Thread: Speed of SSL connections; cost of renegotiation

I just derived the following rather interesting numbers concerning the
cost of SSL-encryption in CVS tip.  The test case is to COPY about 40MB
of data to or from a server running on the same machine (RHL 8.0).

Without SSL:

[tgl@rh1 tmp]$ time psql -c "\copy foo to 'foo2'" regression

real    0m16.592s
user    0m0.521s
sys     0m0.270s
[tgl@rh1 tmp]$ time psql -c "\copy foo from 'foo3'" regression

real    0m20.032s
user    0m2.223s
sys     0m0.217s

With SSL:

[tgl@rh1 tmp]$ time psql -c "\copy foo to 'foo2'" -h localhost regression

real    4m18.912s
user    2m30.842s
sys     1m4.076s
[tgl@rh1 tmp]$ time psql -c "\copy foo from 'foo3'" -h localhost regression

real    1m10.774s
user    0m29.461s
sys     0m23.494s

In other words, bulk data transfer *to* the server is about 3.5x slower
than it is over an unencrypted Unix socket.  Okay, I can live with that.
But bulk transfer *from* the server is more than 15x slower.  That's
above my threshold of pain.  And considering client and server are the
same machine, why should there be any asymmetry in transfer rate?

It looks to me like the culprit is SSL renegotiation.  The server is
currently programmed to force a renegotiation after every 64K of data
transferred to or from the client.  However, the test to decide to do
a renegotiation was placed only in SSL_write, so a large COPY-to-server
escapes triggering the renegotiation except at the very end, whereas the
COPY-to-file case is indeed executing a renegotiation about every 64K.
Apparently, those renegotiations are horridly expensive.

As an experiment, I increased the renegotiation interval by a factor of
10 (from 64K to 640K).  This brought the COPY-to-file time down to about
47sec, which is more in line with the in/out speed ratio for the
non-encrypted case, and more than a factor of 5 faster than what's in
CVS.

So, questions for the group: where did the decision to renegotiate every
64K come from?  Do we need it at all?  Do we need it at such a short
interval?  And if we do need it, shouldn't the logic be symmetric, so
that renegotiations are forced during large input transfers as well as
large output transfers?
        regards, tom lane

> So, questions for the group: where did the decision to renegotiate
> every 64K come from?  Do we need it at all?  Do we need it at such a
> short interval?  And if we do need it, shouldn't the logic be
> symmetric, so that renegotiations are forced during large input
> transfers as well as large output transfers?

It doesn't look like there's any guidance from mod_ssl in Apache 2.0.


http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-2.0/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_kernel.c?rev=1.92&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup

'round line 536 begins a good set of comments, but I think the tail
end of the file has the best commentary:
    * Because SSL renegotations can happen at any time (not only after    * SSL_accept()), the best way to log the
currentconnection details is    * right after a finished handshake.
 

I think the correct solution to this is to have some way of specifying
this via libpq or by some external configuration file as it is
supposed to conform to the client or server's security policy.  It'd
say by default that 640K is ok, but that it should be tunable and
apart of the connections properties.  Ex:

Index: libpq-fe.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/interfaces/libpq/libpq-fe.h,v
retrieving revision 1.91
diff -u -r1.91 libpq-fe.h
--- libpq-fe.h  2003/03/25 02:44:36     1.91
+++ libpq-fe.h  2003/04/11 01:12:32
@@ -154,6 +154,9 @@                                                                * Password field - hide value "D"
 Debug                                                                * option - don't show by default */       int
               dispsize;               /* Field size in characters for dialog  */
 
+#ifdef USE_SSL
+       int                     ssl_reneg_size;         /* Rate at which the connection renegotiates keys       */
+#endif} PQconninfoOption;
/* ----------------

Someone on IRC suggested that this value be tuned automatically
depending on the cypher used.  The more secure the cypher, the less
frequently rekeying is needed.  DES = 64K, 3DES = 256K, AES = 512K?
Total WAG on the values there, but it conveys the point.  -sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden

Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> writes:
>> So, questions for the group: where did the decision to renegotiate
>> every 64K come from?  Do we need it at all?  Do we need it at such a
>> short interval?  And if we do need it, shouldn't the logic be
>> symmetric, so that renegotiations are forced during large input
>> transfers as well as large output transfers?

> It doesn't look like there's any guidance from mod_ssl in Apache 2.0.

Yeah, I looked at mod_ssl before sending in my gripe.  AFAICT Apache
*never* forces a renegotiation based on amount of data sent --- all that
code is intended just to handle transitions between different webpages
with different security settings.  So is that a precedent we can follow;
or is it an optimization based on the assumption that not a lot of data
will be transferred on any one web page?

