5 ms·

https://fidoalliance.org/fido-technotes-the-truth-about-attestation/ https://fidoalliance.org/fido-technotes-the-truth-about-atte... explains this pretty well.

by md_ 5y ago

https://fidoalliance.org/fido-technotes-the-truth-about-attestation/ https://fidoalliance.org/fido-technotes-the-truth-about-atte... explains this pretty well. Basically: * Attestation keys are not unique per authenticator; they're shared among batches of authenticators. * If you extract the batch's attestation key, you can imitate authenticators from that batch. That doesn't mean you can authenticate as a registered authenticator, of course; it just means you can pretend to be a "Yubico XYZ" device. * Yes, I think Cloudflare is assuming it's hard to extract the attestation key. I think this is basically a safe assumption, but if it isn't, they can always choose to distrust batches known to be compromised.

danShumway 5y ago
Thanks, that's really helpful. Followup questions though: - Does this mean if I buy 2 of these devices at the same time, it's possible for me to get the same attestation keys on both devices? I guess depends on how many batches at a time a company is producing. - Doesn't this mean that attestation keys will get more unique over time as devices from the pool fall out of circulation and become rarer? Are keys rotated to prevent that (ie, would a manufacturer ever re-release a new pool with the same keys as an old one)?
- md_ 5y ago
  - Yes. - To my (limited) knowledge, yes, you are right that keys will get more unique over time. That's a very good point. Keys are not rotated nor (generally) are they rotatable; they are usually read-only. If you are using a very old FIDO device and worried it has too much entropy now--like, if it's a "rare" or "vintage" device!--then you should buy a new one, I guess? (I honestly have not thought about your second point before, but I am not really deep in the FIDO stuff. So take my answer with a grain of salt.)
  - fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
    Manufacturers don't necessarily have to rotate the keys on older devices; they could rotate the keys on newer devices such that it's difficult to reliably tell what batch/generation a newer device is from, because it could be using a newer or older key. Such behavior would require some way of revoking old keys from newer devices to prevent a situation where a compromised and blacklisted old key is selected and causes the CAPTCHA to fail, seemingly at random.
    - md_ 5y ago
      I don't totally follow. The key is baked into each device, so if you sold a mix of devices where some had the old key and some the new, revocation of the old key would brick the new devices with that old key.
- gjvr 5y ago
  I understand from [0] that the attestation key is shared across all instances (SNs) of the same model (PN): "...For example, all YubiKey 4 devices would have the same attestation certificate; or all Samsung Galaxy S8’s would have the same attestation certificate". So you would not need to to buy them at the same time. But of course, despite this, still a unique key is generated for each identity upon sign up [0]. I am not sure (as in 'have no knowledge of') the entropy for these devices. [0] https://fidoalliance.org/fido-technotes-the-truth-about-attestation/ https://fidoalliance.org/fido-technotes-the-truth-about-atte...
dane-pgp 5y ago
> they can always choose to distrust batches known to be compromised. Which effectively means bricking the devices of 9999 innocent users each time. Why are we creating a world where users will be told they can't visit a website or access their account any more because they didn't spend enough money on a hardware DRM device which tries to hide a key from them?
- md_ 5y ago
  Hmm. I'm of two minds about this. Vanguard restricts (or used to) trusted keys to those made by Yubico. This annoys me, given they let me use any phone number. So this suggests (as you seem to be arguing) that attestation is an attractive nuisance—when you can't tell whether a phone number is with a trustworthy or untrustworthy exchange, teleco, or VOIP service, you just have no choice but to trust it. But when you can enforce attestation, some Vanguard employee with a Yubico Certified Security Engineer certificate (I made that up) decides to restrict us to Yubico's keys. On the other hand, FIDO aims to also support enterprise usage, and I think it'd be a nonstarter to say that enterprises shouldn't be able to restrict you to officially issued authenticators—and without remote attestation, they'd have to do more cumbersome steps like handling enrollment centrally (and then shipping enrolled authenticators to users), which, in a distributed workforce, sucks. So attestation fills a need, and I think we just have to hope it's not widely used or abused. Is Cloudflare's usage an abuse? Eh, I don't know. It's an interesting experiment.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > FIDO aims to also support enterprise usage It seems to me that this use case is completely at odds with the general use cases we expect when people browse the web. In the enterprise, society accepts the idea that someone's employer knows their name, their address, their bank details, and even everything they browse on their company-issued computer. Whether that's good or bad, it's not a model that FIDO should be trying to support. This reminds me of the controversy around TLS 1.3 allowing forward secrecy.[0] If companies want to make their own alternative to FIDO which has DRM and user tracking, to control access to their intranets, that's fine, but we shouldn't have allowed FIDO to become a Trojan Horse (or Trojan Dog?) to sneak this anti-feature into the general web. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/ets-isnt-tls-and-you-shouldnt-use-it https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/ets-isnt-tls-and-you-s...

