1
$\begingroup$

I'm preparing for a computer security exam by going through some past paper questions. And I came across this particular one that I could not answer:

We have the Needham Schroeder Public Key Protocol:

$ 1. A \rightarrow B: \{N_A, A\}_{pk(B)} \\ 2. B \rightarrow A: \{N_A, N_B\}_{pk(A)} \\ 3. A \rightarrow B: \{N_B\}_{pk(B)}$

The question asks for an attack on this protocol. Like for the original NSPK I think the weakness is a man-in-the-middle attack (where $I_A$ stands for $I$ impostering as $A$ on the network:

$ 1. A \rightarrow I: \{N_A, A\}_{pk(I)} \\ \hspace{225px} 1'. I_A \rightarrow B: \{N_A, A\}_{pk(B)} \\ \hspace{225px} 2'. B \rightarrow I_A: \{N_A, N_B\}_{pk(A)} \\ 2. I \rightarrow A: \{N_A, N_B\}_{pk(A)} \\ 3. A \rightarrow I: \{N_B\}_{pk(I)} \\ \hspace{225px} 3'. I_A \rightarrow B: \{N_B\}_{pk(B)} \\ $

Which uses $A$ as a decryption agent to authenticate $I_A$ with $B$ despite it not being $A$'s intention to do so.

Now the question then asks about the modification of line 3 in the given protocol, i.e. changing the line: $3. A \rightarrow B: \{N_B\}_{pk(B)}$ into $3. A \rightarrow B: h(N_B, A, B)$ for a cryptographic hash function $h$.

The original man-in-the-middle attack doesn't seem to work from what I can see under this modification.

It then goes on to ask me whether this new method is secure on not, i.e. does any attacks exist on this new protocol? I have thus far noticed reflection and man-in-the-middle attacks will fail on this new protocol.

I'm wondering if there exist any attacks or else what would be a way to show its security? (Gut feeling says there should exist an attack as it may be very difficult to show it is completely secure.)

|improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see why changing to hash rectifies the problem. If in step 3 $A$ sends to $I$ the hash value, the in step 3' $I$ can pass it to $B$ without any problem and still $A,B$ cannot possibly detect there is a man in the middle. $\endgroup$ – Changyu Dong Jan 14 at 11:18
  • $\begingroup$ @ChangyuDong I think $A$ would send $I$ the string $h(N_B, A, I)$ then, and $B$ would then be able to tell as he would expect $h(N_B, A, B)$? $\endgroup$ – CowNorris Jan 14 at 17:22
  • $\begingroup$ Then in the third step of your attack, $A$ should send $\{N_B\}_{pk_I}$ instead of $\{N_B\}_{pk_B}$. $\endgroup$ – Changyu Dong Jan 15 at 10:36
  • $\begingroup$ @ChangyuDong Ah, sorry, my bad. I've corrected my attack now - though I'm still unsure about the security of the protocol after the modification the question suggests. $\endgroup$ – CowNorris Jan 15 at 12:30

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.