A mail is an authenticated byte array with an encrypted body and a cleartext envelope. The mail can be up to two gigabytes in size, however, it must at this time fit into memory when loaded all at once. In practice mails will usually be much smaller than that.
Conclave Mail unifies messaging and data storage. It provides a variety of features that are useful when building applications:
Encryption. The encryption key used by the enclave is private to that enclave but stable across restarts and enclave upgrades. This means messages encrypted and delivered by older clients can still be decrypted. The format uses the respected Noise protocol framework (with AES/GCM and SHA-256), which is the same cryptographic framework used by WhatsApp, the Linux kernel WireGuard protocol and I2P.
Authentication. Mail allows a message to prove it came from the owner of a particular key, as well as being encrypted to a destination public key. Because of this it's easy to encrypt a reply to the sender, although how a public key is mapped to a physical computer is up to the app developer. This capability is useful for another reason: if an enclave has a notion of a user identifiable by public key, mail can be cryptographically authenticated as having come from that user. This avoids the need for complex user login processes: the login process can be handled outside of the enclave, without compromising security. The envelope is protected this way along with the encrypted body.
Headers. Mail has unencrypted but authenticated (tamperproof) headers that can be used to link messages together. This allows clients to structure a conversation as if they were using a socket, but also hold multiple conversations simultaneously. This can be used to implement usage tracking, prioritisation, or other tasks not directly relevant to data processing that the host can assist with (despite its untrusted nature).
Headers provide strong sequence numbers that are set by the sender and prevent the host re-ordering messages, a "topic" string field that is more useful than a port number (e.g. can identify what it's about, be mapped to message queue names), and applications can put their own data in the envelope part of the headers thus enabling hosts to see part of the messages. This can frequently be a useful design pattern.
Framing. A typical need with any socket or stream based transport is to add framing on top, because the application really needs to work with messages. In textual protocols framing can be remarkably tricky to get right, as user or attacker controlled data may be placed inside a message, meaning any characters that mark the end of a message need to be escaped. This can go wrong in a variety of interesting ways. Mail by its nature delimits messages such that you can always tell where they begin and end, without needing to impose your own framing on top.
We plan to add additional features to the mail API in upcoming releases:
Padding. The body of a mail will be automatically padded to reduce or eliminate size-based side channel attacks. The size of a message won't give away information about the contents. See side channel attacks.
Storage. Mail will be stored by the host process. Often an enclave is implementing a form of batch job. By allowing the host to handle storage of messages, mail allows it to delay starting the enclave until enough data has arrived. This in turn allows the host to best utilise the limited pool of encrypted RAM available for enclaves.
Atomicity. Mail should be delivered by the host to an enclave on each startup, until the mail is acknowledged. Acknowledgement and posting mail will become transactional, thus can be performed atomically with other acknowledgements and sending other replies. In this way enclaves can ensure that restarting an enclave doesn't produce duplicate messages, perform the same actions twice or cause service interruptions to users.
More sophisticated database solutions may be added in future releases.
Using mail for storage¶
Mail is not only intended for messaging. It subsumes the "sealing" functionality that appears in most trusted computing platforms.
By sending mail to itself an enclave can store chunks of data that will be fed back to it at startup. It can then delete these chunks by acknowledging the mails. Utilising mail this way has a variety of advantages:
- The same encryption, authentication and TCB management features are available for stored data as well as messaging.
- The API is simple and used the same way for both use cases.
- Mail acknowledgement can be used to control data lifetime, by having enclaves signal to the host that it's safe to delete data which is no longer needed.
- Stored data typically comes from input data (i.e. messages) and may be stored incrementally. Sequence numbers and topics provide a way to organise stored data that can be integrated with the client's view of time, thus allowing rollback attacks on storage to be detected and blocked in some cases.
This isn't a replacement for a full database. However, in many cases it may be more appropriate, as accessing a database from an enclave can leak a lot of data via access patterns and of course the database itself may need access to the unencrypted data to index or search it. The mail-to-self pattern avoids this by storing the dataset in memory and always reading all stored data at startup.
Currently storage management is delegated to the application. The enclave may signal acknowledgement requests to the host but by default nothing is done with them.
Attacks on messaging¶
Mail is designed to block a variety of attacks the host can mount on the enclave.
Observation. The body of the mail is encrypted with industry standard AES/GCM. The host can't see what the client is sending to the client.
Tampering. All the encrypted body, the plaintext headers and the user-specifiable envelope header are authenticated such that the enclave can detect if they were tampered with. See below for more information on this.
