# Tag Info

18

It's the difference between an active and a passive attacker: Known plaintext attack: The attacker knows at least one sample of both the plaintext and the ciphertext. In most cases, this is recorded real communication. If the XOR cipher is used for example, this will reveal the key as plaintext xor ciphertext. Chosen plaintext attack: The attacker can ...

17

This is a common mistake, so I'd like to give an in-depth answer. Basically, what you are proposing is to rely on the ONE-WAYNESS of RSA as a ONE-WAY FUNCTION, rather than relying on its CPA or CCA security as an encryption scheme. The advantage of using RSA as a one-way function is that no padding etc is needed. Now, the first important thing to note is ...

13

These aren't "attacks" in and of themselves, they are simply a way to classify attacks depending on how many assumptions they make. For instance, if an attack requires plaintext-ciphertext pairs to recover the key, but they don't have to be any particular pairs, that attack is categorized as a known-plaintext attack. However if another attack required the ...

12

XXTEA (also known as Corrected Block TEA) is a block cipher with $128$-bit key and block width parameterizable to $n\cdot32$ bits for $n\ge2$. It is an Unbalanced Feistel Cipher making $q=6+\lfloor52/n\rfloor$ passes over the block, with $q\cdot n$ rounds each modifying $32$ bits of the block. In Cryptanalysis of XXTEA, it is presented a chosen-plaintext ...

11

Thomas is correct; there's no attack on CFB mode if you can predict the IV; NIST is just being cautious. With CBC, the value of the first encrypted block $C_0 = E_k( IV \oplus P_0)$, where $IV$ is the IV used for that packet, $P_0$ is the value of the first plaintext block, and $E_k$ is the evaluation of the block cipher. If an attacker can predict the ...

10

"Known plaintext" means that the attacker has knowledge of some data and its encrypted counterpart, but he did not choose either (it is "chosen plaintext" when the attacker chooses the plaintext and obtains the corresponding ciphertext, and "chosen ciphertext" when he chooses the ciphertext and obtains the corresponding plaintext). What is "plaintext" ...

10

CBC mode encryption is defined as: $C_i = E_k(P_i\oplus C_{i-1})$ (with $P_i$ being the $i$th plaintext block, and $C_{i-1}, C_i$ being the ciphertext blocks. What might happen if we have a lot of ciphertext encrypted with the same key is if two ciphertexts happen to be the same, that is: $C_i = C_j$ If we see that, we can then immediately deduce that: ...

9

Repeatedly encrypting the same message to the same ciphertext is full of practical attacks. Encryption is supposed to leak no information about the content of the message other than its length, and there are very real ways to exploit the information leakage you mention. Some of them have to do with the fact that plaintext domains are not always very large. ...

9

This isn't really a "hard" answer, but an attempt to give some intuition or motivation. One can interpret indistinguishability as an overapproximation of the most common notions of security: Any system that is broken in a more practical way will also fail to meet indistinguishability, that is, all practically important security requirements are in fact ...

8

I found a little more info on Google, so let me provide a partial answer to my own question. In particular, I found a post by David Wagner to sci.crypt in 2004, titled "IND-CPA for CFB mode", which in turn led me to a paper titled "Practical symmetric on-line encryption", published in FSE 2003 by Fouque, Martinet and Poupard. In this paper, the authors ...

8

That sounds like an overly succinct description of the 'Find then Guess' (FTG) notion of security, described in the paper "A Concrete Security Treatment of Symmetric Enryption". And you are correct, there is something the test is missing: the two 'challenge' plaintexts must be the same length ($|m_0| = |m_1|$). Also, the description is so succinct I can't ...

8

I do not remember if we checked this explicitly, but my guess is that in the chosen-plaintext setting the biclique attack would still be faster than the exhaustive search, maybe by the factor of 2 compared with 4 in the chosen-ciphertext setting. However, both results are pretty far from declaring AES broken in any sense. Such small gain over exhaustive ...

8

Katz & Lindell mention in their book "Introduction to Modern Cryptography: Principles and Protocols" an example of an IND-CPA attack from World War II. Navy cryptanalysts suspected that Japanese ciphertexts containing the fragment "AF" where referring to the Midway island. Then, they told officials at Midway to send unencrypted messages reporting they ...

7

The XXTEA cipher is badly broken. Even though the paper is not published at a conference, the author verified it on reduced versions of XXTEA. You should never ever use a cipher or a hash function, that has been broken in academic terms, in particular if you are not a cryptographer. Attacks always get better, and a cipher does not attract much attention ...

