←back to thread

178 points saikatsg | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
miki123211 ◴[] No.42208092[source]
Timing attacks are such a pernicious idea.

You look at the code and see that there's an auth check in place, you test the code to verify that the auth check has no bugs, you make sure that information is never shared with people who don't have authorization to access it, and yet it turns out it can be accessed as if there was no auth check at all.

To make matters worse, everything can be fine for some time, and then some clever optimization in the CPU, the compiler, cache layer or the database engine introduces a completely unexpected side channel.

replies(2): >>42208294 #>>42214191 #
GoToRO ◴[] No.42208294[source]
would adding random delays prevent this?
replies(5): >>42208493 #>>42208931 #>>42208951 #>>42208997 #>>42209530 #
pwagland ◴[] No.42209530[source]
No, it only makes it take longer to get the underlying secret.

Timing attacks are already dealing with "noisy" data, task scheduling et al, so they all boil down to some level of statistical analysis on the response times. Adding noise to that slows you down, but the underlying bias on the timings is still there.

replies(2): >>42211601 #>>42212364 #
1. ozim ◴[] No.42211601[source]
So in practice it prevents the attack as real world attackers have limited resources and try to find easier targets.
replies(1): >>42212417 #
2. saagarjha ◴[] No.42212417[source]
That’s what everyone says until they realize they understated the costs to attempt such an attack.