This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Python Buzz
by Dmitry Dvoinikov.
Original Post: Security tokens for the masses
Feed Title: Things That Require Further Thinking
Feed URL: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ThingsThatRequireFurtherThinking
Feed Description: Once your species has evolved language, and you have learned language, [...] and you have something to say, [...] it doesn't take much time, energy and effort to say it. The hard part of course is having something interesting to say.
-- Geoffrey Miller
Two new cryptographic devices have hit the market just recently. They are both of "cryptographic security tokens USB dongles" kind, and there would be nothing to speak about unless they haven't both been supporting GOST family of cryptoalgorithms. As a quick reminder, in Russia it is not only mandatory to be using GOST, but the implementations must also be certified by FSB. And until recently, there has been just one certified hardware device to support GOST, namely MS_KEY. It is supported in our product since mid-2010.
Suddenly there are three of them - the newcomers are Rutoken ECP and eToken GOST. And our customers (banks mostly) want them, like, yesterday ! So I had to stop whatever I was doing and write supporting plugins for them. Not a big deal really, once the documentation is there, a device sample is available, and support is ready to answer a stray stupid question. And so now we have support for 4 types of security tokens, including the eToken PRO Java not mentioned before because it only supports RSA keys.
A lot of interesting things I've learnt in the process. In this post I'd like to focus on usability.
The target audience of our product are average non-technical users working from home with their bank accounts and such. And so we have to keep the things really simple, ask no questions, to which they don't know answers anyway, don't mentor about what they needn't know, offer no choice and in general just walk them through hand in hand.
And here is where certain tokens features become an obstacle.
In most general terms, a cryptographic token is essentially a tiny computer with its own CPU, memory and private filesystem wrapped in a plastic USB dongle. It has a tiny operating system in the ROM which knows how to perform a handful of operations, mostly of cryptographic nature, such as "calculate hash" or "generate digital signature". It plugs to the PC through a standard USB port and when the right drivers are installed can be sent commands to. Seen this way a token simply is an external cryptographic device.
But it's not all. To have their product admissible to the market, token manufacturers must conform to certain standards. Those standards follow a certain procedure, a security protocol through which the tokens are supposed to be used. This procedure essentially implies that a token is used in a corporate environment, where tokens are distributed among the employees by security officers in orderly fashion, there is a well defined lifecycle to each token, and in general - there is a trusted administrator to see if there is any trouble.
Guess what ? Home users don't have administrators. They are their own security officers. And so the entire procedure goes down the drain.
Consider this - an average home user comes in to a bank, signs a few papers and is given a plastic dongle over the counter. All we need at this moment is to generate a new key inside the token, protect it with a user-provided PIN code and print out a certificate request. All we need later is to collect the PIN code for the key from the user and sign stuff.
Some tokens, specifically MS_KEY and eToken PRO Java which we have been using before, allow just that. You create a key, protect it with a PIN code and be done. Not the others, Rutoken ECP and eToken GOST. They conform. Which means that every time the owner wants to use the token for anything, he needs to provide the PIN code to the token.
This is precisely the same situation as with cell phones. In fact, there is a token inside a SIM card. The PIN code to it you enter to begin using the phone.
There is a lot of problems with token PINs (as opposed to the individual key PINs) for a home user:
It is 123456 or alike by default and nobody cares to change it. This is bad, because it's a key.
And if they would, the disaster is just around the corner, because they forget it. This is bad because there is no established procedure to recover the token contents, because there is no trusted administrator.
It can be recovered following manufacturer-specific procedure, and this is there another magic PIN code (security officer's) comes into play. It in turn is 654321 and you cannot even begin explaining what it is for to the user, leave alone having it changed, written down and kept in a safe place.
A bank can have employees setting random PINs to tokens before giving them out, but it complicates the procedure, is all expenses and not only doesn't make the threat of hacker knowing the PIN to go away, but makes it specifically targeting the bank. It was them who knew the PIN after all. You can automate the procedure and have PINs printed in envelopes similar to how it is done with credit cards, but it's way more expenses.
Again, as with cell phones, how many people have their phones protected with PIN codes ? And of those, how many have their PUKs kept in a safe place ?
So in the best case, the user never changes the PIN and the token contents is accessible to anyone. And in the worst case, the user forgets his password in 3 days and the token is as good as dead. Or the other way around depending which approach to security you take.
Compared to that, when you lose PIN code to an individual key inside the token, no big deal. Generate another one, come up with a new PIN and there you go.
Returning to the tokens at hand.
Both Rutoken ECP and eToken GOST have their mandatory PIN codes, but Rutoken ECP at least supports protecting keys with separate PINs. This way we don't care about the PIN code to the token at all. It may be 123456 or whatever. The user is required to enter it each time and it is a nuisance, but each individual key is protected with a separate PIN just as before.
With eToken GOST it is worse - it only supports one PIN code. There is no way you can protect individual keys. Anyone who knows the token PIN has access to everything. This approach makes sense too, but it renders useless some interesting features of our application such as having multiple active keys on the same token, or having a new key generated over an old one and the new certificate request signed with the old key, thus escaping from visiting the bank in person when the certificate is about to expire.
Previous Topic