(But even if you assume the latter, there are plenty of web pages with
more than 64K of data.  It's hard to believe mod_ssl would be built
like that if security demands a renegotiation every 64K or so.)
        regards, tom lane

> >> So, questions for the group: where did the decision to renegotiate
> >> every 64K come from?  Do we need it at all?  Do we need it at such a
> >> short interval?  And if we do need it, shouldn't the logic be
> >> symmetric, so that renegotiations are forced during large input
> >> transfers as well as large output transfers?
> 
> > It doesn't look like there's any guidance from mod_ssl in Apache 2.0.
> 
> Yeah, I looked at mod_ssl before sending in my gripe.  AFAICT Apache
> *never* forces a renegotiation based on amount of data sent --- all
> that code is intended just to handle transitions between different
> webpages with different security settings.  So is that a precedent
> we can follow; or is it an optimization based on the assumption that
> not a lot of data will be transferred on any one web page?

I'd assume it's a precedent we can follow given that mod_ssl was
written by the same crew that did openssl.  That said, I hope that
Ralf knows his stuff, nevermind that I haven't seen anyone jump all
over Apache for not-renegotiating its keys (and quite a few folks have
looked at that).  My best guess is that you only have to key the
session once and only need to renegotiate that key if you change
cyphers or are worried about someone obtaining a key.... that said,
OpenSSH does rekey periodically, but I think those guys are overly
paranoid.  Even still, OpenSSH rekeys every 10min I think, not every
64K.

From sshd(8):
    -k key_gen_time            Specifies how often the ephemeral protocol version 1 server key            is
regenerated(default 3600 seconds, or one hour).  The motiva-            tion for regenerating the key fairly often is
thatthe key is not            stored anywhere, and after about an hour, it becomes impossible            to recover the
keyfor decrypting intercepted communications even            if the machine is cracked into or physically seized.  A
valueof            zero indicates that the key will never be regenerated.
 

Drat, close: once every hour.  I think it'd be safe to jack that puppy
pretty high or to use a time based rekeying, not data transfer based.
Seconds since epoc since last rekeying should always be less than
3600?  Don't know that we'd want to poll gettimeofday() does
postgresql have any timer code sitting around in the tree?

> (But even if you assume the latter, there are plenty of web pages
> with more than 64K of data.  It's hard to believe mod_ssl would be
> built like that if security demands a renegotiation every 64K or
> so.)

Hopefully it takes less than one hour for an HTTP request to go
through, regardless of the size.

-- 
Sean Chittenden

Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> writes:
>> From sshd(8):

>      -k key_gen_time
>              Specifies how often the ephemeral protocol version 1 server key
>              is regenerated (default 3600 seconds, or one hour).

Hmmm.  But a server key isn't the same as a session key, is it?  Is this
an argument for renegotiating session keys at all?

In any case, you can pump a heck of a lot of data through ssh in an
hour.  Based on that, it sure looks to me like every-64K is a
ridiculously small setting.  If we were to crank it up to a few meg, the
performance issue would go away, and we'd not really need to think about
changing to a time-based criterion.
        regards, tom lane

> Yeah, I looked at mod_ssl before sending in my gripe.  AFAICT Apache
> *never* forces a renegotiation based on amount of data sent --- all that
> code is intended just to handle transitions between different webpages
> with different security settings.  So is that a precedent we can follow;
> or is it an optimization based on the assumption that not a lot of data
> will be transferred on any one web page?

How about a GUC variable:

ssl_renegotiation = 0  # no unnecessary renegotiation
ssl_renegotiation = 64000 # renegotiate every 64000 bytes

Chris

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> So, questions for the group: where did the decision to renegotiate every
> 64K come from?  Do we need it at all?  Do we need it at such a short
> interval?  And if we do need it, shouldn't the logic be symmetric, so
> that renegotiations are forced during large input transfers as well as
> large output transfers?

Yes, you do want renegotiations, for two reasons. One is that if you use
the same key over a long period of time, you offer too much same-keyed
cryptographic material to an attacker, and increase his chances of a
successful attack. The second is that you limit the amount of data that
can be compromised should someone get hold of your current key. (Though if
they've got that from your server, they've probably got access to the database
itself, too, so I wouldn't worry so much about this.)

I don't actually know how often you should renegotiate, but I'd guess
that 64K is really very much not the right value. It's probably not
enough for DES, and is way too much for anything else. One hour seems to
be a popular session key renegotiation interval for SSH and IPSec; why
not start with that?

If you really are concerned, I can ask an expert.

And yes, both ends should renegotiate.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org   Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're
alllight.  --XTC
 

> >> From sshd(8):
> 
> >      -k key_gen_time
> >              Specifies how often the ephemeral protocol version 1 server key
> >              is regenerated (default 3600 seconds, or one hour).
> 
> Hmmm.  But a server key isn't the same as a session key, is it?  Is this
> an argument for renegotiating session keys at all?

