Close Menu
  • Home
  • Articles
    • Attacks
      • BEC
      • Data Breach
      • DDoS
      • Evasion Attacks
      • Injection
      • Malware
      • MITM
      • Phishing
      • Ransomware
      • RCE
      • Social Engineering
      • Spoofing
      • Spyware
    • Business and Policy
      • BCP and DRP
      • GRC
      • Regulations
    • Data Protection
      • DLP
      • DRM
      • Encryption
      • IAM
    • Future, Trends and Insight
      • AI
      • Events & Community
      • Emerging Tech
      • Expert Panel
      • Interviews With Experts
      • Insights
      • Study & Research
    • Resources
      • Guides
      • Tools
      • Training & Education
    • Security
      • API
      • Apps
      • Cloud
      • Critical Infrastructure
      • Endpoint
      • Hardware
      • IoT
      • Mobile
      • Network
      • OT
      • Port Security
      • Security Architecture
      • Software Development
      • Supply Chain
      • Zero Trust
    • Threats and Vulnerabilities
      • Emerging Threats
      • Insider Threats
      • Risk Management
      • Threat Intelligence
      • Zero Day
  • News and Exclusives
    • Latest News
    • ISB Exclusive
    • Positive News
  • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • Information Security Buzz Expert Panel​
    • Write for Us
    • Media Pack
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Information Security BuzzInformation Security Buzz
  • Home
  • Articles
    • Attacks
      • BEC
      • Data Breach
      • DDoS
      • Evasion Attacks
      • Injection
      • Malware
      • MITM
      • Phishing
      • Ransomware
      • RCE
      • Social Engineering
      • Spoofing
      • Spyware
    • Business and Policy
      • BCP and DRP
      • GRC
      • Regulations
    • Data Protection
      • DLP
      • DRM
      • Encryption
      • IAM
    • Future, Trends and Insight
      • AI
      • Events & Community
      • Emerging Tech
      • Expert Panel
      • Interviews With Experts
      • Insights
      • Study & Research
    • Resources
      • Guides
      • Tools
      • Training & Education
    • Security
      • API
      • Apps
      • Cloud
      • Critical Infrastructure
      • Endpoint
      • Hardware
      • IoT
      • Mobile
      • Network
      • OT
      • Port Security
      • Security Architecture
      • Software Development
      • Supply Chain
      • Zero Trust
    • Threats and Vulnerabilities
      • Emerging Threats
      • Insider Threats
      • Risk Management
      • Threat Intelligence
      • Zero Day
  • News and Exclusives
    • Latest News
    • ISB Exclusive
    • Positive News
  • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • Information Security Buzz Expert Panel​
    • Write for Us
    • Media Pack
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
Subscribe
Information Security BuzzInformation Security Buzz
Home - Articles - Perfect Forward Secrecy
Articles

Perfect Forward Secrecy

Brian A. McHenryBy Brian A. McHenryJanuary 26, 2017Updated:June 30, 20214 Mins Read
Share LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Copy Link Email
Maintaining Data Integrity With Growing Cybersecurity Concerns
Maintaining Data Integrity With Growing Cybersecurity Concerns
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Copy Link
Quick AI Summary
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiGrokPerplexityDeepSeekCopilot

Perfect Forward Secrecy. The term sounds like something out of the latest Bond film. When I first checked how to configure PFS ciphers several years ago, I couldn’t find much documentation because I didn’t realize that that PFS described a class of ciphers, which included Diffie Hellman Ephemeral (DHE) and Elliptic Curve DHE (ECDHE). Further complicating matters was that some implementations made reference to ECDH, EDH, and DHE.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. First, let’s dissect the term itself and then what these ciphers are intended to achieve.  Ivan Ristic of Qualys SSL Labs balks at the notion of calling it perfect, and refers to it only as Forward Secrecy. Indeed, some implementations of Forward Secrecy have already been found to be profoundly imperfect, as in the research done on DHE by the team at WeakDH.org, famous for the LogJam attack published in 2015. The use of weak or common primes for the generation of ephemeral keys, along with an ephemeral key length of less than 2048 bits has been classified as potentially vulnerable to this LogJam attack. As with any cryptographic method, the implementation is vital to the effective security. So, PFS certainly isn’t “perfect”.

