Detecting Eavesdropping A Solution

1 / 52

# Detecting Eavesdropping A Solution - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Detecting Eavesdropping A Solution. Quantum Computing Quantum Cryptography Algorithms for key distribution, coin flipping, bit commitment, oblivious transfer, etc In 1994 Peter Schor devised a quantum computing algorithm to factorise large numbers in polynomial time!

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Detecting Eavesdropping A Solution' - macha

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Quantum Computing Quantum Cryptography

Algorithms for key distribution, coin flipping, bit commitment, oblivious transfer, etc

In 1994 Peter Schor devised a quantum computing algorithm to factorise large numbers in polynomial time!

(Un)fortunately no-one is yet able how to build a suitable quantum computer.

Can we use quantum effects to detect passive eavesdropping?

Particles (e.g. Photons) exist in N places at once with different probabilities.

We can measure position or velocity but not both

Quantum world is uncertain.

But we can use this uncertainty to generate a key!

Quantum Cryptography
Photons vibrate in some direction e.g.

Polarised when many photons vibrate in the same direction

Polarisation filters only allow photons polarised in a defined direction (angle) through, e.g

Polarisation: Noddy's guide
• Up and down

100%

• Left and right

0%

• At some angle

50%

Each note has a printed serial number and a set of "photon-stores" that hold differently polarised photons.

Only the Bank knows the polarisations for any serial number.

We can produce counterfeit notes if we can measure the correct polarisations. But to do this we need to guess the correct orientations.

Wiesner's Quantum Money

DoC Bank £100

22AC320FR00

Polarisation measured in a basis.

Basis consists of 2 orthogonal directions, e.g.

If polarisation is read in a matching basis -> we learn polarisation

If read in wrong basis -> we learn a random polarisation!

Basis
• Rectilinear

Okay

• Diagonal

Random

Alice sends pulses to Bob. Bob uses polarisation detectors with randomly set basis

Bob tells Alice his settings. Alice tells Bob which settings were correct.

Settings map to 0 and 1’s, e.g. — and / map to 0, while | and \ map to 1.

Alice and Bob only use those settings as a secret key (or 1-time pad key)

0

1

1

1

0/1

0/1

0/1

0/1

0/1

Bennett & Brassard Protocol

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

Eavesdropper Eve also does not know correct polarisations, so like Bob will pick wrong basis 50% of the time. Knowing Bob's settings after the event does not help, because she will have measured half of them incorrectly.

Worse still, Eve will introduce errors, which Alice & Bob can detect, since Eve’s wrong guesses will change polarisation of pulses

Protocol Continued
• To detect Eve, Alice and Bob only need to compare a few bits in their message.
• If errors found then we have an Eavesdropper.
• If no errors: Use rest of message
• Simon Singh, The Code Book, Chapter 8
• Quantum Computing Course (482), Next term

### Classical Cryptography

Michael Huth

M.Huth@doc.ic.ac.uk

www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~mrh/430/

CONFIDENTIALITYKeep information secret

AUTHENTICATIONReceiver can verify who sender was

INTEGRITYDetect modified messages

NON-REPUDIATIONSender cannot later falsely deny sending a message. Receiver cannot falsely deny receiving it.

Why Cryptography?

Decrypt (D)

Ciphertext (C)

Plaintext (P)

P = D (C)

Encryption

Encrypt (E)

Plaintext (P)

hello world

Ciphertext (C)

JHN+K9[

C = E (P)

P = D (E (P))

Encryption with a Secret Key

Key (k)

Encrypt (E)

Plaintext (P)

Ciphertext (C)

C = Ek (P)

Key (k)

Decrypt (D)

Ciphertext (C)

Plaintext (P)

P = Dk (C)

• Kerchoff’s Principle - Secrecy should lie in keeping a key secret. Assume algorithm is known.

