40
$\begingroup$

I'm currently building a web application and would like to encrypt all data on the back-end. I was thinking of using the AES-256 encryption but wasn't sure how safe it was. I did that math and felt safe.

I took this model to a professor at my college, who is a cyber security expert, and he seemed to have quite a different take. He told me there are only two encryption schemes that he knows of that cannot be broken, and AES is not one of them. He said sure, put it in, but just know that there are people out there who can crack it.

I Googled everything I could about the AES and it being cracked, and the only information I could find was this paper: Distinguisher and Related-Key Attack on the Full AES-256 (Extended Version). Sure it says the AES has been cracked but is still has a practical use, right? I believe it is $2^{231}$ instead of $2^{256}$.

So what gives? Is it practically secure to use or not? Does he just know something that most people don't? If my web application database credentials are somehow exposed, and a hacker gets the raw encrypted data, how can I ensure he won't be able to decrypt it within his lifetime?

$\endgroup$
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ Instead of focusing on algorithm chosen (chose any recommended here and you are ok - AES256 is ok), focus on your threat model and defending against attacker. Encryption doesn't solve any problem on its own, much bigger problem is using everything you have to create something that makes sense. $\endgroup$ – axapaxa Apr 12 '17 at 23:43
  • 30
    $\begingroup$ Assuming you're not making things up there, I have to say that I'm not so sure your college professor is a "cyber security expert" when he states something like "AES-256 can be cracked". (If, I'm sure many 3-letter-agencies out there would love to hear about it.) From my point of view, such a statement coming from a prof is a worrying sign of him/her being rather unprofessional, if not dangerously uninformed for someone tasked to educate people in infosec things. $\endgroup$ – e-sushi Apr 13 '17 at 0:10
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ I am extremely interested in what those 2 algorithms he says have not been cracked are $\endgroup$ – Richie Frame Apr 13 '17 at 1:10
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @JacobHenning Some of us do… yet since our audience is located worldwide, it boils down to different countries and their individual governmental and/or miltec realms. Also, most who have such ties are not allowed to identify as such (for the usual, logic reasons). Yet, even if we would all be non-military folks… it is known that the US actively uses AES for SECRET and TOP SECRET data securing up until today, which is why I practically doubt such claims — unless one of those profs can point us to relevant papers or references. Everything else are merely unfounded claims waiting to be proven. $\endgroup$ – e-sushi Apr 13 '17 at 2:03
  • 24
    $\begingroup$ @JacobHenning The most logic approach for you would be to ask your profs for according references. After all, that's part of their job — pointing you to papers/references to learn from. Doing so avoids situations where you may have misunderstood what they were pointing at and/or it clarifies things they may have explained in a way that resulted in your Q here. From my point of view, that would be the most constructive thing to do: exclude the possibility of misunderstandings. Maybe they meant the mode of operation or something else instead of the AES algo itself? Chances are, they did… $\endgroup$ – e-sushi Apr 13 '17 at 3:03
73
$\begingroup$

He told me there are only two encryptions that he knows of that cannot be broken, and AES is not one of them

This tells me you asked your professor the wrong question. You asked a cyber security expert if an algorithm could be cracked, to which the answer is always yes, with the exception of a handful of inconvenient algorithms, such as One Time Use Pads used in exactly the correct way. Even in those cases, there's exploits to worry about.

AES-256 is an algorithm. It can be broken. If you look at the history of cryptography, every algorithm gets broken eventually. That's why we make new algorithms. The question is how long it takes to figure out the math to break it.

The real question to ask is "what is your threat model?" What sort of attack are you trying to prevent? Are you creating a digital lock on a diary to keep it safe from your sister's prying eyes, or are you Edward Snowden, on the run from several three letter agencies with billions of dollars of funding?

AES-256 is currently labeled as sufficient to use in the US government for the transmission of TOP SECRET/SCI information. That's pretty much the highest classification level they could clear it for, so the US government is pretty darn confident that nobody can break AES-256 on the timescales required to protect our nation's greatest secrets.

(Well, almost. What it really says is that they are confident that nobody outside of the US government can break AES-256. What you believe that that says about whether the US government, themselves, can break it depends on your threat model... and whether you engage in discussions of whether heavy-duty tin foil makes better hats or not)

