Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

19

I sent an email to Ron Rivest and got an answer back. The digits of $\pi$ are used as a sort of random number generator that is used in the Durstenfeld shuffle (see also Knuth vol 3, sec 3.4.2). Below is some pseudocode adapted from the description and code he sent me. S = [0, 1, ..., 255] digits_Pi = [3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 9, ...] # the digits of pi def ...


15

CBC does not perform authentication This property makes it less suitable for places where authentication is required, basically any transport protocol. TLS uses CBC, but by default performs authentication over the plain text instead of the ciphertext, which opened up a host of attacks. CBC can be used here, but it is error prone and may require an ...


11

I restrict to hash functions $H$ with an output of some fixed size $n\ge1$ bit(s), accepting as input some strings, including all $n$-bit strings; MD5 (resp. SHA-1, SHA-256) is an example of such function for $n=128$ (resp. $n=160$, $n=256$). Whether there exists a solution to $H(x)=x$ depends on the particular hash function. If $H$ is a random function (as ...


9

Actually, that's an expected result since $65 \equiv 10 \pmod{55}$. You should choose $m < n$ to avoid this problem.


8

There's no real difference between $p$ and $q$ in RSA. It looks like OpenSSL just has the agreement "$p$ has to be bigger than $q$" for conveniences. One of the numbers has to be bigger than the other (otherwise they would be the same number, and $p = q$ is very bad in RSA). Just use two examples: $p = 13$ and $q = 11$. $p$ is bigger than $q$, all right. ...


7

There are several scenarios where you wouldn’t want to use AES in CBC mode. In CBC mode, each block is dependent on a previous one. As @fgrieu nicely hinted at in his comment, using CBC means that if you have a large, encrypted file and you only want to update/change/modify a tiny fraction of it, you would have to follow the decrypt-modify-encrypt path each ...


6

Apart from you're choosing a message greater than the modulus, another thing that might be confusing you is that, in this case, $C \equiv P \bmod N$. That is, you take your message, 65, which is equivalent to 10 modulo 55, and encrypt it, and the result is 10, because $10^{13} \bmod 55 = 10$, So, when you decrypt it, you take the ciphertext 10, and ...


6

Using a MAC on the plaintext may potentially leak information about the plaintext (MAC algorithms do not necessarily ensure confidentiality of the data they are applied to, although some MAC algorithms like HMAC seem pretty safe). If you want to avoid this (theoretical) problem, then you should encrypt the MAC on the plaintext (i.e. MAC-then-encrypt, not ...


6

Actually, given that the MD2 S-box needs to be a permutation, using a Fisher–Yates shuffle does seem a fairly obvious choice to me. (It's pretty much the standard algorithm for generating a uniformly chosen random permutation.) The rand() function used to convert the digits of $\pi$ into a random number from a given interval looks complicated, but is ...


6

While it may be confusing, that Wikipedia article is actually correct! Let me try to explain it a bit better… Definition of key whitening Key whitening is an extremely simple technique to make block ciphers like DES much more resistant against brute-force attacks. Like you’ve already discovered yourself, this is the basic scheme: Or, defining it a bit ...


6

There are many well known and studied ways of constructing a hash function from a block cipher. A thorough (but reasonably readable for a beginner) treatment of many of the classic approaches, and the security properties of the various constructions, can be found in Black-Box Analysis of the Block-Cipher-Based Hash-Function Constructions from PGV, which is ...


5

At the time of answering, the question was can insecure algorithms be combined to form a secure algorithm? Yes: Think of any secure round-based block cipher. The independent rounds are not secure, but put together the overall cipher is. I think my favourite example is (currently) the Even Mansour cipher, which combines two xor operations and one unkeyed ...


5

The probability of someone 'getting lucky' with a guess at a key for a decent cryptosystem is crazily low, but yes: it is possible. However, there are methods that can 'survive' even this. For example, consider the one time pad. In this system the key and plaintext are xor'd together to form the ciphertext, and to decrypt you xor the ciphertext and key. ...


5

Yes, we can build a hash function from a block cipher, and that's common, although with block ciphers designed for that purpose, when in the following I focus on AES, mentioned in the (different) question that motivated the present answer [which got moved here because said question was found to be a duplicate]. One classic method to obtain a hash function ...


5

I think this would work, although whether it's practical is another matter. For large $x$ it won't be. It's basically an application of mental-poker. First, choose a secure commutative encryption algorithm that is not vulnerable to known plaintext or chosen ciphertext attacks. Everyone generates a random encryption key. Everyone but Alice uses their key ...


