skip to main content
10.1145/2905760.2905761acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseurosysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

TOFU for OpenPGP

Published:18 April 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present the design and implementation of a trust-on-first-use (TOFU) policy for OpenPGP. When an OpenPGP user verifies a signature, TOFU checks that the signer used the same key as in the past. If not, this is a strong indicator that a key is a forgery and either the message is also a forgery or an active man-in-the-middle attack (MitM) is or was underway. That is, TOFU can proactively detect new attacks if the user had previously verified a message from the signer. And, it can reactively detect an attack if the signer gets a message through. TOFU cannot, however, protect against sustained MitM attacks. Despite this weakness, TOFU's practical security is stronger than the Web of Trust (WoT), OpenPGP's current trust policy, for most users. The problem with the WoT is that it requires too much user support. TOFU is also better than the most popular alternative, an X.509-based PKI, which relies on central servers whose certification processes are often sloppy. In this paper, we outline how TOFU can be integrated into OpenPGP; we address a number of potential attacks against TOFU; and, we show how TOFU can work alongside the WoT. Our implementation demonstrates the practicality of the approach.

References

  1. Devdatta Akhawe, Bernhard Amann, Matthias Vallentin, and Robin Sommer. Here's my cert, so trust me, maybe?: Understanding TLS errors on the web. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW '13, pages 59--70, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Rainer Böhme and Jens Grossklags. The security cost of cheap user interaction. In Proceedings of the 2011 Workshop on New Security Paradigms Workshop, NSPW '11, pages 67--82, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Rainer Böhme and Stefan Köpsell. Trained to accept?: A field experiment on consent dialogs. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '10, pages 2403--2406, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. I. Brown, A. Back, and B. Laurie. Forward secrecy extensions for OpenPGP. Internet-Draft draft-brown-pgp-pfs-03, IETF Secretariat, October 2011. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brown-pgp-pfs-03.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. J. Callas, L. Donnerhacke, H. Finney, D. Shaw, and R. Thayer. OpenPGP Message Format. RFC 4880 (Proposed Standard), November 2007. Updated by RFC 5581.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Mark Davis and Michel Suignard. Unicode security mechanisms. Technical Report Version 8.0, The Unicode Consortium, June 2015. http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Rachna Dhamija, J. D. Tygar, and Marti Hearst. Why phishing works. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '06, pages 581--590, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Paul Ducklin. The TURKTRUST SSL certificate fiasco --- what really happened, and what happens next? https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/01/08/the-turktrust-ssl-certificate-fiasco-what-happened-and-what-happens-next/, January 2013. {Online; accessed 23-March-2016}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Evgeniy Gabrilovich and Alex Gontmakher. The homograph attack. Communications of the ACM, 45(2):128, February 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Zulfikar Ramzan. Phishing attacks and countermeasures. In Peter Stavroulakis and Mark Stamp, editors, Handbook of Information and Communication Security, pages 433--448. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. P. Resnick. Internet Message Format. RFC 2822 (Proposed Standard), April 2001. Obsoleted by RFC 5322, updated by RFCs 5335, 5336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Mark Risher. Protecting Gmail in a global world. http://googleforwork.blogspot.de/2014/08/protecting-gmail-in-global-world.html, August 2014. {Online; accessed 23-March-2016}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Ryan Sleevi. Sustaining digital certificate security. https://security.googleblog.com/2015/10/sustaining-digital-certificate-security.html, October 2015. {Online; accessed 23-March-2016}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Marc Stiegler. An introduction to petname systems. http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/petnames/IntroPetNames.html, February 2005 (updated June 2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Joshua Sunshine, Serge Egelman, Hazim Almuhimedi, Neha Atri, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. Crying wolf: An empirical study of SSL warning effectiveness. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium, SSYM'09, pages 399--416, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2009. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Dan Wendlandt, David G. Andersen, and Adrian Perrig. Perspectives: Improving SSH-style host authentication with multi-path probing. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference, pages 321--334, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Wikipedia. Flame (malware) --- Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2015. {Online; accessed 23-March-2016}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. TOFU for OpenPGP

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        EuroSec '16: Proceedings of the 9th European Workshop on System Security
        April 2016
        47 pages
        ISBN:9781450342957
        DOI:10.1145/2905760

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 18 April 2016

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        EuroSec '16 Paper Acceptance Rate7of16submissions,44%Overall Acceptance Rate47of113submissions,42%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader