Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

5

You seem to have some misconception here. Obviously, you are investigating chosen ciphertext attacks (CCAs) on textbook RSA instead of chosen plaintext attacks (CPAs). To help you with your understanding I am discussing CPA on textbook RSA first. To analyse all these kinds of attacks we formally model the attack as a game between an adversary (trying to ...


4

As already mentioned in a previous answer and the comments, you are right regarding that ElGamal is not secure against chosen-ciphertext attacks. An immediate reason is that the scheme is multiplicatively homomorphic, and that is not compatible with CCA: the attacker could query the decryption oracle with the ciphertext that results of multiplying the ...


4

After some thought, I think the answer is in fact NO, even for CCA1 and even for Shoup's OAEP+. RSA-OAEP/OAEP+ work by taking a message $m$, producing a padding $p(m,r)$ and then encrypting this, so $c = f(p(m,r))$ where $f$ is RSA encryption, and $f(u) = u^e \pmod{N}$ is deterministic. In fact, the whole point of OAEP(+) is to inject some entropy into ...


3

The difference is how the plaintext-ciphertext pairs that the attacker has access to are generated. In a chosen plaintext attack, the attacker chooses some plaintext and is handed the corresponding ciphertext. In other words, the attacker may encrypt arbitrary messages. In a chosen ciphertext attack, the attacker can additionally (a chosen ciphertext ...


3

Chosen Ciphertext Attacks against RSA (such as Bleichenbacher's Attack on PKCS #1 encryption) do not actually reveal the private key. If they don't, they why do we say that they are a threat? Well, it's because that the keys are generally not of interest to the attacker. Instead, given an encrypted message, the attacker actually wants to know what that ...


3

The important thing to note here is that $\mathsf{D}(k,0)=0$ does not necessarily imply that $\mathsf{E}(k,0)=0$. That is the reason why your attack does not work in general. To illustrate, let $(\mathsf{E},\mathsf{D})$ be a CCA secure encryption scheme. We then construct a new encryption scheme $(\mathsf{E'},\mathsf{D'})$ as follows: $$\mathsf{E'}(k,m) = ...


3

The CCA1 security of ElGamal is a big open question. There are no attacks known, but standard reductions don't seem to work. In 1991, Damgard proposed an ElGamal variant and proved it to be CCA1-secure (albeit under a very problematic non-falsifiable assumption, called the "knowledge of exponent assumption"); see the paper here ...


2

You are correct; whoever put together the above proof typo'ed that point; we have $c \times d \equiv 1 \pmod {\phi(n)}$, or more accurately, $c \times d \equiv 1 \pmod {lcm(p-1, q-1)}$. On the other hand, the attacker isn't expected to be able to compute step 2 (he can't, he doesn't know the value of $lcm(p-1,q-1)$, and hence cannot compute $d$). Instead, ...


2

In the standard definition of security for public key encryption schemes there exists only one public key. Therefore the decryption oracle will always decrypt with the secret key that corresponds to the public key given to the attacker. It does not matter how the $c_1$ in your question is computed, it can be computed using the real public key, a different ...


2

For CPA security it is actually enough that the first scheme, i.e., $\pi = (gen, enc, dec)$ is CPA secure. Lets define the CPA game of a general scheme $\pi = (Gen, Enc, Dec)$ against an adversary $A$ as follows: We sample $(pk, sk) \leftarrow Gen(1^\lambda)$, and send $pk$ to $A$. $A$ outputs messages $m_0$ and $m_1$. We sample $b \leftarrow \{0,1\}$ (a ...


2

Faliure of indistinguishablity of encryptions under a eavesdropper does imply faliure of indistinguishablity of encryptions under a chosen-plaintext attack. But the converse is not necessarily true (ex. OTP) The aim of CPA-secure is not to decrypt previously unobserved ciphertext but to pass the distinguishability test after a set of (plaintext, ciphertext) ...


2

I unfortunately don't have enough reputation to comment, forgive the answer that is a link to another answer. Your question is explained well in this answer: http://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/12706/17884


2

The ideal encryption scheme $E$ would be one that, for every ciphertext $C=E(K, M)$, if the key remains secret for the adversary, the probability of identifying $M$ is negligible. Since that is not possible in practice, the second most reasonable approach is to define constraints strong enough to satisfy some definition of security. The $IND-$ notation ...


1

ElGamal is not secure against chosen-ciphertext attacks, and there is a trivial attack. This is incorrect.


1

As you say, CCA proofs are actually reductions to underlying problems. In all CCA proofs that I can think of at the moment, the underlying problem is a weaker security notion for an "embedded" encryption scheme - e.g. Cramer-Shoup and friends use IND-CPA of ElGamal and Fujisaki-Okamoto uses OWE of the contained scheme. The general proof strategy is to take ...


1

It's not elegant, but the brute force method is to write a program that creates a table of 25x25 digraphs (assuming i=j), yielding 625 rows. I'd also add a column that lists the relative frequency of each digraph (given enough ciphertext you can use that to identify frequent substitutions, as you already have done). You start off with 625! possible ...


1

Yes. $\:$ NME-CPA is such a notion, and is equivalent to modifying the IND-CCA notion so that $\;$ the adversary can submit more than one ciphertext simultaneously $\;\;\;\;$ and $\;$ the adversary can only submit ciphertext(s) one time $\;\;\;\;$ and $\;$ that time must be after receiving the challenge ciphertext $\;\;\;\;$ and $\;$ after submitting ...


1

As fgrieu already said, the question is a bit weird. The encryption scheme is not complete in a very strong sense, as there exists no efficient algorithm that can recover $m$ from a ciphertext. But anyway, the definition of CCA security does not require completeness, so let me just answer the question as asked: No the scheme as described is not CCA secure ...


1

Simple, $r$ just needs to be co-prime to $n$. To test this check that $gcd(r,n)==1$. This is required since you need to "divide" by $r$, i.e., multiply by $r^{-1}$. $r$ is invertible iff $gcd(n,r)==1$.



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