7

You can generate a random string $s_1$ as long as the plaintext. Then XOR this value with the plaintext generating $s_2$. Now encrypt both parts using $\mathrm{Enc}_1$ and $\mathrm{Enc}_2$. You need to decrypt both to XOR the two parts together again. This is similar to secret sharing where you need two parts of a key to decrypt. If $\mathrm{Gen}_1$ and ...

7

No. There is a difference between the type of a cipher and the construction of a cipher. If a cipher is of a specific type for which there are known IND-CPA secure constructions then that doesn't mean that an entirely different construction is secure. There are known attacks on stream ciphers, including "modern" stream ciphers such as RC4. A stream cipher ...

6

Encryption using a block cypher such as AES by passing plaintext blocks directly to the encryption function is known as Electronic Code Book mode (ECB) and is not CPA secure as (as you say in your question) it is entirely deterministic and two identical plaintext blocks will result in two identical ciphertext blocks. To prevent this an initialisation ...

6

I was/am assuming that for public key encryption, COA means "other than the public key, ciphertext only". Otherwise, any secure symmetric cipher with the key published becomes a "COA resistant" PKE scheme. With that in mind, access to an encryption oracle cannot possibly help an attacker, since the attacker can already encrypt any plaintext using the ...

6

In your formula, $n$ appears to relate to the key space, not the message space. The message space does not intervene in the definition of IND-CPA, and that's a good thing because practical message spaces consist in messages which "make sense" in a given context. There are situations where the attacker already guesses quite a lot of the attacked message, and ...

6

The $1/2^{32}$ is an arbitrary figure, based upon one particular value for what counts as an acceptable risk. You need to decide what is an acceptable risk. If you think that a $1/2^{32}$ probability of failure is an acceptable risk, then this calculation is relevant to you. If you think it isn't, then decide what you think is an acceptable risk and re-do ...

6

This isn't just limited to asymmetric schemes; in any chosen-plaintext attack, even for symmetric ciphers, the attacker can (by definition of the CPA game) compute as many encryptions as they like (limited to polynomial time, of course). Formally, we say the adversary is given access to an "encryption oracle." Anyway, you have stumbled across a necessary ...

6

It seems to me that what you need is a public-key signature scheme like rsa signatures. The process would work something like this: A user license $L$ is created by your license generator Your system signs it to give $s(L)$ and the licence is $\{L,s(L)\}$. When program tries to open the user's license $\{t,v\}$: The system verifies that $v$ is indeed ...

6

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 ...

5

Cryptography is not just about confidentiality of the message, but also confidentiality of information about the message. Given the ciphertext, an attacker should not be able to determine any information about a message without knowing the key. If you can tell that message A is equal to message B, that's a leak of information. This could be useful when ...

5

Well, to start off with, we have: $$k_1 m_1 + k_2 - n_1 p = c_1$$ $$k_1 m_2 + k_2 - n_2 p = c_2$$ $$k_1 m_3 + k_2 - n_3 p = c_3$$ Where we know $m_1, c_1, m_2, c_2, m_3, c_3$, and we don't know $k_1, k_2, p, n_1, n_2, n_3$. I chose to use explicit unknown integers $n_1, n_2, n_3$, rather than modulo an unknown $p$, as it makes it easier to justify the ...

5

Yes. Assume that the attacker knows the ciphertext $c = c_1 \mathbin\| c_2$, the initialization vector $v$ and the plaintext $m = m_1 \mathbin\| m_2$. This tells them that $D_k(c_1) = m_1 \oplus v$ and $D_k(c_2) = m_2 \oplus c_1$, where $D_k(\cdot)$ denotes block cipher decryption under the (unknown) key $k$. In particular, this implies that, if the ...

5

Yes, $E$ will be always be secure. This follows from a standard type of proof called a hybrid argument. Giving the full details would be tedious, so here is a sketch in case you are familiar with hybrid arguments: We define games $H_0,H_1,H_2$. We let $H_0$ be the IND-CPA game, but with the game's secret bit hardcoded to $0$. So the game always outputs ...

5

Suppose you do CTR mode as: $E(k,nonce+1) \oplus m_1$, $E(k,nonce+2) \oplus m_2$, $E(k,nonce+3) \oplus m_3$, etc. The wikipedia page is talking about a non-random nonce, with a specific example of a packet counter. So suppose $nonce$ is a packet counter and in each packet you encrypt several blocks. You might end up with the following: In packet #$p$: ...

5

The first remark is that the cryptosystems are used with independent keys. This is important, otherwise it is usually very hard to prove anything. The simple solution Now, the simple solution is, as is mentioned in the comment and the linked question, is to secret-share your message into two shares and encrypt each share separately. The final ciphertext ...

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