The Forward Secrecy part of the term refers to the use of those ephemeral keys. In a classic key exchange, without an FS cipher, a single private key is used to encrypt all connections. This private key is the one associated with the SSL certificate. In that non-FS scenario, anyone could record encrypted communications, and at some future date, get a copy of that private key and decrypt all of that recorded data. For that reason, it may be helpful to think of it as Future Secrecy, as the ephemeral key exchange is designed to defeat the exploit of a private key compromised at a future date.

The ephemeral key exchange is a per-session key generated using a random prime number. This key is ephemeral because it isn’t stored anywhere, and therefore isn’t subject to the same risk of compromise described above. However, as with the LogJam attack, the use of weak or common primes could severely undermine the security of an implementation of DHE or ECDHE. More dangerous than the use of weak or common primes is the reuse of the “per session” ephemeral keys. Because the generation of the ephemeral key is computationally expensive, many TLS stacks implement ECDHE and DHE with an ephemeral key reuse setting. While some reuse in the name of performance is defensible, make sure that any systems in use minimize key reuse and auto-rotate the primes used for key generation. Ivan Ristic has an excellent write up on deploying forward secrecy that everyone interested in practical cryptography should read.

Why is all this Forward Secrecy stuff important?

If you follow this column, you’ll know that I’ve predicted (twice) that the adoption of HTTP/2 and TLS 1.3 will have a profound impact on Internet traffic. The most obvious effects of these latest protocol versions are the built-in performance enhancements. However, both protocols use only Forward Secrecy ciphers. SSL Labs has been pushing the use of Forward Secrecy to achieve their highest A+ grade for some time now. In 2017, Forward Secrecy will be required or your SSL Labs grade will be capped to a B.

Forward Secrecy ciphers such as DHE and ECDHE can only be decrypted by authorized full-proxy devices (or men-in-the-middle). Many security solutions such as IPS and WAF rely on the weakness of a static key exchange described above to passively decrypt traffic, and are effectively blinded by Forward Secrecy cipher usage. Beware when enforcing the use of Forward Secrecy that visibility into that traffic from various security sensors is properly preserved, as covered in this column in the past.

Brian_McHenry
Brian A. McHenry

As a Senior Security Solutions Architect at F5 Networks, Brian McHenry focuses on web application and network security. McHenry acts as a liaison between customers and F5 product teams, providing a hands-on, real-world perspective. He is a regular contributor on InformationSecurityBuzz.com, a co-founder of BSidesNYC, and a speaker at AppSecUSA, BC Aware Day, GoSec Montreal, and the Central Ohio Infosec Summit, among others. Prior to joining F5 in 2008, McHenry, a self-described IT generalist, held leadership positions within a variety of technology organizations, ranging from startups to major financial services firms.

  • Brian A. McHenry
    The WAF Is Not Enough
  • Brian A. McHenry
    Access Management, With A Side Order Of Identity
  • Brian A. McHenry
    The Internet of Thingbots
  • Brian A. McHenry
    Black Hat USA 2017: Bigger and Better (?)

The opinions expressed in this post belong to the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Information Security Buzz.

Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Copy Link

Related Posts

What Are AI SOC Agents? Use Cases, Architecture, and the Leading Vendors

June 19, 20266 Mins Read

AI-Powered Attacks Become Top Concern for Security Professionals, New Filigran Survey Reveals

June 19, 20265 Mins Read

ShinyHunters targets Oracle PeopleSoft customers through critical zero-day

June 19, 20263 Mins Read
ISB-Bora-Side-Bar

No se ha podido establecer conexión. Error 429

 
ISB-Bora-Side-Bar
Black ISB Logo

Information Security Buzz is an independent resource that provides the experts’ comments, analysis, and opinion on the latest Cybersecurity news and topics

X (Twitter) LinkedIn Facebook RSS

Working With Us

  • About Us
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Write For Us

  • How To Contribute

The Pages

  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • AI Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Copyright Notice

Information Security Buzz and all its contents are copyright © 2014-2025. All rights reserved. All third-party trademarks are recognized.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
  • Manage options
  • Manage services
  • Manage {vendor_count} vendors
  • Read more about these purposes
View preferences
  • {title}
  • {title}
  • {title}