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I'd definitely talk with him about your threat model. It is really the cornerstone of any security effort. You could also ask about how broken aes is. History has shown that encryption algorithms are typically broken over a long period of time, and we have found its reasonable to talk about how broken an algorithm is in a number of bits. That would also give your prof a chance to talk about different kinds of attacks. $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon Apr 13 '17 at 2:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ According to Wikipedia even the NSA uses it "... is the first (and only) publicly accessible cipher approved by the National Security Agency (NSA) for top secret information when used in an NSA approved cryptographic module (see Security of AES, below)." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard $\endgroup$ – patrickf Apr 13 '17 at 10:39
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ "You asked a cyber security expert if an algorithm could be cracked, to which the answer is always yes, ..." That might be the given answer, but that doesn't mean it's actually true. There's a huge difference bewteen breaking the algorithm and breaking its implementation or circumventing it (in some larger context, e.g. the mode of operation, the protocol, etc.). $\endgroup$ – tylo Apr 13 '17 at 12:19
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @tylo it is always the true answer, unless the expert has a proof that a particular algorithm cannot ever possibly be broken due to the definition of "broken." For example, OTP in some contexts can never be broken by definition. Now if I change tenses from "could" to "is" I think your statement becomes true. "Could" has to include future possibilities, and history shows that the future is quite unkind to crypto algorithms. $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon Apr 13 '17 at 15:18
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ This answer is incorrect (or at least very unclear). Strictly speaking, we do not know that AES won't be broken tomorrow, because it is not information-theoretically secure. However, that does not mean that AES can be broken, even in principle, by any practical adversary, ever. It is not just a question about "figure out the math". Answers such as this confuse amateurs and should be avoided. Bodewes answer is correct and much better. $\endgroup$ – K.G. Apr 14 '17 at 9:24
47
$\begingroup$

AES-256 - the block cipher - as far as we know hasn't been broken. It has not even been close to broken. On the other hand, we cannot prove that it is secure. That means that an algorithm that is able to crack AES may be found. Most ciphers cannot be proven to be secure. Only a handful algorithms such as the one-time-pad are secure in the information-theoretical sense.

The paper you point to is about related key attacks. These attacks are indeed possible and they reduce the strength of AES for specific use cases to a value that theoretically breaks the cipher. Basically you should not use AES-256 to build a hash function. Practically, for achieving confidentiality, AES-256 is still considered secure, even against attacks using quantum cryptanalysis.

Having a secure block cipher doesn't provide any security on its own though. You need a secure system, and for that secure system you may need a secure protocol. And in that protocol you may need a scheme or a mode of operation (such as GCM). And that encryption scheme may require a block cipher. And that block cipher may be AES-256.

The AES-256 algorithm itself requires a well protected secret key and secure implementation - such as protection against side channel attacks, where required - to be considered secure. It could for instance be made FIPS compliant.

Although the AES-256 algorithm is considered secure, that doesn't mean your scheme, protocol or system is secure. For this you need a threat model and show that it is practically secure against all possible attack vectors.


TL;DR: when building a secure system you may use AES-256, it's considered secure even if this cannot be proven. Other aspects of the system are much more likely to fail than AES-256 - the block cipher by itself.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Finally an answer which mentions that these attacks typically are related-key attacks. This was overlooked in all other answers. $\endgroup$ – Aleph Apr 13 '17 at 7:26
20
$\begingroup$

So what gives? Is it safe to use or not?

You seems to change what you are asking about from phrase to phrase. You ask if it is cracked, you ask if it is secure to use, you ask if it is "practical"...

AES-256 is indeed cracked, because it doesn't hold its original 256bit security. You ask if it is secure - security isn't a yes/no question, it is 231bit secure, and common wisdom is that 128bit+ is "pretty secure", and 90bit- is close to practically broken.

He said sure, put it in, but just know that there are people out there who can crack it.

This thought seems to persist because you can't prove something doesn't exist. There isn't any information that would suggest that AES is practically broken. If you had trillions of dollars you would be better of hiring security experts to hopefully find weaknesses somewhere to reduce complexity to something manageable than to build massive computer clusters. This is indeed how certain three-letter-agencies break some algorithms (and especially their implementations). This of course didn't apply to AES-256 or so we hope, but countless implementations were broken because they did misuse something.

How do I defend my web application from a professional hacker?

This has nothing to do with encryption or cryptography. There is misconception that encryption gives you security. What we should ask is what kind of security it gives you.

Does it protect your children on their way to school? Does it protect your house from burning down? Last I heard no.

Instead treat encryption and cryptography as a tool. It might work as smoke detectors/making house of nonflammable materials.

Does smoke detection prevent you from anything if you don't change batteries? No. Does house made of nonflammable materials prevent anything if build over it with all wood? No. Instead encryption has its dependencies (only people who are supposed to know the key, do know te key), and something that it gives you (people who don't have the key can't read message).