by md_ 5y ago

danShumway 5y ago

Thanks, that's really helpful. Followup questions though: - Does this mean if I buy 2 of these devices at the same time, it's possible for me to get the same attestation keys on both devices? I guess depends on how many batches at a time a company is producing. - Doesn't this mean that attestation keys will get more unique over time as devices from the pool fall out of circulation and become rarer? Are keys rotated to prevent that (ie, would a manufacturer ever re-release a new pool with the same keys as an old one)?

md_ 5y ago
- Yes. - To my (limited) knowledge, yes, you are right that keys will get more unique over time. That's a very good point. Keys are not rotated nor (generally) are they rotatable; they are usually read-only. If you are using a very old FIDO device and worried it has too much entropy now--like, if it's a "rare" or "vintage" device!--then you should buy a new one, I guess? (I honestly have not thought about your second point before, but I am not really deep in the FIDO stuff. So take my answer with a grain of salt.)
- fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
  Manufacturers don't necessarily have to rotate the keys on older devices; they could rotate the keys on newer devices such that it's difficult to reliably tell what batch/generation a newer device is from, because it could be using a newer or older key. Such behavior would require some way of revoking old keys from newer devices to prevent a situation where a compromised and blacklisted old key is selected and causes the CAPTCHA to fail, seemingly at random.
  - md_ 5y ago
    I don't totally follow. The key is baked into each device, so if you sold a mix of devices where some had the old key and some the new, revocation of the old key would brick the new devices with that old key.
gjvr 5y ago
I understand from [0] that the attestation key is shared across all instances (SNs) of the same model (PN): "...For example, all YubiKey 4 devices would have the same attestation certificate; or all Samsung Galaxy S8’s would have the same attestation certificate". So you would not need to to buy them at the same time. But of course, despite this, still a unique key is generated for each identity upon sign up [0]. I am not sure (as in 'have no knowledge of') the entropy for these devices. [0] https://fidoalliance.org/fido-technotes-the-truth-about-attestation/ https://fidoalliance.org/fido-technotes-the-truth-about-atte...

dane-pgp 5y ago

> they can always choose to distrust batches known to be compromised. Which effectively means bricking the devices of 9999 innocent users each time. Why are we creating a world where users will be told they can't visit a website or access their account any more because they didn't spend enough money on a hardware DRM device which tries to hide a key from them?

md_ 5y ago
Hmm. I'm of two minds about this. Vanguard restricts (or used to) trusted keys to those made by Yubico. This annoys me, given they let me use any phone number. So this suggests (as you seem to be arguing) that attestation is an attractive nuisance—when you can't tell whether a phone number is with a trustworthy or untrustworthy exchange, teleco, or VOIP service, you just have no choice but to trust it. But when you can enforce attestation, some Vanguard employee with a Yubico Certified Security Engineer certificate (I made that up) decides to restrict us to Yubico's keys. On the other hand, FIDO aims to also support enterprise usage, and I think it'd be a nonstarter to say that enterprises shouldn't be able to restrict you to officially issued authenticators—and without remote attestation, they'd have to do more cumbersome steps like handling enrollment centrally (and then shipping enrolled authenticators to users), which, in a distributed workforce, sucks. So attestation fills a need, and I think we just have to hope it's not widely used or abused. Is Cloudflare's usage an abuse? Eh, I don't know. It's an interesting experiment.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > FIDO aims to also support enterprise usage It seems to me that this use case is completely at odds with the general use cases we expect when people browse the web. In the enterprise, society accepts the idea that someone's employer knows their name, their address, their bank details, and even everything they browse on their company-issued computer. Whether that's good or bad, it's not a model that FIDO should be trying to support. This reminds me of the controversy around TLS 1.3 allowing forward secrecy.[0] If companies want to make their own alternative to FIDO which has DRM and user tracking, to control access to their intranets, that's fine, but we shouldn't have allowed FIDO to become a Trojan Horse (or Trojan Dog?) to sneak this anti-feature into the general web. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/ets-isnt-tls-and-you-shouldnt-use-it https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/ets-isnt-tls-and-you-s...