DOCSLIB.ORG

Nessie: a Decoupled, Client-Driven Key-Value Store Using RDMA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nessie: a Decoupled, Client-Driven Key-Value Store Using RDMA TO APPEAR IN: IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS 1 Nessie: A Decoupled, Client-Driven Key-Value Store Using RDMA Benjamin Cassell*, Tyler Szepesi*, Bernard Wong*, Tim Brecht*, Jonathan Ma*, Xiaoyi Liu* {becassel, stszepes, bernard, brecht, jonathan.ma, x298liu}@uwaterloo.ca Abstract—Key-value storage systems are an integral part of many data centre applications, but as demand increases so does the need for high performance. This has motivated new designs that use Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) to reduce communication overhead. Current RDMA-enabled key-value stores (RKVSes) target workloads involving small values, running on dedicated servers on which no other applications are running. Outside of these domains, however, there may be other RKVS designs that provide better performance. In this paper, we introduce Nessie, an RKVS that is fully client-driven, meaning no server process is involved in servicing requests. Nessie also decouples its index and storage data structures, allowing indices and data to be placed on different servers. This flexibility can decrease the number of network operations required to service a request. These design elements make Nessie well-suited for a different set of workloads than existing RKVSes. Compared to a server-driven RKVS, Nessie more than doubles system throughput when there is CPU contention on the server, improves throughput by 70% for PUT-oriented workloads when data value sizes are 128 KB or larger, and reduces power consumption by 18% at 80% system utilization and 41% at 20% system utilization compared with idle power consumption. Index Terms—Computer networks, data storage systems, distributed computing, distributed systems, key-value stores, RDMA ✦ 1 INTRODUCTION server-driven. This approach is susceptible to performance By eliminating slow disk and SSD accesses, distributed in- degradation in environments with multiplexed resources, as memory storage systems, such as memcached [17], Redis [6], an increase in CPU usage from a co-resident application or and Tachyon [24], can reduce an application’s request ser- VM can cause context switching that delays the processing vice time by more than an order of magnitude [27]. In the of requests, and significantly reduces the throughput of the absence of disks and SSDs, however, an operating system’s RKVS. This delay is amplified when a server-thread is pre- network stack is often the next largest source of application empted, preventing progress for all clients communicating latency. With network operations taking tens or hundreds with that server thread. of microseconds to complete, the performance bottleneck The second environment that current designs have not of large-scale applications has shifted, creating a need for focused on are those where the RKVS is required to store better networking solutions. large data values. Existing RKVSes use designs that couple The drive for increasing performance has led recent in- indexing and data storage, resulting in rigid data placement PUTs memory storage systems to use Remote Direct Memory and unavoidable data transfers for [11]. As data value Access (RDMA) [14], [21], [26], [30]. RDMA enables direct sizes grow, network bandwidth becomes a bottleneck for access to memory on a remote node, and provides addi- performance. This presents issues for a variety of work- tional performance benefits such as kernel bypass and zero- loads, for example when using an RKVS as a memory copy data transfers. These RDMA-based systems are able to manager for a distributed computation framework such provide lower latencies and higher throughput than systems as Apache Spark [31] which manages data units that are using TCP or UDP. hundreds of megabytes in size. When indexing and data Although existing RDMA-enabled key-value stores storage are coupled, writing new data of this size results in (RKVSes) perform well on workloads involving small data significant overhead as the data is sent over the network to sizes and dedicated servers, we have identified three en- the node responsible for its key. vironments for which these designs are not well-suited. The third environment includes those where reducing The first environment includes those where CPUs can not energy consumption is important. As previously explained, be dedicated for exclusive use by the RKVS. This includes server-driven RKVSes use polling threads alongside RDMA applications where it is advantageous for distributed com- to decrease operation latency. With the current speed of putation and storage to be integrated into the same node, network interfaces, however, a single polling thread per or where physical CPUs are shared by multiple virtual ma- machine is often insufficient to saturate the link. Instead, chines. Existing RKVSes achieve low latency by using dedi- these RKVSes must dedicate multiple polling threads to cated CPUs on the server to poll on incoming requests [14], handling requests. While this is useful when operating [21]. We refer to these systems, in which client requests are at peak load, polling during off-peak periods is energy- forwarded to a dedicated server thread for processing, as inefficient. In some parallelized data centre applications, it is possible to consolidate resources by shutting down VMs * Cheriton School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo during periods of inactivity. For a big memory storage sys- TO APPEAR IN: IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS 2 tem, however, this means frequently reorganizing hundreds even be used in virtualized environments. RDMA inside a or possibly thousands of gigabytes of data. VM has been shown to, for larger data transfer sizes like In this paper, we present the design of Nessie, a new those we are focused