P = Dk (Ek (P))

Key1 (k1)

Encrypt (E)

Plaintext (P)

Ciphertext (C)

C = Ek1 (P)

Key2 (k2)

Decrypt (D)

Ciphertext (C)

Plaintext (P)

P = Dk2 (C)

Encryption with 2 Keys

P = Dk2 (Ek1 (P))

Steganography

Dear George, 3rd March

Greetings to all at Oxford. Many thanks for your

letter and for the Summer examination package.

All Entry Forms and Fees Forms should be ready

for final dispatch to the Syndicate by Friday

20th or at the very least, I’m told, by the 21st.

Admin has improved here, though there’s room

for improvement still; just give us all two or three

more years and we’ll really show you! Please

don’t let these wretched 16+ proposals destroy

your basic O and A pattern. Certainly this

sort of change, if implemented immediately,

would bring chaos.

• Conceal existence of message, e.g. 1st letter of each word, least sig. bit of graphic image
• Useless once method discovered
• Peter Wayner, Disappearing Cryptography, 2nd ed, Morgan Kaufmann, 2002
Steganography **

Dear George, 3rd March

Greetings to all at Oxford. Many thanks for your

letter and for the Summer examination package.

All Entry Forms and Fees Forms should be ready

for final dispatch to the Syndicate by Friday

20th or at the very least, I’m told, by the 21st.

Admin has improved here, though there’s room

for improvement still; just give us all two or three

more years and we’ll really show you! Please

don’t let these wretched 16+ proposals destroy

your basic O and A pattern. Certainly this

sort of change, if implemented immediately,

would bring chaos.

Pre-arranged set of secret codes/meanings.

BEST if used once only.Security weakens with each use if intercepted

Only small set of pre-arranged messages. What if we wanted to communicate “Launch half the missiles” or “Disarm missiles”?

EXAMPLEMobius -> Launch missilesZebra -> Don’t Launch

Codes
Use a random key as long as the message. Must not reuse the key sequence ever again.

Both parties must have key sequence

Hotline between USA and USSR was rumoured to use a one-time pad.

Destroy key sequence after use

EXAMPLEKey is number of places to shift letterK 321424P launchC OCVREL

Suggest a good 1-time pad function for binary data?

Each letter (or group) is replaced by another letter (group) MONOALPHABETIC CIPHEREach character is replaced by a corresponding characterCAESAR CIPHERCircularly shift each letter three positions along in the alphabet,e.g. zebra -> CHEUDROT13Like Caesar but rotate 13 places. Used to hide offensive jokes, solutions to puzzles etc

BRUTE FORCE ATTACKCHEUD1 bgdtc2 afcsb3 zebra4 ydapz...25 digve

Algorithm known

Only 25 keys

What if Plaintext language is not easily recognisable?

Substitution Ciphers
GENERAL MONOALPHABETIC CIPHERSUse a random mapping, e.g:

abcedfghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

ESFNCRTBZLMVAYXUPKDJOWQGIH

increases no of keys to 26! > 4*10^26

HOMOPHONIC CIPHERSEach character has several ciphertext mappings, as many as its relative frequency

POLYGRAM CIPHERSMap groups of characters, e.g. aly -> RTQ

POLYALPHABETIC CIPHERSVary monoalphabetic cipher during ciphering/deciphering procedure

ATTACKING GENERAL

MONOALPHABETIC CIPHERS

Consider nature of Plaintext, e.g. statistical properties.

Frequency of letterse 12.75% t 9.25%r 8.50%n 7.75%

Frequency of common words

Repeating letters

2-letter combinations (digrams): th, in, er,re, an

3-letter combinations (trigrams): the, ing, and, ion

Substitution Ciphers
E.g. ENIGMA MACHINE. Polyalphabetic Cipher

Several interconnected substitution rotating cylinders.

