Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

16

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 ...


8

The modern trend for encryption-only modes is clearly CTR, which has a number of advantages over other modes: no padding is needed (contrary to CBC); the computationally-intensive part can be efficiently performed with the IV (and key) only, before the plaintext or ciphertext is available (contrary to CBC, CFB); the computationally-intensive part can be ...


8

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 ...


7

In the first block, the IV provides the "randomness", and in subsequent blocks you just use the previous block of ciphertext instead. Based on the assumption, that the cipher is not weak and behaves like a pseudorandom permutation, this is basically the same: You XOR something unpredictable on the plaintext, and then encrypt. As long as the IV is chosen ...


5

AES-NI is just a fast way for the processor to execute the calculations of AES. Normally the computer has to calculate every single step of the AES key schedule and the rounds as a single instruction: Substitute it with the S-boxes, shift the rows, mix the columns, XOR the round key. This is called a software implementation. Every instruction has to be done ...


4

Normally you don't want to reverse the encryption used within a DRBG. Schemes like PKCS#7 padding and CTS are required to deterministically reverse the padding during decryption. If you just want to have a final block, you should be fine by using zero padding until the end of the block. Of course, if this zero padding is actually harming the output of your ...


4

If your IV is predictable this is as (in)secure as assuming that you have a zero vector IV. And a zero vector IV allows you to perform a so-called Adaptive Chosen Plaintext Attack (ACPA). Why? Assume that you have a encryption mechanism that works in CBC mode. This means, that on the first iteration the $IV$ is XORed with your input message (which is ...


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

AES CBC usually requires padding, such as PKCS#7 padding. This padding is 1 to 16 bytes, 16 being the block size of AES. The HMAC will add 256 / 8 = 32 bytes to the total. Usually you will need to store the randomized IV as well with ciphertext, to allow for reuse of the key, adding another 16 bytes (the block size again). So the total overhead will be about ...


3

Rejecting replays is the duty of a higher level protocol. Simple authenticated encryption will accept any message with a valid MAC, even if you receive it several times. Decryption is a stateless process, but you need state to keep track of messages you already received. For example you could associate an increasing counter for each message you send. The ...


3

…are any other modes of operation vulnerable to padding oracle attacks? Nope, it’s purely restricted to CBC. A padding oracle attack, also known as “Vaudenay attack” because it was originally published by Serge Vaudenay in 2002 and introduced at EUROCRYPT 2002, is an attack against cipher-block chaining. The attack works against any block cipher in ...


3

I didn't find anything about the exact way Crashplan encrypts files, only that it uses Blowfish in CBC mode. The block size of Blowfish is 64 bit, so there are $2^{64}$ different input blocks and the same number of output blocks. All in all $147573953$ terabytes of different output data. The problem with this is the birthday attack. Summarized it says that ...


3

I am little curious about how do we calculate hardness proof of any cryptography algorithm? This is typically done by assuming some problem is hard (e.g., solving discrete log). Then proving that if someone can break the cryptography algorithm (e.g., diffie-hellman) that they can also break the hard problem. Once this relationship is established, we ...


3

There are a couple of things going on: First of all, the DES key FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF happens to be a "DES weak key"; by that, we mean that if you send a block through the cipher twice, it'll end up with the original value; that is: $$X = DES_{weak}( DES_{weak} ( X ))$$ You are obviously encrypting in CBC mode with a zero IV. So, let us look at what ...


3

As long as the IV is chosen correctly, every individual block of the encrypted output will be uniformly random over the set of all bit-patterns of the given size. Each block is independent from the clear text, but they are not independent from each other. The first block contains the IV itself, which by construction is uniformly random and independent from ...


2

In the padding oracle attack you have an oracle that only tells you whether a particular chosen ciphertext decrypts to a correctly padded plaintext. That oracle is used to build a last word oracle, which used iteratively can reveal a whole message. The reason it works in CBC mode is that we can make predictable, arbitrary changes to the plaintext of the ...


2

You are correct in that after the birthday bound you will leak some plaintext in random 8-byte blocks. Nova's answer has the specifics and links to useful sources. To give you a rough idea of the risk, you can look at what percentage of the data could leak. 10 TB is about $2^{40}$ blocks. The expected number of collisions is $2^k (1-(1-2^{-n})^{2^k-1})$, ...


