Nonce in out-of-order messages
hristo.metal at gmail.com
Sun Sep 1 10:10:27 CEST 2019
Thank you for the answer Jason, I appreciate your time and excellent work.
After deep dive I’ve found transport messages and RFC6479 replay detection implementation.
> On 25 Aug 2019, at 18:56, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason at zx2c4.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 9:36 AM Hristo Georgiev <hristo.metal at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I’m working on file transfer protocol inspired by Noise and Wireguard over UDP with static keys so the handshake pattern is going to be Noise_IK_25519_ChaChaPoly_BLAKE2s or KK. In general i’m trying to follow NoiseSocket spec but adapted to UDP and i was wondering where to place the ‘nonce’ into packet to extend the protocol as described into p.11.4 in NoiseProtocol spec http://www.noiseprotocol.org/noise.html#out-of-order-transport-messages . So I had a look into WireGuard implementation (which I use a lot in multiple sites, mostly on EdgeRouters)
>> so what i found in noise.c line 445 message_decrypt:
>> chacha20poly1305_decrypt(dst_plaintext, src_ciphertext, src_len,
>> hash, NOISE_HASH_LEN,
>> 0 /* Always zero for Noise_IK */, key))
>> Correct me if I’m mistaken, I’m not C programer nor cryptographer, I think this zero here is the Nonce. If that’s the case what security sacrifices and the chance for replay attacks are?
>> Would it be Ok if I also hardcode the Nonce to 0 in my implementation?
> This isn't the nonce used as part of the transport object, but rather
> a single encryption/decryption that happens with a unique key as part
> of the handshake. It being zero is a natural consequence of the
> protocol flow.
> Don't hardcode a zero nonce in transport messages.
More information about the WireGuard