• Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
Netgate Discussion Forum
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login

Question on hardware crypto support (RDRAND only source??? - question to devs)

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved OpenVPN
4 Posts 2 Posters 7.1k Views
Loading More Posts
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • S
    sense678
    last edited by Jan 27, 2015, 11:18 AM Jan 25, 2015, 2:01 PM

    Hi all,

    I have a - for me - pretty important question regarding activated hardware crypto in the OpenVPN client section.
    If I activate RDRAND does this mean RDRAND is used as the only source for cryptographic work regarding the OpenVPN connections?

    Because if yes this would drive me far far away from using it and deactivating it immediately.

    Would be great if you get back to me shortly on that.

    Thanks!

    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
    • S
      sense678
      last edited by Jan 27, 2015, 8:47 AM

      I found this now under https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/how-to-use-the-rdrand-engine-in-openssl-for-random-number-generation

      How to use the rdrand engine in OpenSSL for random number generation

      John Mechalas (Intel)'s picture Submitted by John Mechalas (Intel) on July 30, 2014

      The OpenSSL* ENGINE API includes an engine specifically for Intel® Data Protection Technology with Secure Key. When this engine is enabled, the RAND_bytes() function will          exclusively          use the RDRAND instruction for generating random numbers and will not need to rely on the OS's entropy pool for reseeding. End applications can simply call RAND_bytes(), do not have to invoke RAND_seed() or RAND_add(), and the OpenSSL library will not call RAND_poll() internally.

      So, if this is true also for the implementation here this is a headshot, can PLEASE any of the developers give a statement on that??

      Thanks

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        sense678
        last edited by Jan 27, 2015, 9:27 AM

        I did some tests now for openssl with and without rdrand support and found out that on my machine it seems not worth using just RDRAND for giving up security (if it's true that RDRAND is the only source then what I still don't know), there is of course a difference, but it's not THAT big luckily.

        openssl speed -evp aes-256-cbc :

        OpenSSL 1.0.1k-freebsd 8 Jan 2015
        built on: date not available
        options:bn(64,64) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
        cc
        The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
        type                        16 bytes        64 bytes        256 bytes      1024 bytes      8192 bytes
        aes-256-cbc      88767.97k  319504.90k  1061029.23k  6796229.69k 62477303.81k

        openssl speed -evp aes-256-cbc -engine rdrand :

        OpenSSL 1.0.1k-freebsd 8 Jan 2015
        built on: date not available
        options:bn(64,64) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
        cc
        The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
        type                      16 bytes          64 bytes          256 bytes      1024 bytes        8192 bytes
        aes-256-cbc      80887.61k  366717.61k  1464973.43k  7211180.03k    63140353.37k

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • H
          Harvy66
          last edited by Jan 31, 2015, 3:54 AM

          I can't wait for OpenSSL to go away. Software should never implement its own rng and should always get rng from the OS. That being said, I trust Intel's RNG more than OpenSSL's crazy fall through logic that can sometimes source "random" data directly from your raw secret keys. Or at least it has in the recent past.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          4 out of 4
          • First post
            4/4
            Last post
          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.
            This community forum collects and processes your personal information.
            consent.not_received