So question you ask shouldn't be "Is AES-256 secure and does it repel hackers?" but instead "what tools/techniques should I use to prevent/detect X?", only then you should focus on tools to do the job.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the response @axapaxa. You can probably tell that I don't dabble in cryptology too often. That's because I'm a web developer. Obviously, encryption won't be the only security layer we have. It is actually our last security measure in place. However, due to the details of this specific situation, having our database hacked and deciphered is the greatest risk and worst case scenario. Thanks for the help! $\endgroup$ – Jacob Henning Apr 13 '17 at 1:34
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @JacobHenning If you want to have security layers, hire a expert to design those layers. Encryption isn't a security layer, which you still don't seem to understand. Your encryption is worth nothing if key is right next to data. And this is best you can do with your knowledge. Also if you store passwords, read up how to store them (DONT ENCRYPT THEM). $\endgroup$ – axapaxa Apr 13 '17 at 16:24
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @JacobHenning, a professional hacker isn't going to spend time beating their head against encryption. They're going to find a way to go around the encryption (e.g. by tricking your web application into decrypting the database for them). $\endgroup$ – Mark Apr 13 '17 at 22:34
  • $\begingroup$ I understand that encryption alone won't help me, but I still need to ensure that the encryptions being used are practically secure. $\endgroup$ – Jacob Henning Apr 14 '17 at 4:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JacobHenning I'm repeating people, but please get someone else to help you. Because "AES256" alone is neither secure nor insecure, even if you do the right thing with the key ... There are numerous conditions to if AES is a) appropriate and/or b) secure for a very specific case, and this is far too long to write it in an answer here. Without knowing the details, db design, code, maybe hoster environment, types of users, etc.etc., a "yes" or "no" makes no sense. And even if everything is alright, AES alone is just a tool, not a security layer or anything. $\endgroup$ – deviantfan Apr 14 '17 at 4:27
16
$\begingroup$

Maybe this isn't a full answer, but I think you might find a valuable insight in analyzing your own question more closely:

it is $2^{231}$ instead of $2^{256}$
So what gives?

That is not $256 - 231 = 25$ bit out of $256$ (~10%) less secure in an "added" way but $2^{25}=33.554.432$ in a multiplied way.

Adding a single bit doesn't add 1 to your security (i.e. length of time an attacker needs to crack your encrypted messages) but doubles it!
This may be a bit counter-intuitive but in encryption we do not suffer diminishing returns but enjoy increasing returns. The "last" bit in added key length has the greatest benefit to your security, because it doubles what all the bits before it achieved.

If AES key length was chosen to be

  • minimal for efficient calculation on encryption/decryption
  • sufficient against breaking the code (e.g. a brute force attack takes 3.000.000 years)

the loss in security (that you already found) would bring it down into the practical range of breaking it in 1-2 months.

I don't know, what actual time assumption was used for the AES key length definition. However your professor may have told you that his estimate as an expert is that the combined effect of

  • known vulnerabilities
  • qualitative computing power increase (better hardware) since the security assumptions have been made
  • investment into quantity of computing power (more hardware chained together)

made AES practically breakable for certain attackers. I wasn't in the discussion, so I'm unsure, if that was actually his intended meaning.

Now that I think of it, the number of 2 unbreakable encryption schemes tipped me off that he probably meant One Time Pad and Quantum Encryption. So from his answer I'd put special emphasis like this

He said sure, put it in, but just know that there are people out there who can crack it.

The latter part could be an implication to threat model analysis. To this, I'd like to add an obligatory XKCD:

https://xkcd.com/538/ Actual actual reality: Nobody cares about his secrets. (Also, I would be hard-pressed to find that wrench for $5.)

https://xkcd.com/538/
Actual actual reality: Nobody cares about his secrets. (Also, I would be hard-pressed to find that wrench for $5.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Mod up for the graphical illustration on real-world vulnerabilities in real-world usage. $\endgroup$ – Brad Apr 13 '17 at 13:54
-1
$\begingroup$

If I recall a few years back AES256 was broken, but not in a significant way. Broken refers to finding a method which is faster than brute force to derive the key. And while i am not sure it was AES256 i know one of the popular encryption systems was broken, but it only reduces the expected time needed to break it slightly. As far as i know the only algorithms that have not been broken to date is Serpent, and DES. Now i know everyone will say that DES is broken, but in actuality it has not been broken, instead hardware advanced beyond the point where we could no longer consider it secure. Meaning it is trivial for us to iterate through all possible combinations of DES and find the key used. Which is why 3-DES is considered secure since it is essentially the same algorithm used 3 times in succession. This is a cautionary tale as well, as at any point we could see hardware advance to a point where it becomes trivial to brute force current algorithms. When DES was drafted they couldn't imagine a computer powerful enough to do this, now such hardware is so common that it is something they have us do as an exercise when teaching encryption. So in reality all you can do is use the best you know of and hope that it will last you for a reasonable period. (Please, note that I did not check my references before posting, so my facts may be off slightly as they are from memory.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If you are not sure it was AES-256 (something I actually mentioned in my answer, which you must not have read) then don't answer. The only algorithms not broken are Serpent and DES? What about the other AES candidates and countless other algorithms? Hardware so it becomes trivial to attack other algorithms such as AES-256? I would not hold my breath. Your "facts" are not just slightly off, they are plain wrong. $\endgroup$ – Maarten Bodewes Apr 18 '17 at 0:05

protected by e-sushi Apr 20 '17 at 20:43

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.