on, provide performance comparable RKVS that addresses some of the limitations of current to that of using RDMA directly on hardware [13]. RKVSes. Nessie is fully client-driven, meaning requests are Communication over RDMA is performed using the satisfied entirely by the client using one-sided RDMA opera- verbs interface, consisting of one-sided and two-sided verbs. tions that do not involve the server process’ CPU. One-sided Two-sided verbs follow a message-based model where one reads and writes allow Nessie to eliminate the polling which process sends a message using the SEND verb and the is essential for providing high throughput in server-driven other process receives the message using a RECV verb. This RKVSes. This makes Nessie less susceptible to performance exchange involves CPU interaction on both the sending degradation caused by CPU interference in shared CPU and receiving side. The contents of the sent message are environments such as in the cloud. Furthermore, Nessie passed directly into an address in the receiving application’s only consumes CPU resources when clients are actively memory, specified by the RECV verb. making requests in the system, reducing Nessie’s power One-sided verbs allow direct access to pre-designated consumption during non-peak loads. Finally, Nessie’s de- regions of a remote server’s address space, without inter- coupled indexing and data storage allows indices to refer to acting with the remote CPU. The READ and WRITE verbs data stored on different nodes in the system. This enables can be used to retrieve and modify the contents of these more flexible data placement, for instance local writes, and regions, respectively. RDMA also provides two atomic one- can benefit write-heavy workloads by exploiting locality sided verbs: compare-and-swap (CAS), and fetch-and-add and reducing the volume of remote operations. (FAA). These verbs both operate on 64 bits of data, and are This paper makes three main contributions: atomic relative to other RDMA operations on the same NIC. • We describe the design of Nessie, and show how RDMA supports an asynchronous programming model its decoupled, fully client-driven design allows it to in which verbs are posted to a send and receive queuing operate without server-side interaction. pair. By default, operations post an event to a completion • We evaluate a prototype of Nessie. For compari- queue when they have finished. An application may block son purposes, we also evaluate NessieSD, a server- or poll on this queue while waiting for operations to com- driven version of Nessie that uses polling, similar plete. Alternatively, as noted by the authors of FaRM [14], to HERD [21]. We futhermore evaluate NessieHY, a most RDMA interfaces guarantee that an operation’s bytes hybrid version of Nessie that uses client-driven GETs are read or written in address order. Applications may take and server-driven PUTs similar to FaRM [14]. advantage of this fact to poll on the last byte of a region • We identify three problematic workloads for existing being used to service RDMA operations, as once the last RKVSes: Workloads in shared CPU environments, byte has been updated, the operation is complete. workloads with large data values, and workloads where energy consumption is important. We show that Nessie performs significantly better than server- 2.2 Key-Value Stores driven approaches for these workloads. Key-value stores (KVSes) are increasingly popular storage solutions that map input identifiers (keys) to stored content 2 BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK (values). They are frequently employed as tools in appli- This work is a follow-up to our previous position paper [29]. cation infrastructure and as components of other storage We extend our preliminary design and introduce new mech- systems [26]. Most KVSes provide an interface consisting GET PUT DELETE GET anisms and performance optimizations. Additionally we of , and operations. accepts a key PUT provide a full system implementation and evaluation. In this and obtains it’s associated value. inserts or updates DELETE section, we provide an overview of RDMA technologies and the value for a key, and removes a key and any survey other in-memory key-value stores. associated values from the store. Some KVSes, such as Redis [6], provide persistent stor- age while others, including memcached [17], are used 2.1 RDMA for lossy caching.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public Key Cryptography And
    PublicPublic KeyKey CryptographyCryptography andand RSARSA Raj Jain Washington University in Saint Louis Saint Louis, MO 63130 [email protected] Audio/Video recordings of this lecture are available at: http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse571-11/ Washington University in St. Louis CSE571S ©2011 Raj Jain 9-1 OverviewOverview 1. Public Key Encryption 2. Symmetric vs. Public-Key 3. RSA Public Key Encryption 4. RSA Key Construction 5. Optimizing Private Key Operations 6. RSA Security These slides are based partly on Lawrie Brown’s slides supplied with William Stallings’s book “Cryptography and Network Security: Principles and Practice,” 5th Ed, 2011. Washington University in St. Louis CSE571S ©2011 Raj Jain 9-2 PublicPublic KeyKey EncryptionEncryption Invented in 1975 by Diffie and Hellman at Stanford Encrypted_Message = Encrypt(Key1, Message) Message = Decrypt(Key2, Encrypted_Message) Key1 Key2 Text Ciphertext Text Keys are interchangeable: Key2 Key1 Text Ciphertext Text One key is made public while the other is kept private Sender knows only public key of the receiver Asymmetric Washington University in St. Louis CSE571S ©2011 Raj Jain 9-3 PublicPublic KeyKey EncryptionEncryption ExampleExample Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman at MIT RSA: Encrypted_Message = m3 mod 187 Message = Encrypted_Message107 mod 187 Key1 = <3,187>, Key2 = <107,187> Message = 5 Encrypted Message = 53 = 125 Message = 125107 mod 187 = 5 = 125(64+32+8+2+1) mod 187 = {(12564 mod 187)(12532 mod 187)... (1252 mod 187)(125 mod 187)} mod 187 Washington University in
