Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

22

AES-GCM has the following problems: In the case of nonce reuse both integrity and confidentiality properties are violated. If the same nonce is used twice, an adversary can create forged ciphertexts easily. When short tags are used, it is rather easy to produce message forgeries. For instance, if the tag is 32 bits, then after $2^{16}$ forgery attempts and ...


17

In short: You must authenticate the IV. Which particular attacks apply if you don't depends on the block cipher mode; I will give two common examples. In CTR mode, an attacker who fiddles with the IV can forge authenticated messages, but the content of the corresponding plaintext is beyond his control (since he doesn't know the key). Depending on the ...


7

Before answering your questions: GCM is an authentication encryption mode of operation, it is composed by two separate functions: one for encryption (AES-CTR) and one for authentication (GMAC). It receives as input: a Key a unique IV Data to be processed only with authentication (associated data) Data to be processed by encryption and authentication It ...


7

If the data to protect has no built-in redundancy at all (for example, has each of its bit determined by fair coin toss), there is no way to protect integrity without expansion (Proof sketch: there are as many distinct possibilities for valid plaintext as there as possibilities for valid enciphered-and-protected data, hence every possible ...


7

First, the fact that the data is "easy" to guess (in the sense that an attacker has a one-in-2^32 or a one-in-2^64 chance of guessing correctly) doesn't mean much if the attacker has no way of checking if his guess is correct. Or at least, it's not a problem with the cryptography. Second, even if he does have that ability, the problem of protecting your ...


7

One obvious thing that it is vulnerable to a known plaintext attack that truncates the known message. This attack is quite simple; suppose the attacker knows a message $(P_1, P_2, ..., P_n)$ and the corresponding ciphertext $(C_1, C_2, ..., C_n, T)$ (using some IV; we don't care what it is). Here is how the attacker can generate a ciphertext that would ...


5

GCM Personally, I would go for GCM (Galois Counter Mode) since it is efficient – meaning: it handles pretty much everything you’ld expect from it, while other modes sometimes tend to lack a specific feature here and there (see image below for a comparison that shows what I’m hinting at). Also, GCM has a pretty good performance (assuming non-flawed ...


5

I suppose one of the problems (they mention several after a short reading) with a mode like GCM is nonce misuse (e.g. reuse). When the key is the same and the nonce is reused, by misunderstanding the concept or by a simple programming error, information about the plain texts can be revealed. Phillip Rogaway has already defined an encryption mode (SIV, ...


4

It has the disadvantages of any MAC-then-encrypt scheme, which I'm quoting from the linked answer below. In addition: It has the property that you need both a nonce and a hash, so for equivalent security it requires more message space. The nonce has to be random, so it requires strong random numbers for each message, unlike e.g. AES CTR + HMAC. Doesn't ...


4

As correctly pointed out in a comment, the authenticated encryption model assumes that the attacker knows the algorithm; the attacker can query the encryption oracle with any plaintext $P$ (and a unique nonce $N$) and get MAC-then-Encrypt ciphertext $C$; the attacker can query the decryption oracle with any string $C$ pretending to be a ciphertext. No ...


4

From the sound of your questions, it almost appears that you have some confusion between the CBC-MAC key and the CBC-MAC tag. The CBC-MAC algorithm takes the message (in this case, most likely the ciphertext) and a secret key; it outputs a tag (which can be public). The security property of CBC-MAC is that someone who does not know the key cannot generate ...


4

Yes, this should be secure, as it is largely compatible with KDF1 and KDF2 which basically use a 4 byte big endian encoding of the counter instead of a direct ASCII conversion to a byte. Note that this construct works fine for master keys (short length, high entropy) but may be vulnerable to length extension attacks if larger input is allowed. However, if ...


4

The Encrypt then MAC is done in general in order to be sure to decrypt into the correct plaintext, without risking of parsing a non-authentic plaintext message. If you don't MAC the IV, then Mallory (attacker that can tamper with messages as a man-in-the-middle) can modify the IV and your MAC will be still validated as good. So you will decrypt into an ...


3

I'll answer the related questions in order: No, because a ciphertext (generated from a key stream generated by a stream cipher) should be indistinguishable from random data, and a MAC should be as well. No, because #1 depends on the secret, and the secret was derived using a Diffie-Hellman key agreement algorithm, using the given curve. To know ...


