From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr. Dimitri Vulis)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 21:09:58 +0800
To: Cypherpunks Lite <cp-lite@comsec.com>
Subject: A weakness in PGP signatures, and a suggested solution (long)
Message-ID: <199601030407.UAA12551@comsec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I've been engaged in a lively debate with a few members of the cypherpunks
mailing list about forgeries that are hard to repudiate even if PGP signatures
are used. One of the participants suggested that I post a summary to
alt.privacy.pgp and sci.crypt, which is just what I'm doing.

(My apologies to the mail.cypherpunks readers who already saw much of
this once.)

I'll illustrate the problem with several scenarios of forgeries.
(It's funny that earlier today I was showing a friend how easy it is to
post forgeries. She seemed suitably impressed. :)

Scenario 1:

Bob once sent Carol an e-mail that looked like this:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob@boxb
To: Carol@boxc
Date: 25 Dec 1965
Subject: Carol, we're history
Message-ID: <111@boxb>

----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----

I no longer wish to go out with you. Merry Christmas!

----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----
Version 2.6.2

12341234...

----END PGP SIGNATURE----

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Carol can forge an e-mail to Alice that looks like this:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob@boxb
To: Alice@boxa
Date: 25 Dec 1995
Subject: Alice, we're history
Message-ID: <222@bobb>

----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----

I no longer wish to go out with you. Merry Christmas!

----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----
Version 2.6.2

12341234...

----END PGP SIGNATURE----

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

We assume that it's easy for Carol to forge the RFC 822 headers to make it look
like the e-mail came from Bob. That's why many of us use digital signatures.

The signed portion of Bob's original e-mail did not state that the message is
addressed to Carol (e.g., "Dear Carol"). Alice will probably verify that the
signature matches Bob's private key and assume that the e-mail is authentic and
has been sent to her by Bob. To repudiate the e-mail, Bob might have to point
out that the "Received:" headers differ from his usual e-mails, without relying
on PGP. In fact, the presense of his verifiable signature would create more of
a presumption of authenticity of Alice's part.

Scenario 2:

Bob sends the same e-mail as above to Carol. David, a rogue sysadmin, gets
a copy of the e-mail, forges the same e-mail as above to Alice.

Scenario 3:

Bob sends a signed e-mail to Alice. Alice sees it in her newsfeed, forges a
Usenet article, makes it look like it came from Bob, and includes the body of
Bob's e-mail as the body of the Usenet forgery. Usenet forgeries are easy.

Again, if the signed text happens to be suitable, then Bob will have difficulty
repudiating the forgery. He won't not be able to use the PGP signature, which
will in fact verify. Hopefully, he'll be able to point out that the RFC 1036
Path: header is different from his usual header (which may not be the case).
Many Usenet readers would be unconvinced and Bob's reputation would be damaged.

Scenario 4:

Bob posts a signed Usenet article to alt.sex. Alice forges a usenet article in
Bob's name to misc.kids, recycilng the signed body, which would probably be
considered inappropriate for misc.kids. Same result as #3.

Scenario 5:

Bob posts a signed Usenet article to some innocuous newsgroup. Alice reposts
the same body in a forgery in Bob's name. The forgery can be cross-posted to
numerous "inappropriate" newsgroups ("velveeta"), or multi-posted ("spam").
Certain rogue self-apponited net.cops forge cancels for all copies of Bob's
article, including the original. (They are a bigger menace than the forgers :)

(As several people know, I have been a victim of some of the above-described
kinds of forgeries.)

I think the underlying problem is that the way PGP signatures are used by most
people, they validate a text, but allow it to be quoted out of context in an
e-mail or Usenet forgery.

I suggest to the kind folks working on PGP 3 that there should be a standard
protocol to include within the signed portion the information on when and for
whom this text is written: i.e. the list of e-mail recipients and/or Usenet
newsgroups, which could be easily compared with the RFC 822/1036 headers of an
e-mail/Usenet article. Perhaps there could be a new option for PGP to look
_outside_ the signed block and match the headers with what's inside the block.
For example, suppose the signature block says: this text was written by
alice@zog.org, posted to alt.sex and alt.sex.banal and e-mailed to
bob@masons.com. Suppose PGP is asked to check the signature in a file that
purports to be a e-mail or a Usenet article and has some headers before the
signed portion. If there is a list of To: recipients, and it includes someone
other than the recipients listed within the signed block; or if there is a
Newsgroups: header, and it includes newsgroups not listed within the signed
portion; then the input is bogus. For compatibility with the existing software,
if the signed block doesn't include this info, then this checking should't be
done, of course.

After I posted the above suggestion to cypherpunks, one very respected member
of that list informed me that "the security multiparts standard (RFC 1848)
includes a provision for signing the headers as well as the body of a message.
The security multiparts can be used with PGP, and there is even an Internet
Draft for it (draft-elkins-pem-pgp-02.txt), but there is not yet consensus for
adopting this as a standard on the pgp-mime mailing list."

I hope my examples will convince some that present practice of signing pieces
of text which can be quoted out of context in a forgery is just not enough.

We need to have an easy way to sign the headers without resorting to mine.

---

Dr. Dimitri Vulis
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps