This question is related to Opening and checking a Pem file in SWI-Prolog
Once I have downloaded and opened the certificates how do I verify the signature chain?
I have:
:-use_module(library(http/http_client)).
url('https://s3.amazonaws.com/echo.api/echo-api-cert-4.pem').
url_data1(Url,Certs):-
http_open(Url,Stream,[]),
all_certs(Stream,Certs),
forall(member(C,Certs),my_validate(C)),
close(Stream).
all_certs(Stream,[C1|Certs]):-
catch(load_certificate(Stream,C1),_,fail),
all_certs(Stream,Certs),!.
all_certs(_Stream,[]).
my_validate(C):-
memberchk(to_be_signed(Signed),C),
memberchk(key(Key),C),
memberchk(signature(Signature),C),
memberchk(signature_algorithm(A),C),
algo_code(A,Code),
rsa_verify(Key,Signed,Signature,[type(Code)]).
algo_code('RSA-SHA256',sha256).
algo_code('RSA-SHA1',sha1).
This currently fails.
Preliminaries
Verifying digital signatures and entire certificate chains is extremely easy with Prolog.
However, you need to have a basic understanding of how certificates are signed. A certificate chain is a sequence of certificates C0, C1, ..., CN. I am using CN to denote the root certificate. Depending on the used convention, you may mutatis mutandis reverse the order of course.
Importantly, certificate Ck is signed using the private key corresponding to the public key of Ck+1.
Thus, one of the issues with your code is that you are mistakenly using the public key of C to verify the signature of C even though the certificate was signed with the private key corresponding to a different certificate.
A different issue stems from some confusion about what is being signed. We are signing the hash of the to-be-signed part of a certificate, not the data itself. Thus, we must verify the signature against that hash.
Concrete example
To make this answer self-contained, I post here the relevant data from your use case, i.e., the relevant attributes of the certificates that the file contains at the time of this writing.
Data
First certificate
From the first certificate in the chain, we need the signature and the to-be-signed portion, which are:
signature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
to_be_signed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
Second certificate
From the second certificate, we only need the public key to verify the signature that was issued for the previous certificate:
key(public_key(rsa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
Verification
Computing the hash
As I said, a hash is what was actually signed. Critically, I don't mean the hash of the whole certificate, but the hash of the to-be-signed portion. This difference is important, because the hash of the whole certificate also comprises the signature, and that is of course not yet available when the certificate is being signed.
In SWI-Prolog, we can obtain the hash of the to-be-signed portion using library(crypto):
?- to_be_signed(TBS),
hex_bytes(TBS, Bytes),
crypto_data_hash(Bytes, Hash, [algorithm(sha256), encoding(octet)]).
TBS = "3082...EB3B62",
Bytes = [48, 130, 4, 102, 160, 3, 2, 1, 2|...],
Hash = '651bdcdd90251f71a47a5d1bbc6f28486c94d2dc3739dcd58ecb09b3f224ee05'.
I am using sha256 because the first certificate indicates (RSA and) SHA256 in its signature_algorithm/1 field.
Verifying the signature using CLP(FD) constraints
One of the easiest ways to verify an RSA signature is to use CLP(FD) constraints. We only need to compute SigExp mod p. We plug in our concrete numbers, using (#=)/2 to evaluate the arithmetic expression over integers:
?- X #= 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x010001
mod 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
It yields:
X = 986236757547332986472011617696226561292849812918563355472727826767720188564083584387121625107510786855734801053524719833194566624465665316622563244215340671405971599343902468620306327831715457360719532421388780770165778156818229863337344187575566725786793391480600129482653072861971002459947277805295727097226389568776499707662505334062639449916265137796823793276300221537201727072401742985542559596685092673521228140822200236743113743661549252453726123450722876929538747702356573783116197523966334991563351853851212597377279504828784716104866621888265058037501385433453379649364782998949981722124880992983641605.
Excursion: On efficiency and use of CLP(FD).
You may now say: "Well, I don't really need (#=)/2, I can always use (is)/2 which I learned decades ago." But, if you are using (is)/2 in such examples, you easily end up with code that is thousands of times less efficient. As a simple benchmark, consider the predicate:
signature_pow(Sig, Exp, P, Pow) :-
Pow #= Sig^Exp mod P.