2

Aren't $IV_1$ and $IV_2$ public in TLS 1.2 as well? $IV_1$ certainly is (as that's just the ciphertext block in front of the block we're attacking); however the IV that the TLS 1.2 sender will use for the next message ($IV_2$) is not. In fact, the sender might not know it yet, as it might not have not picked it yet. But doesn't this mean that BEAST ...


2

That's a lot of questions, I'll try and answer in order. A hash or message digest alone is not secure because anybody can calculate and thus substitute a hash value. If you (correctly) add a key to the mix then you get a HMAC, which can be used. Nowadays often a HMAC is used, or an authenticated mode of authentication such as GCM, CCM (for packet ...


2

SSL padding always pads, using 1..blocksize bytes (8 bytes for triple DES, 16 for AES). This padding makes it deterministic independently of the value of the plaintext. It's a padding mode similar to ISO 10126 (only the last padding byte is one less). Other padding values - such as the zero padding performed by PHP's mcrypt library - are also ...


2

Yes, we always have to pad the message. The reason is simple: How do we know if the message has a padding or not if we don't always pad? Let's say we pad with adding only $0$ bits. We got the (after padding) message $0101\,1100\,0000\,0000$ and a block size of 2 bytes (16 bits). Well, what was the original message? Was it $0101\,11$? Or was it $0101\,1100$? ...


2

As Maarten Bodewes already wrote in a comment, if you ignore the computational overhead of XOR, then there is essentially no difference in CBC and ECB for a bruteforce attack. However, the question is actually mixing oranges and apples (and it is not obvious), because the security weakness of modes of operation has nothing to do with the underlying ...


2

Yes there is a significant difference concerning brute-force. ECB suffers from multi target attacks whenever you encrypt the same message block. This is always possible in a chosen-plaintext attack and often possible in practice with a known-plaintext attack. With CBC the IV means that the plaintexts passed to the blockcipher are almost certainly unique ...


2

Better is a subjective term. However for the choice between ECB and CBC, the choice should be CBC for almost all situations. Although ECB and CBC are modes of operation of a block cipher, you could also turn this way of thinking around and see the block cipher as a configuration option for the mode of operation. The mode of operation has a big influence on ...


2

Patterns aren't hidden. Assume you've got a pair of plaintext blocks $p_1, p_2$ then the encryption of $p_2$ will always be the same: $c_2=E_k(p_1 \oplus p_2)$ as it only depends on the plaintext. So you haven't basically solved the basic problem of ECB (patterns remain) but rather moved it (to the more rare case) that two blocks repeat. Plaintext isn't ...


1

If I understand you correctly, you want to use the decryption process of CBC to encrypt, i.e., This would not be CPA secure. The problem is, as you already noted, that the IV has no influence on any block but the first one. I.e. a CPA attacker works as follows: Choose two random messages of length 2 blocks $(m_0^0,m_0^1)$ and $(m_1^0,m_1^1)$ and output ...


1

For CBC mode, the IV can be generated in any manner where it would be unpredictable to an attacker from one message to the next. In practice that means a random number generator of some kind. Since the block size is 128-bits, the probability of IV repeat before the key expiration is negligible. The CBC IV is visible to an attacker viewing your ciphertext; as ...


1

To show that a family of functions is not a PRP, you have to either show that the functions are not permutations or that they do not behave pseudo-randomly. As it is already established that the functions are in fact permutation you need to show the latter. For a family of permutations to be a PRP means that it is computationally infeasible to distinguish a ...


1

It would really help to see the encryption and decryption code, as used by your program. The Handling of the IV does not seem right. The IV has the size of the block of the cipher used in conjunction with CBC. Thus it should probably be 16 bytes in length. Additionally you have to use the RAW bytes for CBC and not its Base64 representation. In order to ...


1

For CBC encryption, you would store the initialization vector as the beginning of the ciphertext, regardless of whether you read in an IV or generated it yourself. The CBC decryption algorithm would do what you described at the end of your post. Your implementation should also offer access to the block cipher itself, without any mode of operation.



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