Reordering. The enclave can't directly access any hardware other than the CPU and RAM. That means it can't know that messages came from the network card or hard disk in the right order, or that no messages were dropped. Mails include a sequence number in the headers, meaning it is visible to the host but can't be tampered with. This enlists the client as an ally in the enclave's war against the host: the client wants its messages to be delivered in the right order and without being dropped. The Conclave runtime checks the sequence numbers in the headers always increment before passing the mail to your code.
The host may arbitrarily delay or even refuse to deliver mail, but it can only end the stream of mails early, it can't re-order messages relative to each other. This is a feature not a bug, as if the enclave could force the host to deliver mail that would imply it had actually taken over the computer somehow and was forcing it to provide services to the enclave. SGX isn't a form of remote control and nobody can force a host to run enclaves against its will.
Side channel inspection. Future versions of mail will provide automatic and manual ways to pad messages, so their size can't give away any clues as to their contents. This is in fact one of the benefits of mail: if Conclave couldn't understand the message structure of your app (e.g. because it provided only a stream interface) then it wouldn't be able to do this type of padding.
How does Mail work¶
When viewed as a structured array of bytes, a mail consists of five parts:
- The protocol ID.
- The unencrypted headers, which have fields simply laid out in order.
- The unencrypted envelope, which is empty by default and exists for you to add whatever data you like (i.e. additional headers).
- The handshake.
- The encrypted body.
Let's call the protocol ID, unencrypted headers and envelope the prologue.
At the core of Mail's security is the handshake. It consists of the data needed to do an elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman calculation and derive a unique (per mail) AES/GCM key, using the Noise protocol specification.
AES/GCM is an authenticated encryption mechanism. That means the key is used not only to encrypt data, but also calculate a special hash called a "tag" that allows detection of modifications to the encrypted data. This matters because 'raw' encryption merely stops someone reading a message: if they already know what some parts of the message say (e.g. because it's a well known data structure) then by flipping bits in the encrypted data, corruption can be created in the decrypted message. In some situations these corruptions could change the way the message is parsed leading to an exploit, for example, by changing a zero to a one and gaining administrator access.
Like all symmetric ciphers, for AES/GCM to work both sides must know the same key. But we want to be able to send messages to a target for which we only know a public key, and have never had a chance to securely generate a joint AES key with. This is the problem solved by the Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman algorithm. To use it we first select a large random number (256 bits) and then convert that to a coordinate on an elliptic curve - in our case, we use Curve25519, which is a modern and highly robust elliptic curve. The point is our public key and can be encoded in another 256 bits (32 bytes). We write this public key after the unencrypted envelope. This key is an ephemeral key - we picked it just for the purposes of creating this mail.
We know the target's public key either because the enclave puts it public key into the remote attestation, represented
EnclaveInstanceInfo object, or because the enclave is replying and obtained the key to reply to from an earlier
mail. Two public keys is all that's needed for both parties to compute the same AES key, without any man-in-the-middle
being able to calculate the same value.
The sender may also have a long term "static" public key that the target will recognise. However, at this point we may choose to finish the handshake, either because we are sending a mail anonymously or because the target will recognise us in some other manner than our static key. Alternatively, we may now append an encryption of our long term static public key and repeat the calculation between the enclave's public key and our static key, generating a new AES/GCM key as a result.
As each step in the handshake progresses, a running hash is maintained that mixes in the hash of the prologue and the various intermediate stages. This allows the unencrypted headers to be tamper-proofed against the host as well, because the host will not be able to recalculate the authentication tag emitted to the end of the handshake.
Thus, in the case where the sender has a long term keypair, the handshake consists of a random public key, an authenticated encryption of the sender's public key, and an authentication hash. Once this is done the mail's AES key has been computed. The initialization vector for each AES encryption is a counter (an exception will be thrown if the mail is so large the counter would wrap around, as that would potentially reveal information for cryptanalysis, however this cannot happen given the maximum mail size).
The encrypted body consists of a set of 64kb packets. Each packet has its own authentication tag, thus data is read from a mail in 64kb chunks. Packets may also contain a true length as distinct from the length of the plaintext. This allows the sender to artificially inflate the size of the encrypted message by simply padding it with zeros, which enables hiding of the true message size. Message sizes can be a giveaway to what exact content it contains.
Comparison to a classical architecture using REST and SSL¶
Let's look at why Conclave provides Mail, instead of having clients connect into an enclave using HTTPS.
The following explanation applies when connecting to the enclave. When connecting to the host you may use whatever transport mechanism you like to pass mail around. Conclave doesn't currently privilege any particular transport over any other.
We provide the mail paradigm for these reasons:
- HTTPS requires a relatively large and complex infrastructure, increasing the size of the trusted computing base (TCB). It can go wrong in ways that aren't intuitive. Mail attempts to solve some common security problems before they start.