Now we have, for the query:
?- time(signature_pow(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x010001, 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ow)).
the timing:
% 16 inferences, 0.000 CPU in 0.000 seconds (99% CPU, 130624 Lips)
In contrast, if we regress in Prolog language development and replace (#=)/2 by (is)/2, we get:
% 3 inferences, 1.847 CPU in 1.852 seconds (100% CPU, 2 Lips)
Reason: In SWI-Prolog, certain goals involving (#=)/2 automatically use specialized arithmetic predicates. You do not need to learn these predicates to use them. CLP(FD) does it for you.
Recommendation: Use CLP(FD) constraints for reasoning over integers in Prolog. They typically make your predicates more general, and sometimes vastly more efficient. clpfd
Now, what about X? To see what it is, consider its hexadecimal encoding:
?- format("~16r", [$X]).
1fffffff...fff003031300d060960864801650304020105000420651bdcdd90251f71a47a5d1bbc6f28486c94d2dc3739dcd58ecb09b3f224ee05
This sounds familiar: At the end, you see that the hash of the to-be-signed portion of the certificate appears. This means that the signature checks out!
Verifying the signature with rsa_verify/4
Alternatively, we can use rsa_verify/4 from library(crypto) to verify the signature.
Here is the full query:
?- to_be_signed(TBS),
hex_bytes(TBS, Bytes),
crypto_data_hash(Bytes, Hash, [algorithm(sha256), encoding(octet)]),
signature(Sig),
key(Key),
rsa_verify(Key, Hash, Sig, [type(sha256)]).
Since this succeeds, we know that the private key corresponding to Key was used to produce the signature.
Closing remarks
I have one important remark: Normally, this is all of course completely unnecessary!
The SWI-Prolog SSL infrastructure automatically verifies the certificate chain and thus all signatures every single time you use http_open/3 and related predicates to make a connection via TLS. But it is interesting to make these calculations yourself. Sometimes it is even necessary, if, as in this example, you are reasoning over certificates you have stored somewhere.
One small additional remark: Please use setup_call_cleanup/3 in your code. Otherwise, you risk leaking file descriptors if anything goes wrong before close/1, which is in fact even the case in your example.
I've been reading this article on elliptic-curve crypto and how it works:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/10/a-relatively-easy-to-understand-primer-on-elliptic-curve-cryptography/
In the article, they state:
It turns out that if you have two points [on an elliptic curve], an initial point "dotted" with itself n times to arrive at a final point [on the curve], finding out n when you only know the final point and the first point is hard.
It goes on to state that the only way to find out n (if you only have the first and final points, and you know the curve eqn), is to repeatedly dot the initial point until you finally have the matching final point.
I think I understand all this - but what confuses me is - if n is the private key, and the final point corresponds to the public key (which I think is the case), then doesn't it take the exact same amount of work to compute the public key from the private, as it does the private from the public (both just have to recursively dot a point on the curve)? am I misunderstanding something about what the article is saying?
The one-way attribute of ECC and RSA is due to the Chinese Reminder Theoreom (CRT). A series of arithmetic divisions where only the remainder is kept (aka Modulo operation %), which results in information loss in the output. As a result, the person with the keys takes one direct path to generate the output - and any would-be attacker has to exhaust a massive number of possible paths in order to determine what key was used to create the output. If the simple division was used instead of a modulo - then key data would be present in the output and it couldn't be used for cryptography.
If you lived in a world where you had a powerful enough computer to exhaust all possibilities - then the CRT wouldn't be useful as a cryptographic primitive. The computers we have now a fairly powerful - so we balance the power of our modern machines with a keysize that introduces enough range of possibilities so that they cannot be exhausted in a timeframe that matters.
The CRT is a subset of the P vs NP problem set - so perhaps proving P=NP may lead to a way of undermining the oneway aspect of asymmetric cryptography. We know that there is a way to factor CRT using a quantum computer running Shor's Algorithm. Shor's Algorithm has proven that we can defeat the so-called "trapdoor", or one-way attributes of CRT, it is still however an expensive attack to conduct.
The following lecture is my favorite description of the CRT. It shows that there are many possible solutions for one direction forcing an attacker to exhaust them all and only one solution for the other:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru7mWZJlRQg
EDIT: I previously stated that n is not the private key. In your example, n is either server or client private key.
How it works is that there is a starting point known to anybody.
