Hi John,
Thanks for looking into this on your end. It's interesting how Entrust
has to do this deletion/re-insertion of providers and it's interesting
that adding a new instance of Entrust provider inside the
Security.insertProviderAt() call makes this problem go away.
Please find my questions and comments in line below.
On 7/3/2020 1:13 PM, John Gray wrote:
Thanks for your comments! They sparked off a lot more investigation
on my end. I created a test provider and could not reproduce the
issue. That led me to investigate how our provider was being
installed. We use our own internal Initializer() class to install
providers in various orders (we have had to work around bugs in
different JVM's in the past). That work-around required we remove
the provider from the Security provider list (basically to clean it
out), then we run a simple crypto test with a new instantiation, and
then install that provider in 1st position.
Does this Initializer() class does all this before the new
SecureRandom() call? Does the Entrust provider remove or changes its
registrations ever, i.e. is the provider mutable? One possible scenario
for legacy provider which add/remove registrations is that every update
to the legacy map will leads to new re-parsing and new service being
created as a result which may leads to failing the check inside
Service.newInstance() call and thus the NSAE.
If I change the highlighted line above (the last line) to the
following, it works.
Security.insertProviderAt(new Entrust(), 1);
Having to make such a change seems strange. It seems that creating
a new provider, using it to get an instance of an algorithm, and then
adding that same provider into first position doesn’t work. I'm
guessing because of the recent changes you made the provider can’t be
used before it is inserted into the provider order because it may hold
onto some data from the previous usage? So this led me to
investigate some more…..
Yes, it's indeed strange. Is the "entrustCsp" instance being modified in
anyway after its creation?
When it fails, the type and algorithm are “SecureRandom” and
“DRBGUsingSHA512”
Is “DRBGUsingSHA512" the expected default algorithm for Entrust
provider? Is it being picked up as expected if basing on registration
ordering?
The Provider.getService() code fails to match the “previousKey”
ServiceKey type and algorithms. In my test code I was testing an AES
algorithm, so the previous key type and Algorithm is “Cipher” and
“AES/CBC/PKCS5PADDING” in the getService() call which doesn’t match
the type “SecureRandom” and “DRBGUsingSHA512”. So it looks like
there is a bug caused by holding on to existing data.
The previousKey is just an optimization to avoid repetitive allocation
on the same type and algorithm. If either of these two does not match,
it will be discarded and new key object created for subsequent calls.
So, this should not be the root cause.
So I think when I create a brand new Entrust() instance it works
because the previous ServiceKey() contains the correct data and it
matches. Debugging showed it to work that way. So I think using a
provider before installing it in the provider order is what is causing
the issue because of internal data in the Provider class.
There is something deeper for the Entrust NSAE problem instead of the
previousKey usage per my comment above. Could you please double check
the Initializer class and whether the Entrust provider entries are
modified after it's constructed and when new SecureRandom() is called?
Thanks for looking into this~
Valerie
It looks like I **could** put in this weird work-around (just create a
fresh instance of Entrust()) when installing the provider to work
around the issue, but I wonder if there will be other consequences
because of the way this previousKey is used? I can make the simple
change to our toolkit without breaking FIPS (the initialization class
is not in the FIPS boundary). In fact, I assume I don’t need to keep
that old work-around for the old IBM JVM anymore either..
Thanks for your help!
Happy July 4^th (I live in Ottawa Canada, so we had our muted Canada
day celebrations a couple days ago on July 1^st ).
John Gray
-----Original Message-----
From: Valerie Peng [mailto:valerie.p...@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 8:34 PM
To: John Gray <john.g...@entrustdatacard.com>;
security-dev@openjdk.java.net
Cc: John Mahoney <john.maho...@entrustdatacard.com>; Muthu Kannappan
<mu...@entrustdatacard.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SecureRandom regression with certain
security providers
Hi John,
Unfortunately this cannot wait til July 13th if this issue needs to be
fixed for jdk 15.
Maybe you can try the webrev out or share more details on how Entrust
provider does its registration and what Provider APIs it overrides. I
need more info to help identifying the trigger for the NSAE in
Entrust's case. I have verified that the current webrev works with
BCFIPS provider.
Regards and an early happy July 4th,
Valerie
On 7/2/2020 3:17 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
> I can certainly help you verify the fix. Let me know how I can help
> verify it for you. 😊
>
> Note: I will be on vacation next week, so I'll be back July 13th...
