62e34d1c87
Previously, the NixOS ACME module defaulted to using P-384 for TLS certificates. I believe that this is a mistake, and that we should use P-256 instead, despite it being theoretically cryptographically weaker. The security margin of a 256-bit elliptic curve cipher is substantial; beyond a certain level, more bits in the key serve more to slow things down than add meaningful protection. It's much more likely that ECDSA will be broken entirely, or some fatal flaw will be found in the NIST curves that makes them all insecure, than that the security margin will be reduced enough to put P-256 at risk but not P-384. It's also inconsistent to target a curve with a 192-bit security margin when our recommended nginx TLS configuration allows 128-bit AES. [This Stack Exchange answer][pornin] by cryptographer Thomas Pornin conveys the general attitude among experts: > Use P-256 to minimize trouble. If you feel that your manhood is > threatened by using a 256-bit curve where a 384-bit curve is > available, then use P-384: it will increases your computational and > network costs (a factor of about 3 for CPU, a few extra dozen bytes > on the network) but this is likely to be negligible in practice (in a > SSL-powered Web server, the heavy cost is in "Web", not "SSL"). [pornin]: https://security.stackexchange.com/a/78624 While the NIST curves have many flaws (see [SafeCurves][safecurves]), P-256 and P-384 are no different in this respect; SafeCurves gives them the same rating. The only NIST curve Bernstein [thinks better of, P-521][bernstein] (see "Other standard primes"), isn't usable for Web PKI (it's [not supported by BoringSSL by default][boringssl] and hence [doesn't work in Chromium/Chrome][chromium], and Let's Encrypt [don't support it either][letsencrypt]). [safecurves]: https://safecurves.cr.yp.to/ [bernstein]: https://blog.cr.yp.to/20140323-ecdsa.html [boringssl]: https://boringssl.googlesource.com/boringssl/+/e9fc3e547e557492316932b62881c3386973ceb2 [chromium]: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=478225 [letsencrypt]: https://letsencrypt.org/docs/integration-guide/#supported-key-algorithms So there's no real benefit to using P-384; what's the cost? In the Stack Exchange answer I linked, Pornin estimates a factor of 3× CPU usage, which wouldn't be so bad; unfortunately, this is wildly optimistic in practice, as P-256 is much more common and therefore much better optimized. [This GitHub comment][openssl] measures the performance differential for raw Diffie-Hellman operations with OpenSSL 1.1.1 at a whopping 14× (even P-521 fares better!); [Caddy disables P-384 by default][caddy] due to Go's [lack of accelerated assembly implementations][crypto/elliptic] for it, and the difference there seems even more extreme: [this golang-nuts post][golang-nuts] measures the key generation performance differential at 275×. It's unlikely to be the bottleneck for anyone, but I still feel kind of bad for anyone having lego generate hundreds of certificates and sign challenges with them with performance like that... [openssl]: https://github.com/mozilla/server-side-tls/issues/190#issuecomment-421831599 [caddy]: |
||
---|---|---|
.. | ||
wrappers | ||
acme.nix | ||
acme.xml | ||
apparmor-suid.nix | ||
apparmor.nix | ||
audit.nix | ||
auditd.nix | ||
ca.nix | ||
chromium-suid-sandbox.nix | ||
dhparams.nix | ||
duosec.nix | ||
google_oslogin.nix | ||
hidepid.nix | ||
hidepid.xml | ||
lock-kernel-modules.nix | ||
misc.nix | ||
oath.nix | ||
pam_mount.nix | ||
pam_usb.nix | ||
pam.nix | ||
polkit.nix | ||
prey.nix | ||
rngd.nix | ||
rtkit.nix | ||
sudo.nix | ||
systemd-confinement.nix | ||
tpm2.nix |