Between a rock and a crazy place

SQL authentication timing side-channels


I've been thinking about how to do an authentication scheme, that uses some kind of relational database (it doesn't matter specifically, that the database is relational, the concerns should pretty much apply to all databases) as a backing store, in a way that is resilient against timing side-channel attacks and doesn't leak any data about which usernames exist in the system and which don't.

The first obvious thing is, that you need to do a constant time comparison of password-hashes. Luckily, most modern crypto libraries should include something like that (at least go's bcrypt implementation comes with that).

But now the question is, how you prevent enumerating users (or checking for existence). A naive query will return an empty result set if the user does not exists, so again, obviously, you need to compare against some password, even if the user isn't found. But just doing, for example

if result.Empty {
    // Compare against a prepared hash of an empty password, to have constant
    // time check.
    bcrypt.CompareHashAndPassword(HashOfEmptyPassword, enteredPassword)
} else {
    bcrypt.CompareHashAndPassword(result.PasswordHash, enteredPassword)

won't get you very far. Because (for example) the CPU will predict either of the two branches (and the compiler might or might not decide to "help" with that), so again an attacker might be able to distinguish between the two cases. The best way, to achieve resilience against timing side-channels is to make sure, that your control flow does not depend on input data at all. Meaning no branch or loop should ever take in any way into account, what is actually input into your code (including the username and the result of the database query).

So my next thought was to modify the query to return the hash of an empty password as a default, if no user is found. That way, your code is guaranteed to always get a well-defined bcrypt-hash from the database and your control flow does not depend on whether or not the user exists (and an empty password can be safely excluded in advance, as returning early for that does not give any new data to the attacker).

Which sounds well, but now the question is, if maybe the timing of your database query tells the attacker something. And this is where I hit a roadblock: If the attacker knows enough about your code (i.e. what database engine you are using, what machine you are running on and what kind of indices your database uses) they can potentially enumerate users by timing your database queries. To illustrate: If you would use a simple linear list as an index, a failed search has to traverse the whole list, whereas a successfull search will abort early. The same issue exists with balanced trees. An attacker could potentially hammer your application with unlikely usernames and measure the mean time to answer. They can then test individual usernames and measure if the time to answer is significantly below the mean for failures, thus enumerating usernames.

Now, I haven't tested this for practicality yet (might be fun) and it is pretty likely that this can't be exploited in reality. Also, the possibility of enumerating users isn't particularly desirable, but it is also far from a security meltdown of your authentication-system. Nevertheless, the idea that this theoretical problem exists makes me uneasy.

An obvious fix would be to make sure, that every query always has to search the complete table on every lookup. I don't know if that is possible, it might be just trivial by not giving a limit and not marking the username column as unique, but it might also be hard and database-dependent because there will still be an index over this username column which might still create the same kind of issues. There will also likely still be a variance, because we basically just shifted the condition from our own code into the DBMS. I have simply no idea.

So there you have it. I am happy to be corrected and pointed to some trivial design. I will likely accept the possibity of being vulnerable here, as the systems I am currently building aren't that critical. But I will probably still have a look at how other projects are handling this. And maybe if there really is a problem in practice.