The server and client can kick off a key renegotiation.  Generally
it's left up to the client from what I can tell.  The key specified
above is the public key used before the session is encrypted so that
makes sense to rekey... once encrypted though, I don't think it's
necessary to rekey that often.  10MB would likely be a nice and
conservative level that should be outside of the scope of most
PostgreSQL transactions.  -sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden

> It looks to me like the culprit is SSL renegotiation.  The server is
> currently programmed to force a renegotiation after every 64K of data
> transferred to or from the client.  However, the test to decide to do
> a renegotiation was placed only in SSL_write, so a large COPY-to-server
> escapes triggering the renegotiation except at the very end, whereas the
> COPY-to-file case is indeed executing a renegotiation about every 64K.
> Apparently, those renegotiations are horridly expensive.

BEA has a configuration parameter (ISL -- Interval for Session
Renogiation) allowing you to specify the frequency in whole minutes.
The default being 0, or disabled renegotiations.



http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt

Dealing with session ID:

F.1.4. Resuming sessions
  When a connection is established by resuming a session, new  ClientHello.random and ServerHello.random values are
hashedwith the  session's master_secret. Provided that the master_secret has not been  compromised and that the secure
hashoperations used to produce the  encryption keys and MAC secrets are secure, the connection should be  secure and
effectivelyindependent from previous connections.  Attackers cannot use known encryption keys or MAC secrets to
compromisethe master_secret without breaking the secure hash  operations (which use both SHA and MD5). 
  Sessions cannot be resumed unless both the client and server agree.  If either party suspects that the session may
havebeen compromised,  or that certificates may have expired or been revoked, it should  force a full handshake. An
upperlimit of 24 hours is suggested for  session ID lifetimes, since an attacker who obtains a master_secret  may be
ableto impersonate the compromised party until the  corresponding session ID is retired. Applications that may be run
in relatively insecure environments should not write session IDs to  stable storage. 



http://www.ssl-technology.com/ssl_persistence.htm

It looks like IEv5 (and up) will renegotiate the Session ID every 2
minutes:

"Beginning with IE5, Microsoft changed the behavior of their secure
channel libraries to force a renegotiation of a new SSL session every
two minutes. This meant that all IE5+ users would change SSL Session ID
every two minutes, breaking the only method of secure persistence
available."
--
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>

PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Curt Sampson wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> > So, questions for the group: where did the decision to renegotiate every
> > 64K come from?  Do we need it at all?  Do we need it at such a short
> > interval?  And if we do need it, shouldn't the logic be symmetric, so
> > that renegotiations are forced during large input transfers as well as
> > large output transfers?
> 
> Yes, you do want renegotiations, for two reasons. One is that if you use
> the same key over a long period of time, you offer too much same-keyed
> cryptographic material to an attacker, and increase his chances of a
> successful attack. The second is that you limit the amount of data that
> can be compromised should someone get hold of your current key. (Though if
> they've got that from your server, they've probably got access to the database
> itself, too, so I wouldn't worry so much about this.)
> 
> I don't actually know how often you should renegotiate, but I'd guess
> that 64K is really very much not the right value. It's probably not
> enough for DES, and is way too much for anything else. One hour seems to
> be a popular session key renegotiation interval for SSH and IPSec; why
> not start with that?

Ummm.  I'm not comfortable with using a time based period for 
renogatiation.  What can move in an hour from a P100 on Arcnet versus a 32 
CPU altix on switched fabric are two entirely different things.  If there 
is a "sweet spot" for how often to renogotiate it would be based on 
amount.  Basing it on time introduces too much variability.  You'd have 
to basically say that x bytes is as much as you should encrypt with one 
key, then base time t on t=xr where r is the max rate you can expect on a 
given server, and rate can vary too wildly.   In fact, setting a time 
period of 5 minutes for large server might well be too seldom, and 30 
minutes on the small slow Sparc IPC in the back room is too often.

If it is a GUC then the user can adjust it.  I'm comfortable with that, 
since there's a lot of variability to where postgresql gets used and what 
it gets used for.

"scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> writes:
> Ummm.  I'm not comfortable with using a time based period for 
> renogatiation.  What can move in an hour from a P100 on Arcnet versus a 32 
> CPU altix on switched fabric are two entirely different things.  If there 
> is a "sweet spot" for how often to renogotiate it would be based on 
> amount.

That's what I would think, too.  So we already have the right mechanism,
it's just a question of what the setting ought to be.

I realized this morning that there's probably a security tradeoff
involved: renegotiating the session key limits the amount of session
data encrypted with any one key, which is good; but each renegotiation
requires another use of the server key, increasing the odds that an
eavesdropper could break *that* (which'd let him into all sessions not
just the one).