You select random integer k and do the "dotting operation" k-times. Then you send this new point to the server. (k is your private key)
Server does the same with the starting point, but q-times and sends it to you. (q is server's private key)
You take the point you got from server and "dot" it k-times. The final point would be the starting point "dotted" k*q-times.
Server does the same with point it got from you. And again its final point would be the starting point "dotted" q*k-times.
That means the final point (= the starting point "dotted" k*q-times) is the shared secret since all what any attacker would know is the starting point, the starting point dotted k-times and the starting point dotted q-times. And given only those data, it's practically impossible to find the final point as a product of k*q unless any of those known.
EDIT: No, it doesn't take the same time to compute k from G = kP given known values of G (sent point) and P (starting point). More in comment section and:
For rising to power, see Exponentiation by squaring.
For ECC point multiplication, see point multiplication.
I am trying to implement simple El-Gamal cryptosystem.
And I can't understand how to represent message as an integer between 1 and n-1.
The only thing that comes to my mind is:
if n bit length is k, then divide input message m on t | t < k bits and each piece of bits use as integer number.
I think It is wrong.
So how to represent message as an integer between 1 and n-1?
You could do that which is essentially the equivalent of using ECB mode in block ciphers, but there are attacks on this. An attacker may reorder the different blocks of the ciphertext and you would decrypt it without problem, but the received plaintext would be broken without you knowing this. This may also open the door for replay attacks since the blocks are all encrypted independently. You would need some kind of authenticated encryption.
Back to your original question. Such a problem is usually solved by using hybrid encryption. A block cipher like AES is used to encrypt the whole plaintext with a random key. This random key is in turn encrypted through ElGamal since the key is small enough to be represented in < k bits.
Now depending on the mode of operation of the block cipher this could still be malleable. You would either need to put a hash of the ciphertext/plaintext next to the random key as an integrity check. Or otherwise use an authenticated mode of operation like GCM and add the resulting tag next to the random key. Depending on k, this should fit.
Note that you should use some kind of padding for random key | hash/tag if it doesn't reach k.
I have been working though a network book and hit the RSA section.
Consider the RSA algorithm with p=5 and q=11.
so I get N = p*q = 55 right?
and z = (p-1) * (q -1) = 40
I think I got this right but the book is not very clear on how to calculate this.
The example in the book says that e = 3 but does not give a reason why. Because the author likes it or is there another reason?
and how do i go about finding d so that de= 1(mod z) and d < 160
Thanks for any help with this its a bit above me right now.
Your calculations of n and z are correct.
An RSA cryptosystem consists of three variables n, d and e. Variable e is the least important of the three, and is usually chosen arbitrarily to make computations simple; 3 and 65537 are the most common choices for e. The only requirements are that e is odd and co-prime to the totient (z in your implementation); thus e is frequently chosen prime so that it will be co-prime to the totient no matter what totient is chosen. The reason that 3 and 65537 are frequently used for e is because it makes the computation easy; both numbers have only two 1-bits in their binary representation, so only two iterations of a complicated loop are needed.
You can see an implementation of an RSA cryptosystem at my blog. If you poke around there, you will also find some other crypto-related stuff that may interest you.
what you are looking for is the extended euclidean algorithm
for an example see wikipedia or here
I've got a generic cryptographic implementation using OpenSSL's BIGNUM library in C. Standard decryption is working fine, but i would also like to implement Shamir's secret sharing (SSS).
The problem i've run across is that BIGNUM only supports whole numbers, and as part of the Lagrange interpolation for SSS, i'll need to be multiplying by negative values.
Is there any way to do this? Otherwise: I can do my SSS in another language (python?) so long as it is able to interact with the BIGNUM's produced by OpenSSL.
Any suggestions? TIA!
As you look at BIGNUM structure in OpenSSL, you'll find a flag named neg. If the BIGNUM object represents a negative number, neg will be set to 1. Also, the bn_mul() function handles the multiplication by negative number correctly. So you can implement SSS with OpenSSL, no problem!
Modular arithmetic (using groups) only provides positive results, so I presume you want to use non-modular arithmetic? In that case you could simply keep a separate variable indicating if the value is negative or not. The outcome of positive multiplication is the same except for the sign bit anyway.
It's not as clean a design as possible, but for a few methods it would probably not matter that much. You could create separate methods that mimic the BN methods except for an integer holding the value of the sign (-1, 0 or 1).