- SSL/TLS is not well adapted to enclaves, for example certificates don't make sense, but the protocol requires them.
- Web servers require the backing of a database to ensure session persistence and atomicity, but this interacts badly with the way enclaves handle time and state. Mail allows for a very simple approach to restarting and upgrading enclaves.
- The primary reason to use HTTPS+REST is familiarity and installed base of tools. However, none of these tools or libraries understand SGX remote attestation so cannot be used in their regular modes and must be modified or adjusted in complex ways, thus invalidating most of the benefits.
We'll now explore these issues in more depth.
The code that handles encrypted messaging is directly exposed to attackers. It is important to minimise the amount of code exposed in this way. For more discussion of how enclaves are designed to minimise code size, please see "Small is beautiful".
Mail is based on the Noise protocol framework. Noise is designed by professional cryptographers and is used in WhatsApp, WireGuard and other modern network protocols. Noise was created because TLS is weighed down with complicated historical baggage and web-specific features. A Noise protocol delivers most of the same functionality but in a more modular, cleaner and simpler way. Therefore, outside of the web the primary reason to use TLS is compatibility, not technical excellence. Now there is Noise there isn't much reason to use TLS anymore when designing a new protocol from scratch, unless you really need its features or support.
TLS 1.3 recognises this problem and simplifies the protocol, but it's still far more complex than a Noise protocol, and because the purpose of using TLS is compatibility and TLS 1.3 is very new, realistically you will support TLS 1.2 as well. So now you have even more complexity in your enclave because you need both 1.2 and 1.3 support simultaneously.
A big source of complexity in TLS is X.509 certificates. Certificates do not make sense for an enclave but TLS absolutely requires them, so some systems try to jam fake pseudo-certificates into TLS, which aren't real but contain the remote attestation in an extension field. Fake certificates can create problems because a lot of organisations have decades of procedures and best practices around all aspects of certificates and X.509, so fake pseudo-certificates can end up harder to deploy and work with than a purely technical analysis would suggest. Noise is more modular - you can provide any arbitrary byte array as part of the handshake, which can thus include a certificate (of any format) if you want that, but it isn't necessary.
In Conclave the "certificate" is the remote attestation data represented as an
It will usually make sense to expose this to the client via some app-specific mechanism, for example, returning it
in some other API, publishing it on a web server, a network drive, a message queue, even putting it into a
distributed hash table. Noise and by extension Conclave doesn't care how you get this data, only that you have it.
Certificates don't make sense for enclaves because TLS is all about verifiable names as a form of identity, but enclaves are all about measurements and remote attestations. Thus, any client tool that communicates with an enclave will need to extract a remote attestation from a pseudo-certificate and throw out the rest. Given that you would need complex custom client-side code anyway, TLS buys you little beyond brand recognition.
This logic applies when connecting to an enclave. When connecting to a host the domain name identity of the server owner may well matter, and in that case TLS can be useful.
TLS stacks have a history of being extremely buggy. The security TLS supposedly adds has a track record of being undermined by bugs in the implementations e.g. Heartbleed. Putting a TLS stack into an enclave makes it much bigger and harder to audit. In Conclave, we could use the JSSE Java SSL implementation and thus avoid memory management errors, but there are other kinds of issues that can be experienced with TLS too, that Java cannot protect us from. We use a pure Java implementation of Noise which ensures there are no buffer overflows in our crypto stack, and it's small enough that we have read every line. By licensing Conclave you can get the code, and then you can read every line too. This is impractical for a TLS stack.
Finally, TLS mandates complex session persistence. This is a subtle point that deserves deeper discussion.
Sessions and forward secrecy¶
One of the upgrades Noise gives us is the ability to encrypt in both interactive and one-way modes e.g. for encrypting a file. TLS and HTTPS are fundamentally interactive protocols and cannot do this.
TLS is interactive because the modern way to use it (and the only way in TLS 1.3) is with forward secrecy. In a scheme with forward secrecy two sides calculate an ephemeral session symmetric key during the handshake, that is used only for a short period and then deleted - usually this means the ephemeral key is stored only in RAM.
In theory this is good, because it means if someone hacks the server/enclave they can't decrypt all the old messages they might have recorded. The private key is used only to establish identity, not actually encrypt any messages. With a purely one-way handshake you don't get this.
Forward secrecy is a rather slippery feature. The problem is simple - what does "short period" mean? This is surprisingly hard to answer.
