validation of ECDSA signatures and the signatures can be trivially faked.
@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
      Signature sig_engine = Signature.getInstance(algo, Globals.getCryptoProviderName());
-## References
+== References ==
 https://neilmadden.blog/2022/04/19/psychic-signatures-in-java/
-## Test Procedure
+== Test Procedure ==
 On a system with the problematic java versions the test code was run to reproduce the issue.
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 As expected, the bouncy castle does not have the problem but the java provider does.
-## Test Code
+== Test Code ==
 <code><pre>
 import java.security.*;

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 https://neilmadden.blog/2022/04/19/psychic-signatures-in-java/
-## Test Proceedure
+## Test Procedure
 On a system with the problematic java versions the test code was run to reproduce the issue.
 <code>
 Testing blank signature with bouncycastle:
 Should report false meaning bad signature did not validate
@@ Line 29: / Line 30: @@
 Should report false meaning bad signature did not validate
 true
-</code>
+</pre></code>