5

Nobody can tell you not to "have fun with it" but I would strongly recommend you to first study attacks on other ciphers. Spritz (Rivest & Schuldt) fortunately mentions a lot of research on its predecessor, RC4. This makes it a rather good starting point in my opinion. It is necessary to understand the linguistics and mathematical constructs that are ...


4

Yes, absolutely. Here is the standard construction to address this problem. Let $pk_1,\dots,pk_n$ be the public keys of the $n$ recipients. We pick a random symmetric key $k$, encrypt the message $m$ (using authenticated encryption) under key $k$ to get $c=AE_k(m)$, and then encrypt $k$ under each of the public keys. Finally, we form the whole ciphertext ...


4

I understand the question as you have a single 4-bit S-box, which you first apply rowwise, and then columnwise. As already mentioned, this is equivalent to a large S-box $\mathcal{S}$ $$ c = \mathcal{S}(m\oplus k_1)\oplus k_2. $$ This is a well-known Even-Mansour cipher, and it can be broken with complexity $2^{n/2}$, which is $2^8$ for your $n=16$. The ...


4

Well, for one thing, you are not using a "One Time Pad". A "One Time Pad" means, by definition, that someone generates a pad of numbers using true randomness (and not algorithmicly), and that no potential adversary has any information on what that pad may contain. Then, that pad is given to both the sender and the receiver, and then the sender uses it to ...


4

You can get what you want programmatically. No special ciphers or modes needed. You say there is a single, continuous subset that needs to be encrypted. Thus, you could have a function where the programmer specifies the start of the portion of the plaintext that needs to be encrypted and the number of bytes to encrypt. The function could pull that part out, ...


4

You need to split up your key into eight 7 bit pieces, and put these 7 bits into a byte each. The parity is in the least significant bit on most platforms, so the 7 bits need to go into the most significant bits. Of course, as the key is probably in bytes, you need to shift and combine the values in the bytes to retrieve the 7 bits. It's possible the ...


4

No, this is safe. In fact, if you show a way of distinguish the stream $AES_{k_1}(C) \oplus AES_{k_2}(C)$ from a random stream with fewer than $2^{64}$ outputs, you have just demonstrated a way of distinguishing AES from a random permutation. Here is how this works: suppose we are given Oracle assess to a permutation $P$, which might be $AES_{k_1}$ for ...


4

The sum of PRPs is a secure PRF. That paper gives as a security bound for a sum of two independent PRPs $q^3/2^{2n-1}$, where $q$ is the number of queries and $n$ the block size (i.e. 128 for AES). That means that your construction, correctly used, is more secure than a single PRP, for which the bound is $q^2/2^n$. If you wanted to give an adversary an ...


4

Where did SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 originate from? They follow from the general properties of the sponge construction. A sponge function can generate an arbitrary length of output. The submission of Keccak to the SHA-3 competition proposed a single "XOF" (extendable-output function) with a user defined length, which would have been essentially SHAKE-288. ...


3

The problem is almost exactly the same as in password based key derivation, so you could use a similar solution. Derive a master secret from your password and a unique salt using e.g. PBKDF2 or scrypt: $S_m = PBKDF(p, s)$. Derive a site-specific secret from the master using e.g. HKDF and the site URL: $S_u = HKDF(S_m, u)$. Turn the site secret into a ...


3

Most advantages have to do with the fact that it includes authentication. For example: An authenticated encryption primitive is easier to use correctly. Only a single primitive that has to be secure. One pass over the data to both encrypt and authenticate may be faster. (Bernstein's rebuttal is that a separate MAC allows faster detection of forgeries, ...


3

One way key whitening improves security is by increasing resistance to bruteforce attacks (and doing this essentially for free). Consider, for example, DES. Key is 56 bits, so given a single pair $(M, E=DES(K,M))$ attacker will find $K$ in $2^{55}$ operations on average. By employing key whitening it is possible to increase required effort substantially: we ...


3

What are the properties of random padding (and I realize there are different ways to do it but I'm looking for an illustrative example) that allow it to be reliably removed from the message? You can do random padding with AES, but you'd have to reserve say the very last byte to tell how many bytes of padding were added. For example, for a 4 byte ...


3

At first glance, the MixColumn step from AES (actually, a single column of that transform) sounds like precisely what you're looking for. It is invertable (AES depends on that), and it does have the property that if one input octet changes, then all four output octets are guaranteed to change. Most commonly, it's done by table lookup; however there's no ...


3

As with Dmitry, I assume you are applying a 4-bit s-box to a 4-by-4 array of 16 bits, first to the rows (after xoring 16 bits of key material to the plaintext), then to the columns (and lastly xoring 16 more bits of key material to produce the ciphertext). Strictly speaking, you need to specify the 4-bit s-box in order to fully evaluate it against ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible