A Survey of Authentication Protocol Literature: Version 1.0

Written by

John Clark and Jeremy Jacob

Presented by

Brian Sierawski

Overview

• Background

• Cryptography

• Forms of Attack

Background

• Term: Users, hosts, processes referred to as principals

• Goal: Want to be sure that a received message has been created recently by the principal who claims to have send it

Overview

• Background

• Cryptography

• Forms of Attack

Cryptography

• Cryptography is fundamental to authentication

• Cryptographic algorithm converts plaintext to unintelligible ciphertext

• Encryption depends on key

Notation

• E(K : M) denotes M encrypted with key K

• Principals are capital letters A, B, S for server, Z for attacker

• Z(A) denotes Z acting as A

• Na refers to a number generated by A

• Eg. A B : A, E(Kab : Na)– A sends B an identifier with an encrypted nonce

Symmetric Key Cryptography

• The encryption key K and decryption key K-1 are easily obtainable from each other

• Anyone in possession of they key may read or create ciphertexts => key must be shared secret between principals

• Kab denotes key for communication between principals A and B

Symmetric Key Cryptography

• Classical Cryptography– Substitution cipher: substitutes a ciphertext

character for a plaintext character– Transposition cipher: shuffles plaintext

characters

• Modern Cryptography– Block cipher– Stream cipher

Block Cipher

• Encrypts a block of 64 or 128 bits at a time

• DES encrypts 56 bits (at insistence of NSA) which is insufficient to modern day attacks

• Other block ciphers: MADRYGA, NEWDES, FEAL-N, RC2, RC4, IDEA

Modes of Block Ciphers

• Electronic Code Book (ECB)

• Cipher Block Chaining (CBC)

• Cipher Feedback Mode (CFB)

Electronic Code Book (EBC)

• Simplest mode

• Consecutive blocks of plaintext are encrypted => identical blocks of plaintext are always encrypted in the same way

• Problem 1: Analyst may be able to build up a codebook of plaintext-ciphertext pairs

• Problem 2: Possible to replace an encrypted block with another

Cipher Block Chaining (CBC)

• Block i of plain text is XORed with block i - 1 of ciphertext then encrypted

• Choosing different initial block I will create different ciphertexts

• Problem: Should initial block be sent in clear or encrypted?

Cipher Feedback mode (CFB)

• Useful to transmit data less than block size

• Process:– Shift register initialized– Contents encrypted as a block– Leftmost byte XORed with plaintext data– Ciphertext pushed on right end of register

Stream Ciphers

• Encrypt one bit of plaintext at a time

• Generate bit stream and XOR successive bits with successive bits of plaintext

Next-StateFunction

Internal State

Output Function Ki

Pi

Ci

Key

Symmetric Key Without Trusted Third Party

• ISO One-pass Symmetric Key Unilateral Authentication Protocol– A B : Text2, E(Kab : [Ta | Na], B, Text1)

• Text2 identifies sender

• Timestamp or nonce prevent replay attacks

• B’s identity included as sole receiver

Symmetric Key With Trusted Third Party

• Eg. Needham Schroeder Symmetric Key Authentication:– (1) A S : A, B, Na– (2) S A : E(Kas:Na, B, Kab, E(Kbs:Kab, A))– (3) A B : E(Kbs:Kab, A)– (4) B A : E(Kab:Nb)– (5) A B : E(Kab:Nb - 1)

• Problem: Freshness Attacks

Public Key Cryptography

• No shared secret, each principal A is associated with key pair (Ka, Ka-1)

• Only public key revealed

• Encryption with Ka-1 and decryption with Ka guarantees authenticity.

• 1024 bit key recommended

Public Key Cryptography

• Problem: RSA is 100x slower than DES

• => Exchanging symmetric keys through public key cryptography good idea!

• Typically a trusted server S called certification authority stores public keys and distributes them under Ks-1

Overview

• Background

• Cryptography

• Forms of Attack

Freshness Attack

• Occurs when a message is recorded and replayed

• Needham Schroeder protocol weak– (3) A B : E(Kbs:Kab, A)– Old key K’ab may have been compromised

Type Flaws

• Arises when recipient accepts a message as valid but imposes different interpretation

• Otway-Rees protocol– (1) A B : M,A,B,E(Kas:Na,M,A,B)– (2) B S : M,A,B,E(Kas:Na,M,A,B),E(Kbs:Nb,M,A,B)– (3) S B : M,E(Kas:Na,Kab),E(Kbs:Nb,Kab)– (4) B A : M,E(Kas:Na,Kab)

• Attack– (1) A Z(B) : M,A,B,E(Kas,Na,M,A,B)– (4) Z(B) A : M,E(Kas:Na,M,A,B)

Parallel Session Attacks

• Occurs when two or more protocol runs are executed concurrently and messages from one are used to form messages in another– (1) A B : E(Kab : Na)

– (2) B A : E(Kab : Na + 1)

• Attack– (1.1) A Z(B) : E(Kab : Na)

– (2.1) Z(B) A : E(Kab : Na)

– (2.2) A Z(B) : E(Kab : Na + 1)

– (1.2) Z(B) A : E(Kab : Na + 1)

Implementation Dependent Attacks

• Stream Ciphers (Needham Schroeder)– (4) B A : E(Kab : Nb)– (5) A B : E(Kab : Nb - 1)– If Nb is odd, Nb - 1 has good chance of being

formed by flipping last cipher bit– Changing Identity

• Same attack on A B : E(Kbs : Kab, A)

• A can masquerade as C

Implementation Dependent Attacks

• Cipher Block Chaining– Cut and Paste

– Random jibberish X may be expected

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5P’1 P’2 P’3 P’4

C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C’0 C’1 C’2 C’3 C’4

C0 C1 C2 C3 C’2 C’3 C’4

P1 P2 P3 X P’3 P’4

Implementation Dependent Attacks

– Initialization Attacks• Given ciphertext C0C1 and known P1

• Decryption alg: P1 = C0 dk(C1)

• Desired block value W = W P1 P1

• W = W P1 (C0 dk(C1)

• W = C’0 dk(C1) where C’0 = W P1 C0

• Without knowing they key, P1 has now been easily replaced with W

• In Needham Schroeder the first block is the nonce!

Binding Attack

• A simple public key distribution– (1) C AS : C, S, Nc– (2) AS C : AS, E(Kas-1: AS, C, Nc, Ks)

• Leads to the following problem– (1.1) C Z(AS) : C, S, Nc– (2.1) Z(C) AS : C, Z, Nc– (2.2) AS Z(C) : AS, E(Kas-1 : AS, C, Nc, Kz)– (1.2) Z(AS) C : AS, E(Kas-1 : AS, C, Nc, Kz)

Conclusions

• Even though protocols have few messages, construction is complex

• The whole system is important

• Need tool support for rigorous development and analysis of protocols