TLS was designed for the web so at first this meant a TCP connection that carried a few web requests. So, usually a few seconds or perhaps hours if doing a big download. These days it gets used in many other kinds of apps and thus might mean much longer sessions, but fundamentally a TLS session was tied to the lifetime of a socket and therefore it couldn't last very long.
Handshaking to set up a new session key is slow, so various optimisations were introduced. Connections were kept alive longer, and TLS added "session resume" that allowed session keys to be saved to disk and continued in later connections. For this to actually add any security it has to be harder to steal the cached session keys than the identity keys, but why would this be so when they're both stored in ordinary files?
But there's actually an even deeper conceptual problem. TLS encrypts sockets. It has nothing to say about the wider design of your app - that's out of scope for the people designing TLS. As a consequence TLS sessions don't bear any resemblance to actual user sessions. The intuition behind forward secrecy is a sort of controlled forgetting ... when the session ends the keys that could decrypt it are destroyed, so even if a passive observer stops being passive and hacks someone's private key they can't get the "forgotten" data.
If web apps forgot everything you uploaded for no better reason than you changed from 4G to Wi-Fi people would get pretty upset. So HTTP has the idea of cookies, but even that is too transient for most users, which is why web apps normally require you to log in to an account. The actual data an attacker cares about is tied to the lifetime of an account, not a TCP connection.
To make this work servers must store user session data into a database. This is so obvious and natural we hardly think about it, but it largely obliterates the supposed benefits of forward secrecy - the private key is held on the server, so if you can steal it you can probably steal the database credentials that are also stored on the server. And then you can just steal the valuable user data out of the database, you don't need to decrypt TLS sessions anymore.
The biggest risk to an enclave is that the host can read its memory and thus steal its keys. Forward secrecy doesn't help you with this because users (we think) won't tolerate an app that forgets stuff if a TCP connection resets, and operations teams won't tolerate software that can't be safely restarted.
So in practice an enclave will immediately re-encrypt data received from a client under a static sealing key, and if you can steal a TLS private key out of an enclave you can also steal a sealing key. So it buys you nothing. Moreover, it's insufficient to simply seal a byte array. You will probably need some sort of minimal database infrastructure, to keep data separated by user and so on. So now you have the complexity of a data management layer in the enclave as well.
The result of all this is we don't lose much by using a more asynchronous design in which there isn't an interactive handshake.
Benefits of Noise¶
By losing TLS we can:
- Eliminate huge complexity from in-enclave code.
- Avoid pseudo-certificates and other hacks that will open up exploits and hit corporate X.509 bureaucracy.
- Enable enclaves to talk to each other even if they can't be loaded simultaneously (e.g. on same machine)
- Move session management and expiry out of the enclave, where it can't be done properly anyway because there's no secure access to the clock.
- Get various other benefits, like being able to reuse MQ brokers, integrate with Corda flows, store messages to databases, support M-to-1 inbound message collection before processing and so on.
Messages vs streams¶
There are three main ways for networked programs to communicate: streams, messages and RPCs. The popular REST paradigm is a form of RPC for the purposes of this discussion.
Multi-party computations all involve the transmission of relatively small messages, often without needing any immediate reply. For instance, over the course of a day parties may submit a small data structure when a human gets around to it, and get the results back hours later when a deadline or threshold is reached. In other cases submission of data to an enclave may be asynchronous and should not block a business process in case of outage.
These requirements are not a good fit for stream-oriented connections that when on top of TCP require app developers to do their own framing (a frequent source of security vulnerabilities), can break due to NAT boxes timing them out, IP address changes, passing through one-way firewalls, require high-availability servers with load balancing, require databases for stored state and so on.
With a stream or RPC oriented approach the enclave would be expected to respond to bytes from a client more or less immediately, meaning it has to be always running and would have to persist uploaded data itself. Unfortunately persistence in enclaves is tricky due to the existence of Memento attacks").
RPCs (including REST) can be hard to integrate with fully reliable systems that can tolerate restarts at any moment. Because server restarts break connections, in a loosely coupled multi-party system connection-oriented protocols require expensive HA load balancing to ensure users aren't often exposed to errors caused by planned restarts. Even then it isn't possible to eliminate such errors entirely, just reduce their impact. Load balancing in an enclave environment requires special support because the client is intimately aware of the exact CPU the enclave is running on - thus switching a client between servers isn't transparent.
Future versions of Conclave are planned to add support for enclave clustering.
All this suggests the primary paradigm exposed to enclaves should be messages. The host will take care of delivering messages and providing atomic, transactional semantics over them so many kinds of enclaves won't need an encrypted database at all. The untrusted host can also take on the significant burden of moving data around, storing it to disk, sorting it, applying backpressure, exposing to the admin if there are backlogs etc.