Example: Input Rotor1 Rotor2 Rotor3 OutputA A->F F->X X->N N Rotor 3 now shifts (its substitutions change) A A->F F->X X->W W Rotor 3 now shifts (its substitutions change) ... After 26 shifts by Rotor 3, it will be back to its original, substitution Rotor 2 now shifts.A A->F F->B B->S S

With 3 rotors and 26 letters we have a period = 26^3 = 17,576 substitution alphabets

Rotor Machine
Rearrange order of characters (permutation)

SIMPLE COLUMNAR CIPHERUsing a grid, write plaintext horizontally, read ciphertext.vertically. P launchmissilesnow launch missil esnowC LMEAISUSNNSOCIWHL

ATTACK ON COLUMNAR CIPHERCiphertext has same letter frequencies as plaintext -> Easy

MULTIPLE TRANSPOSITION CIPHERSPass a plaintext through two or more transposition ciphers -> Much harder to attack.

Transposition Ciphers
CIPHERTEXT ONLY ATTACK

KNOWN PLAINTEXT ATTACK

CHOSEN PLAINTEXT ATTACK

CHOSEN CIPHERTEXT ATTACK

Cryptanalysis

Discover” key, and/or plaintext if not known

We assume algorithm is known(Kerckoff’s principle)

C known

E

C known

P known

E

C generated

P chosen

E

generated

C chosen

D

EXAMPLES OF ATTACK

Passive Attacks

Active Attacks

Brute Force

Birthday

Man-in-the-Middle

Replay

Cut & Paste

Time Resetting

Many more...

PRACTICAL CRYPTANALYSISAcquire a key by any means, e.g.

Theft

Bribery (“Purchase-Key” attack)

Blackmail

Torture

Hypnosis

Cryptanalysis
Cryptographic Strength
• UNCONDITIONALLY SECURENo matter how much ciphertext is available, it is still not enough to infer the plaintext (even with infinite computational power). Only ONE-TIME PADS with random keys are unconditionally secure.Known as PERFECT SECRECY for encryption systems.
• PROVABLY SECURECryptosystem shown to be as difficult to defeat as somesupposedly difficult(number-theoretic) problem, e.g. factorisation of large primes. Has an equivalence proof.
• COMPUTATIONALLY INFEASIBLE (PRACTICALLY SECURE)Beliefthat cryptosystem cannot be broken with “available” resources; formalizations thereof exist already, e.g. “secure for any adversary with computational power in randomized polynomial time”
Cost & Timeliness

£ COST TO BREAK > £ VALUE OF INFORMATION

TIME TO BREAK > USEFUL LIFETIME OF INFORMATION

• Stallings. Chapter 2.

