# Tag Info

15

Basically it's analysis of a cryptographic cypher by the means of finding a relationship between the difference in the input data and the output data. Ideally, the slightest difference in input data (cleartext), even a single bit, should produce a completely different cypthertext. However, if the cypher is not well-designed, a correlation between the two ...

12

This claim is bogus. DES itself has a 13-round differential with probability around $2^{-47}$, so TripleDES with its 48 rounds is resistant to any sort of differential attack. The paper authors are not really confident in the subject.

7

Differential cryptanalysis works on differences. Linear cryptanalysis works on linearity. Neat, isn't it ? Instead of speaking of how they differ, it is easier to list their common features. Both kinds of attacks: Use a lot of known pairs plaintext/ciphertext (many input messages encrypted with the same key, and, for each of them, the attacker knows both ...

6

There are 256! possible 8x8 S-boxes (i.e., bijective functions from $\{0,1\}^8$ to $\{0,1\}^8$. This is an absolutely enormous number. You couldn't possibly enumerate all of them within the lifetime of the universe. So, yes, this is one reason why it is not straightforward to determine whether there exists such a S-box with differential uniformity 2.

6

No, it's not flawed. You're just running into a fact of life; differential cryptanalysis generally doesn't just give you the entire key (or even subkey) in one shot. It generally gives you partial information about the key, and if you want the entire key, well, you need to work at it more. In this phase of the attack, you know that the last round subkey ...

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

This is called an Even-Mansour cipher. Actually, for the differential cryptanalysis it does not matter what sort of difference you use, you only need that it propagates deterministically through linear transformations (whatever linearity means). In this case you use a difference modulo $2^{32}$: $$A \boxminus B \equiv (A-B)\pmod{2^{32}}.$$ You compute ...

4

There are two papers on conventional differential cryptanalysis of SEED. The last one penetrates only half of the cipher. Even though there are few third-party cryptanalysis papers, there is no indication that the cipher is weak. Fault attacks are quite irrelevant in the SSL setting. I would be more concerned with BEAST-like attacks, as SEED is a ...

4

A fault injection attack is based on the fact that you have a healthy black box on which you can do queries, but you can mess with the black box, for example flipping random bits. In real life this could for example be a RFID chip which can be messed with using strong electronic fields. Attacks like these are generally: Very sophisticated in theory and ...

4

They are generally relevant only to symmetric-key cryptography (e.g., block ciphers, hash functions, message authentication codes). There's no deep reason why -- it's just that differential and linear cryptanalysis tend to be effective against the sort of structure that are commonly used in block ciphers, but not very effective against the sort of designs ...

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 ...

3

The design documents for Rijndael explain exactly how the designers proved its resistance to differential cryptanalysis. Read their submission to the AES competition process, particularly Section 8.2 and the Annex. To understand their approach, it will probably help to understand differential cryptanalysis and read some of the related literature. You can ...

2

Probably the biggest vulnerability is that the message expansion is too linear. The linearity of the SHA-1 message expansion is why we are able to find such good differential paths. There can be differences at the beginning of the message and by the end of the message expansion they are mostly canceled out.

2

This is known as the "key complementation" property of DES; I had thought that it actually predated Biham and Shamir's work. In any case, your questions: Does this hold for only that particular combination of s box or it will be same for any S-box combination It'd remain even if you change the sbox's arbitrarily. The reason for this is that it is not ...

1

XORing with a key indeed does not change the difference. But usually before the XORing there is nonlinear layer (Sboxes?) which changes the difference. For example $(N rounds...)(Sbox)(AddKey)$. You can use a differential up to the beginning of this layer. Then, for different subkeys you will get same sbox output differences, but the sbox input differences ...

1

Your calculations are correct. The 2nd table has 2 entries of 6 in its DDT, and 18 entries of 4. The Hamsi s-box has 24 entries of 4. What can you infer from these tables? First off, CryptWizard001 is a liar. Second, the larger the max value in the DDT, the more vulnerable the s-box is to differential cryptanalysis, therefore the modified s-box does not ...

1

A good tutorial on differential cryptanalysis can be found in Stinson's book where he conducts differential attacks on reduced-round DES. He gives details on attacking 4 rounds of DES (which is relatively easy) and 6 rounds of DES (which is significantly harder) and this is enough to get the intuition on why extending the attack to full DES (which is 16 ...

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