3

I would pick EAX as it is by far the simplest to implement and therefore to understand and audit. It is reasonably fast if based on AES. GCM seems quite popular, but I personally see a number of issues with it: it is very difficult to implement in software (which is not surprising, since it was developed with hardware in mind). it is slower than it seems ...


3

I guess the answer is no, as long as you are using ECIES then this protocol does not work - you cannot trust the public key of Bob, which is required for ECIES. You could however use ephemeral-static Diffie-Hellman, using ECDH as cryptographic algorithm. Alice would supply the static part as her public key is trusted, Bob may use any key pair. That means ...


3

If there exists an encryption scheme, then there exists an encryption schemes such that one can easily modify a single ciphertext so that whether or not that modifies the decryption result depends in a predictable-and-useful way on what the plaintext message was, such as: The modified encryption operation outputs a zero concatenated with the original ...


3

In general signature creation contains the hashing part within the algorithm. A signature algorithm may also contain a padding mechanism such as PKCS#1 v1.5 or PSS for RSA. Finally it contains a one-way trap door function (modular exponentiation within RSA). Encryption has other requirements, and uses a different padding mechanism. Basically you are ...


3

I'll take this in parts: But this is clearly not the case when you're doing Encrypt Then Mac. When you do that you provide authentication to something that already has authentication (to decrypt we need to know the key). Encryption, by itself, does not provide authentication. why use a MAC when we can use a hash instead: E(m|h(m))? Here is a ...


3

The authentication tag is defined as an output parameter in GCM (see section 7, step 7 of NIST SP 800-38D). In all the API's I've encountered it's appended to the ciphertext. Where it is actually placed is up to the protocol designer. The protocol designer may well consider the place behind the ciphertext as ad hoc default though. The name "tag" of course ...


3

I would think these numbers would have been put on the google search engine, and yield (probably) many hits. This assumption is wrong. Certificate serial numbers are not indexed by common search engines, nor are they typically posted to any HTML site. Frankly, I'm not sure why you would assume they'd be indexed. The Wordpress certificate is used for ...


3

Anon2000 - as currently constructed your mode is fatally flawed. Given two known messages encrypted with the same key (i.e. where the attacker knows the plaintexts) that are each at least two blocks in length (not counting the IV or final validation block), the attacker can trivially forge at least two other 'valid' messages (and many more than that if the ...


2

A symmetrically encrypted hash is not a secure MAC. You should use either an authenticated encryption scheme or a secure MAC in encrypt-then-MAC. With asymmetric encryption, it may be secure – "encrypting" with the author's private key means you are actually signing the message which is fine. However, you need to use the actual asymmetric primitive, not ...


2

encrypt it with the message author's private key This statement makes me uncomfortable. Normally, in asymmetric cryptography, one encrypts with the public key and signs with the private key. Did you mean “sign it with the message author's private key”? Otherwise, I would not accept your protocol without a clear, detailed explanation of what encryption ...


2

If you are concerned about database size, only the master key needs to be stored when you use HKDF. Ditto when sending it to another computer. Otherwise, two independent random keys are clearly secure and simpler to implement, so you should do that.


2

If you are certain that SecureRandom is a trusted, verified CSPRNG you can use that without HKDF without problems.


2

No. RSA-OAEP is indistinguishable under adaptive chosen cipher text attacks (and even non malleable under adaptive chosen cipher text attacks), but it is not an instance of authenticated encryption. - The sender who encrypts the message might even be anonymous to the recipient who decrypts the message. More generally, in a successful Chosen Cipher text ...


2

No, CCA does not imply authenticated encryption. CCA tries to recover the secret using chosen ciphertexts. A well designed block cipher should in itself already process the property that the key cannot be retrieved. If used with a properly implemented block mode of operation, this property should hold. Using authenticated encryption a CCA attack should not ...


2

CMAC (or OMAC1) is the underlying MAC algorithm that provides authentication and integrity for EAX. Is stated in NIST SP 800-38B: Because CMAC is based on an approved symmetric key block cipher, such as the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm that is specified in Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) Pub. 197 [3], CMAC can be ...


2

Depends on what you mean by Keccak. There is actually a slight issue here that not all 256-bit Keccak variants have 256-bit preimage resistance. SHA3-256 (in the current SHA-3 draft) does have 256-bit preimage, but if you are using Keccak with 256-bit capacity it only has 128-bit preimage resistance. At least some of the earlier documents had 256-bit output ...



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