3
$\begingroup$

Cryptographic primitives should have nothing-up-my-sleeve property to prove their designers don't have an advantage in using them versus the general public.

For example, Blowfish is using binary reprensentation of digits of π to initialize its key schedule. The Salsa20 family of ciphers use the ASCII string "expand 32-byte k" as constants in its block initialization process.

Now, my question is about widely used AES cipher. I cannot find any references to how its S-boxes were generated. Recently, it was proven that a Grasshopper block cipher S-boxes were generated using a hidden algorithm and that this made it potentially weaker.

So, does this mean AES doesn't have nothing-up-my-sleeve property? Can designers of AES have an advantage in using it?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

So, does this mean AES doesn't have nothing-up-my-sleeve property?

That is correct in a sense, the design of the s-box is formulaic. It is generated using finite field inversion, an affine transform, and xor of a constant (0x63). It can be described as a simple equation.

The other parts of round transformation also have a very simple description, the most complex being the MixColumns operation.

The key schedule adds a round constant which is generated simply by consecutive multiplication by 2 in a finite field.

Not using NUMS numbers allows the entire encryption operation to be described as an equation in a much more simple manner, and is easier to analyze. Rational is given for all choices of constants, although some seem.. incorrectly chosen, like the s-box constant, which causes a self-inverse mapping (see my comment on answer). A limited number of specifically chosen constants also prevents anything from being hidden in the same manner NUMS numbers do.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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