Update stackage to 0.19 to avoid people falling prey of getRandomBytes lack of randomness?

[jsdw]

The latest version of cryptonite available on stackage is 0.15 (as of LTS 6.12). However, I spotted a bug which seems to be resolved in 0.19 whereby getRandomBytes is not random (which seems quite serious to me, but please correct me if I'm holding it wrong!). As an example, in ghci I do:

import Crypto.Random (getRandomBytes)
ByteChars.unpack <$> getRandomBytes 300

and the response I get back is always something like:

"\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225\235J\219 \192C\179\225C\ENQ\137\187"

This no longer seems to be an issue in 0.19, but as 0.15 is in the latest LTS I'm worried by how many users might be falling prey of this presently. The next best thing might be to put a warning in the readme telling people to manually add cryptonite-0.19 to their stack.yamls extra-deps field or somesuch.

[vincenthz]

I think we can envision making point releases for security reasons for lts'es, unfortunately I dont have a way to make any until next monday. Otherwise I dont think there s much changes to move to 0.19, so if someone from stackage can upgrade lts that could go faster (pinging @snoyberg)

[vincenthz]

Otherwise pinging @centromere @tekul, anyone of you interested by making a ..1 ?

[vincenthz]

markdown ate the comment .lts-ver.1

[tekul]

OK, I'm on it.

[snoyberg]

I've opened commercialhaskell/lts-haskell#24

[tekul]

I made a 0.15.1 release, backporting rdrand and other security-related fixes. There is a problem in that my machine doesn't have the issue which means I can't check it. Could someone (e.g. @jsdw) please check that 0.15.1 does indeed resolve the issue?

As such I have a few observations/recommendations wrt the commit log and so on, as IMO the git commit log should be a super-useful resource for cutting releases like this. Ours is a bit lacking, so this was harder and more error prone than it could have been, since I couldn't test the fix:

• If you are changing any kind of code or build behaviour, use detailed commit log messages to explain what was done and why.
• Make it obvious when you are not changing code. If, for example, you are updating the CHANGELOG to say "Fixed X", don't use "Fixed X" as the commit message. Use "Updated CHANGELOG" or something similar.
• Stick to git log conventions for readability
• Code changes should preferably be linked to an issue (not essential if the log is detailed enough)
• We should probably ask people to tidy up large feature branches with lots of commits before merging

Tim Pope's blog article on git logs and commit messages is worth a read.

[centromere]

@tekul Do you know what the precise cause of the problem was?

[vincenthz]

Looks like the encoded instruction rdrand has become invalid maybe after the i386 fix

[tekul]

@centromere No, I just know it was related to the rdrand changes. Any chance you can confirm whether you see a problem with 0.15 which is fixed with 0.15.1?

[centromere]

@tekul I am unable to reproduce the issue with 0.15.

$ ghci -package=cryptonite -package-db=./.cabal-sandbox/x86_64-linux-ghc-8.0.1.20160725-packages.conf.d/
GHCi, version 8.0.1.20160725: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/  :? for help
Loaded GHCi configuration from /home/alex/.ghci
λ> import Crypto.Random (getRandomBytes)
λ> import qualified Data.ByteString.Char8 as ByteChars
λ> ByteChars.unpack <$> getRandomBytes 300
"\149w\EMj\152t\249\176(bx\216<\n\147\240\CAN\245\219\180\\\215q\145L\178\139\GSU\233Q\ns\153\ACK\250\141\223\163\EM5\172\&3\236\144\186\221\173\177L\238\195\&8\165R\139\tj\246\192v\USo\188\SOH8\202\212\196\&8x\235\149\SUB\148?\175MUu\224C\233\195\a\129Qb\240\203\&9p$\NUL\224\\\130\206K\EM\244#\RSoj#\221@\180\132\253\216\166\242O\156\ACK\228\DC2\182\147\173~#\169\&6?\192!\NAK\145\&7\STX\CAN2\143|\157\NUL\159$cT\157\153_\226\196\EOT\153\240\212\133\234\249\158\&8\185\186/\184\198\253\220z\138\204bq\224T\253\ACKgfJ\b\NUL_1#\184n-\ETB\FS\228a\DC3\147\158u\SI$\208\251:\174@l\235\134\176\219\162<\158\190\130Mq\246w\DC3\243\235M\148\191\235\245\216\135\166N\148>\197r\ETX\219\DC2\219\131\138\237\151\196\ag<\158\&7\201\207\SO\192\129R\209\&5\218\EM\230\252\193\149\182w^\230\246v\155\131\&1N\178\146U\167\US\152[\NAK\233\181\&8\EOTw\138\169oQ\167N*!\195\218\222\225n\169K\227\136\SOHL\183"
λ> ByteChars.unpack <$> getRandomBytes 300
"\235\&4R\t\216\"~\242\238 \197\189v\178rQ\239\197\191\200\191\160X\151\bEY\252h=a>\234H\199\200\187\211\133;\RS\170\231S\217\ETB\179\DLE\163/X\205\177\ESCF\NAK]\135N\148/\250\158K\175\145\SO\230Ua\220Zug\238\a\215\253\SOH\199\NUL\243\145X\179\151\181\217\169\ENQ>\234\147\US\CAN0\138\SO\253N|\204\200\227]#`7P\160\t>\191\169\244T<\204\fZ8ToA\NAK\250!W\155+f\159\189\161U\195\209\DC3\176h\FS6aB\165)\213\RSw\215\NUL\SYNV\253\240J\f\223\212\158y\DC4\129\238W\213m=\186J\222\187\175\&2C?\208\194_Y\220a#\144>\221X\150\143S;/\207\248\175\f\FS\199\DC3\188+\224a\STX\166YJzJQ\182\136MB\210 K\DLEK\201\136\141\154-\180D}\235\187\243\164\128oM\128\209JE\232\NAK\169\132J\196\142g\152\158&\243\&4'g\194\178\227\255\191|?\176\183\tj\243\196\161\SO\222\161\196N\DLEv\136M\218\SYN\USK\228\152\213\160\223\FS\220\222\141m\156T\194\&4W\222j*!\SOH"

[bergmark]

It's been upgraded in LTS6 https://www.stackage.org/lts-6.14/package/cryptonite-0.19

[vincenthz]

Thanks @bergmark

@centromere it depends if you're using rdrand in the first place, and if you do, I think the operating system seems to be playing a part here. I'll check if I can reproduce on 0.15 and 0.15.1 later

[tekul]

I'm back from Zurihac finally, so I'll try and reproduce on some other machines.