### Cryptographic Design Vulnerabilities

Bruce Schneier

IEEE Computer, Sept 98,

p29-33

Security, ha ha ha
• Lock with 4 pins, each with10 positions
• Burglar may need to try10,000 combinations to guarantee success (brute-force attack)
• What if 10 pins?-> 10 billion positions
• Great, but....
A burglar could....
• Smash the windows
• Kick in the doors
• Threaten owner with violence
• etc....
• Better locks can’t help with these attacks
• Same is true for cryptography. Good/strong cryptography is important but not a panacea
Marketing hype
• “128-bit keys mean strong security”
• “40-bit keys are weak”
• “triple-DES is much stronger than single DES”
• Be wary of products making such statements/claims.
• Many products are buzzword-compliant, they use strong cryptography but aren’t particularly secure
Attacks against Design
• Cryptosystems use algorithms for encryption, digital signatures, one-way hash functions, random-numbers etc.
• Break any one and you can usually break the whole system!
• Cryptographic functions often have very narrow usage
• It’s very difficult to design a secure cryptosystem, even with good software engineers, e.g. Microsoft’s Point-to-Point-Tunneling Protocol (PPTP) used an inappropriate mode for the RC4 encryption algorithm rendering it insecure
Attacks against Implementation
• Many cryptosystems fail because of mistakes in implementation, e.g. don’t securely destroy unencrypted text after encryption, have code that allows buffer overflow, are poor error checking and recovery,
• “Trivial” code-optimisations can break security
• Implementation trade-offs e.g. to enhance usability at the expense of security
• Systems that allow old keys to be recovered in an emergency
Attacks against Hardware
• Highly secure environments deploy tamper-resistant hardware, e.g. tokencards, smartcards
• Techniques/hardware to defeat them are also being developed, e.g. timing attack on RSA private keys measured relative times of cryptographic operations. Attacks that measure power consumption, radiation emissions, introduce faults and analyse effects
• Cost to Defeat Tamper Resistance >> Value of Data
Attacks against Trust Models
• Who or what in the system is trusted, in what way, and to what extend?
• Some commerce systems can be broken by a merchant and a customer colluding or two different customers colluding
• Many systems make poor assumptions, eg, desktop is secure, network is secure, employees are trusted
• Design choices are sometimes ignored when it comes time to sell a product/system.
Attacks “on” Users
• Pass on password to colleagues
• Use same password on different systems
• Write random passwords on paper
• Don’t report missing smartcard
• Don’t change (weak) default settings
• Users need to be educated
Attacks against Failure Recovery
• Recovering the key for one file, should not allow every file to be read
• Reverse-engineering one smart card should not reveal secret info in others
• Options which switch off security, or make it less secure
• Version rollback attack to insecure version
Attacks against Cryptography
• Proprietary algorithms/protocols -> invariably weak. Cryptanalysts are very good at breaking published algorithms, even better against proprietary ones!
• Keeping the algorithm secret doesn’t make much difference against determined opponents, algorithms can be reverse-engineered
Conclusion
• A good security product must defend against every possible attack, even attacks that haven’t been invented yet!
• Attackers often only need find one flaw in order to defeat a system.
• In addition, they can collude & conspire.
• They can wait for technology to give them the edge.
• But don’t worry - Cryptography is a lot fun !!

• PriceWaterHouseCoopers’ 2010 Survey on the Global State of Information Security
• Ciphertext-only Crytanalysis of the Enigma, by James J. Gillogly

### Notes on Tutorial for Classical Cryptography

Michael Huth

M.Huth@doc.ic.ac.uk

www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~mrh/430/

• Every group has own algorithm
• Can’t use Off-the-Shelf algorithm, no implementation choices
• Change group - change algorithm
• Key comprise - change algorithm
• Poor quality control - little or no peer review
• No standards
• Easy to reverse-engineer algorithm
• Kerchoff’s principle - Assume algorithm is known, Secrecy should lie in keeping key secret.
Destructive Attacks, Replay attacks

Unencrypted documents, e.g. before encryption or after decryption

Modification of encryption program

Lost or Stolen keys or passwords

Traitors

Interception incl. Traffic Analysis

Successful cryptanalysis

What Encryption doesn’t handle **
Steganography

The supply of game for London is going steadily up. Head keep Hudson, we believe, has been now told to receive all orders for fly paper and for preservations of your hen-pheasant's life.

"The Gloria Scott"

Arthur Conan Doyle.

C=E(P)=

P=D(C)=

BRUTE FORCE ATTACK

Determine key for:

E Q V

DECRYPT
• WKXPEVXS
Freemason Cipher

A B C J

D E F K L

G H I M

N • O • P • W

Q • R • S • X Y

T • U • V • Z

Ek

Dk

C

C

P

P

Node1

(Host)

Node2

Node3

Node4

(Host)

End-to-End Encryption

C1

C2

C3

Ek1

Dk1

Ek2

Dk2

Ek3

Dk3

P

P

Node1

(Host)

Node2

Node3

Node4

(Host)

Msg exposed in sending host & intermediate nodes

Applied by sending host, host responsible for encryption

Transparent to processes

All messages usually encrypted

Can be done in hardware

Requires one key per link pair

Provides host/node authentication

More ciphertext

Msg encrypted in sending host & receiving nodes

Applied by sending process, process responsible for encryption

Process applies encryption

Process decides when to encrypt

Usually done in software

Requires one key per process pair

Provides application/user authentication

Traffic analysis easier

Encryption/decryption devices

P2

End-to-End

N

Host

P1

P3

N

N

Host

Host

N