So a too-short renegotiation interval is not only expensive time-wise,
but could actually be a net loss for security.

I'm beginning to think we need to consult some experts to find out what
the right tradeoff is.
        regards, tom lane

PS: the sshd setting that was quoted refers to how often a new server
key is chosen, which is really independent of choosing new session keys.
Does our SSL code even have the facility to choose new server keys?
If not, perhaps someone had better add it.

> Ummm.  I'm not comfortable with using a time based period for
> renogatiation.

I think the time based approach sees it more from the angle of the
attacker. You don't want to leave him enough time to crack your encryption
and read happily on in real time, no ?

Since some of the data is actually predictable (as with html), I think you will
actually want larger blocks, and not smaller. Seems like a tradeoff to me.

Most of this encryption stuff is actually only good for delaying a skilled
attacker.

Andreas

> "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> writes:
> > Ummm.  I'm not comfortable with using a time based period for
> > renogatiation.  What can move in an hour from a P100 on Arcnet versus a 32
> > CPU altix on switched fabric are two entirely different things.  If there
> > is a "sweet spot" for how often to renogotiate it would be based on
> > amount.

Well, I suspect that the amount is high enough that you might leave a
connection from, say, a web server using the same key for days on end
if you set a reasonably high amount. Probably the ideal is to have a
maximum time and amount. But as you point out, if it's a GUC variable, it
can be set by the user.

Personally, I would tend to go for a time limit over a size limit
because a size limit leaves an open-ended time, whereas a time limit
puts a definite limit on size as well. (And a very powerful system going
full bore for a long period of time over a high-speed connection is
pretty rare.)

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> I realized this morning that there's probably a security tradeoff
> involved: renegotiating the session key limits the amount of session
> data encrypted with any one key, which is good; but each renegotiation
> requires another use of the server key, increasing the odds that an
> eavesdropper could break *that* (which'd let him into all sessions not
> just the one).

This seems extremely low-risk to me; there's very little data
transferred using the server key.

> I'm beginning to think we need to consult some experts to find out what
> the right tradeoff is.

If you really want to know, yes. I would think there would be a paper or
something out there, but I failed to dig one up.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org   Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're
alllight.  --XTC
 

Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> writes:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I realized this morning that there's probably a security tradeoff
>> involved: renegotiating the session key limits the amount of session
>> data encrypted with any one key, which is good; but each renegotiation
>> requires another use of the server key, increasing the odds that an
>> eavesdropper could break *that* (which'd let him into all sessions not
>> just the one).

> This seems extremely low-risk to me; there's very little data
> transferred using the server key.

Perhaps, but the downside if the server key is broken is much worse
than the loss if any one session key is broken.  Also, I don't know
how stylized the key-renegotiation exchange is --- there might be
a substantial known-plaintext risk there.

The fact that sshd thinks it necessary to choose a new server key as
often as once an hour indicates to me that they consider the risks
nonnegligible.
        regards, tom lane

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> I realized this morning that there's probably a security tradeoff
> involved: renegotiating the session key limits the amount of session
> data encrypted with any one key, which is good; but each
> renegotiation requires another use of the server key, increasing the
> odds that an eavesdropper could break *that* (which'd let him into
> all sessions not just the one).
>
> So a too-short renegotiation interval is not only expensive
> time-wise, but could actually be a net loss for security.
>
> I'm beginning to think we need to consult some experts to find out
> what the right tradeoff is.

Late follow up, but a data point for this:

"Practical Cryptography"[0] p.82 suggests limiting CBC mode to 2^32
128-bit blocks and CTR mode to 2^60 before rekeying because of
information leakage from collisions (they warn against using OFB at
all).  That gives us:
         2^32 blocks * 2^7 bits/block         ----------------------------    =   64GB                2^33 bits/GB

I'd add a fudge factor of a few powers of two in there for chattiness
of protocols and general paranoia and suggest the cap on data
transferred before rekeying should be no higher than 1GB.  Pretty big
limit, but that's the only real suggestion I've found so far.  This
doesn't address the potential issue of more ciphertext making an
attack on the key easier which could dramatically lower the safe bound.

The book is a relatively quick, entertaining and very clear read on
the topic of actually implementing and using cryptosystems and the
degree of conservatism they show is reassuring.


[0] Niels Ferguson, Bruce Schneier.  "Practical Cryptography".  Wiley   Publishing, Inc., 2003.  ISBN 0-471-22357-3

- -- 
Jonathan Conway                               rise@knavery.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76

iD8DBQE+pJkPx9v8xy9f0yoRAhuHAJ96e4wYyfL6JYJFbg4qftjFDlMoLwCbBUy6
pFKlJs//AOkVRk+PQztiIFo=
=wJ5/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----