1278
January 15, 2014

EncFS Security Audit

Note: This is is an old version of the EncFS audit report, which is made available for transparency. You should read the new EncFS audit report instead.

This report is the result of a paid 10-hour security audit of EncFS. It has been posted to the EncFS mailing list, so check there for follow-up. I feel that full disclosure is the best approach for disclosing these vulnerabilities, since some of the issues have already been disclosed but haven't been fixed, and by disclosing them, users can immediately re-evaluate their use of EncFS.

Thanks to Igor Sviridov for funding this audit.

Note: The severity ratings are subjective and not representative of an actual user's risk, since they do not account for the probability of being exploited (thanks @solardiz). Users should decide based on their own usage of EncFS. I have removed them to preemptively avoid confusion. This was my mistake, and I apologize.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              EncFS Security Audit
                                 Taylor Hornby
                                January 14, 2014
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction

  This document describes the results of a 10-hour security audit of EncFS
  1.7.4. The audit was performed on January 13th and 14th of 2014.

1.1. What is EncFS?

  EncFS is a user-space encrypted file system. Unlike disk encryption software
  like TrueCrypt, EncFS's ciphertext directory structure mirrors the plaintext's
  directory structure. This introduces unique challenges, such as guaranteeing
  unique IVs for file name and content encryption, while maintaining
  performance.

1.2. Audit Results Summary

  This audit finds that EncFS is not up to speed with modern cryptography
  practices. Several previously known vulnerabilities have been reported [1, 2],
  which have not been completely fixed. New issues were also discovered during
  the audit.

  The next section presents a list of the issues that were discovered. Each
  issue is given a severity rating from 1 to 10. Due to lack of time, most
  issues have not been confirmed with a proof-of-concept.

2. Issues

2.1. Same Key Used for Encryption and Authentication

  SEVERITY: 3

  EncFS uses the same key for encrypting data and computing MACs. This is
  generally considered to be bad practice.

  EncFS should use separate keys for encrypting data and computing MACs.

2.2. Stream Cipher Used to Encrypt Last File Block

  SEVERITY: 7

  As reported in [1], EncFS uses a stream cipher mode to encrypt the last file
  block. The change log says that the ability to add random bytes to a block was
  added as a workaround for this issue. However, it does not solve the problem,
  and is not enabled by default.

  EncFS needs to use a block mode to encrypt the last block.

  EncFS's stream encryption is unorthodox:

    1. Run "Shuffle Bytes" on the plaintext.
        N[J+1] = Xor-Sum(i = 0 TO J) { P[i] }
        (N = "shuffled" plaintext value, P = plaintext)
    2. Encrypt with (IV, key) using CFB mode.
    3. Run "Flip Bytes" on the ciphertext.
        This reverses bytes in 64-byte chunks.
    4. Run "Shuffle Bytes" on the ciphertext.
    5. Encrypt with (IV + 1, key) using CFB mode.

  This should be removed and replaced with something more standard. As far as
  I can see, this provides no useful security benefit, however, it is relied
  upon to prevent the attacks in [1]. This is security by obscurity.
        
2.3. Generating Block IV by XORing Block Number

  SEVERITY: 7

  Given the File IV (an IV unique to a file), EncFS generates per-block IVs by
  XORing the File IV with the Block Number. This is not a good solution, as it
  leads to IV re-use when combined with the last-block stream cipher issue (see
  the previous section):

  The stream algorithm (see previous section) adds 1 to the IV, which could
  *undo* the XOR with the block number, causing the IV to be re-used. Suppose
  the file consists of one and a half blocks, and that the File IV's least
  significant bit (LSB) is 1. The first block will be encrypted with the File IV
  (block number = 0). The second (partial) block will be encrypted with File IV
  XOR 1 (since block number = 1), making the LSB 0, using the stream algorithm.
  The stream algorithm adds 1 to the IV, bringing the LSB back to 1, and hence
  the same IV is used twice.

  EncFS should use a mode like XTS for random-access block encryption, instead
  of CBC mode with predictable IVs.

2.4. File Holes are Not Authenticated

  SEVERITY: 5

  File holes allow large files to contain "holes" of all zero bytes, which are
  not saved to disk. EncFS supports these, but it determines if a file block is
  part of a file hole by checking if it is all zeroes. If an entire block is
  zeroes, it passes the zeroes on without decrypting it or verifying a MAC.

  This allows an attacker to insert zero blocks inside a file (or append zero
  blocks to the end of the file), without being detected when MAC headers are
  enabled.

2.5. MACs Not Compared in Constant Time

  SEVERITY: 6

  MACs are not compared in constant time (MACFileIO.cpp, Line 209). This allows
  an attacker with write access to the ciphertext to use a timing attack to
  compute the MAC of arbitrary values.

  A constant-time string comparison should be used.

2.6. 64-bit MACs

  SEVERITY: 5

  EncFS uses 64-bit MACs. This is not long enough, as they can be forged in 2^64
  time, which is feasible today.

  EncFS should use (at least) 128-bit MACs.

2.7. Editing Configuration File Disables MACs

  SEVERITY: 7

  The purpose of MAC headers is to prevent an attacker with read/write access to
  the ciphertext from being able to make changes without being detected.
  Unfortunately, this feature provides little security, since it is controlled
  by an option in the .encfs6.xml configuration file (part of the ciphertext),
  so the attacker can just disable it by setting "blockMACBytes" to 0 and adding
  8 to "blockMACRandBytes" (so that the MAC is not interpreted as data).

  EncFS needs to re-evaluate the purpose of MAC headers and come up with
  something more robust. As a workaround, EncFS could add a command line option
  --require-macs that will trigger an error if the configuration file does not
  have MAC headers enabled.

3. Future Work

  There were a few potential problems that I didn't have time to evaluate. This
  section lists the most important ones. These will be prioritized in future
  audits.

3.1. Padding Oracle

  POSSIBLE SEVERITY: 8

  EncFS uses Mac-then-Encrypt. This might make decryption padding oracles
  possible through timing attacks.

3.2. Chosen Ciphertext Attacks

  POSSIBLE SEVERITY: 10

  Since the same key is used to encrypt all files, it may be possible for an
  attacker with read/write access to the ciphertext and partial read access to
  the plaintext (e.g. to one directory when --public is used) to perform
  a chosen ciphertext attack and decrypt ciphertexts for which they have no
  plaintext access.

  EncFS should consider using XTS mode.

3.3. Possible Out of Bounds Write in StreamNameIO and BlockNameIO

  POSSIBLE SEVERITY: 7

  There is a possible buffer overflow in the encodeName method of StreamNameIO
  and BlockNameIO. The methods write to the 'encodedName' argument without
  checking its length. This may allow an attacker with control over file names
  to crash EncFS or execute arbitrary code.

3.4. 64-bit Initialization Vectors

  POSSIBLE SEVERITY: 5

  Initialization vectors are only 64 bits, even when using AES instead of
  Blowfish. This may lead to vulnerabilities when encrypting large (or lots of)
  files.

4. Conclusion

  In conclusion, while EncFS is a useful tool, it ignores many standard
  best-practices in cryptography. This is most likely due to it's old age
  (originally developed before 2005), however, it is still being used today, and
  needs to be updated.

  The EncFS author says that a 2.0 version is being developed [3]. This would be
  a good time to fix the old problems.

  As it is now, EncFS is not suitable for protecting mission-critical data.

5. References

[1] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2010-08/0316.html

[2] http://code.google.com/p/encfs/issues/detail?id=128

[3] https://code.google.com/p/encfs/issues/detail?id=186