    [Show full text]
  • On the NIST Lightweight Cryptography Standardization
    On the NIST Lightweight Cryptography Standardization Meltem S¨onmez Turan NIST Lightweight Cryptography Team ECC 2019: 23rd Workshop on Elliptic Curve Cryptography December 2, 2019 Outline • NIST's Cryptography Standards • Overview - Lightweight Cryptography • NIST Lightweight Cryptography Standardization Process • Announcements 1 NIST's Cryptography Standards National Institute of Standards and Technology • Non-regulatory federal agency within U.S. Department of Commerce. • Founded in 1901, known as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) prior to 1988. • Headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and laboratories in Boulder, Colorado. • Employs around 6,000 employees and associates. NIST's Mission to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. 2 NIST Organization Chart Laboratory Programs Computer Security Division • Center for Nanoscale Science and • Cryptographic Technology Technology • Secure Systems and Applications • Communications Technology Lab. • Security Outreach and Integration • Engineering Lab. • Security Components and Mechanisms • Information Technology Lab. • Security Test, Validation and • Material Measurement Lab. Measurements • NIST Center for Neutron Research • Physical Measurement Lab. Information Technology Lab. • Advanced Network Technologies • Applied and Computational Mathematics • Applied Cybersecurity • Computer Security • Information Access • Software and Systems • Statistical
    [Show full text]
  • Choosing Key Sizes for Cryptography
    information security technical report 15 (2010) 21e27 available at www.sciencedirect.com www.compseconline.com/publications/prodinf.htm Choosing key sizes for cryptography Alexander W. Dent Information Security Group, University Of London, Royal Holloway, UK abstract After making the decision to use public-key cryptography, an organisation still has to make many important decisions before a practical system can be implemented. One of the more difficult challenges is to decide the length of the keys which are to be used within the system: longer keys provide more security but mean that the cryptographic operation will take more time to complete. The most common solution is to take advice from information security standards. This article will investigate the methodology that is used produce these standards and their meaning for an organisation who wishes to implement public-key cryptography. ª 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction being compromised by an attacker). It also typically means a slower scheme. Most symmetric cryptographic schemes do The power of public-key cryptography is undeniable. It is not allow the use of keys of different lengths. If a designer astounding in its simplicity and its ability to provide solutions wishes to offer a symmetric scheme which provides different to many seemingly insurmountable organisational problems. security levels depending on the key size, then the designer However, the use of public-key cryptography in practice is has to construct distinct variants of a central design which rarely as simple as the concept first appears. First one has to make use of different pre-specified key lengths.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computing Threat: How to Keep Ahead
    Think openly, build securely White paper: Quantum Computing Threat: How to Keep Ahead Ë PQShield Ƕ February 2021 © PQShield Ltd | www.pqshield.com | PQShield Ltd, Oxford, OX2 7HT, UK Cryptographic agility and a clear roadmap to the upcoming NIST standards are key to a smooth and secure transition. 1 Background 1.1 New Cryptography Standards The NIST (U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology) Post‐Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Project has been running since 2016 and is now in its third, final evaluation round. This project standardizes new key establishment and digital signature algorithms that have been designed to be resistant against attacks by quantum computers. These new algorithms are intended to replace current classical‐security RSA and Elliptic Cryptography (ECDH, ECDSA) standards in applications. The particular mathematical problems that RSA and Elliptic Cryptography are based onareeasy (polynomial‐time solvable) for quantum computers. Unless complemented with quantum‐safe cryptography, this will allow for the forgery of digital signatures (integrity compromise) and de‐ cryption of previously encrypted data (confidentiality compromise) in the future. This is aheight‐ ened risk for organizations that need to secure data for long periods of time; government orga‐ nizations that handle and secure classified information have largely been the drivers ofthepost‐ quantum standardization and its adoption in the field, but banks, financial services, healthcare providers, those developing intellectual property and many others increasingly feel the need to ensure that they can protect their customers and IP – now and in the future. 1.2 Quantum Threat and Post-Quantum Cryptography The current position of NCSC (UK’s National Cyber Security Centre) and NSA (USA’s National Se‐ curity Agency) is that the best mitigation against the threat of quantum computers is quantum‐ safe cryptography, also known as post‐quantum cryptography (PQC).
    [Show full text]
  • Cryptographic Algorithms and Key Sizes for Personal Identity Verification
    Archived NIST Technical Series Publication The attached publication has been archived (withdrawn), and is provided solely for historical purposes. It may have been superseded by another publication (indicated below). Archived Publication Series/Number: NIST Special Publication 800-78-2 Title: Cryptographic Algorithms and Key Sizes for Personal Identity Verification Publication Date(s): February 2010 Withdrawal Date: December 2010 Withdrawal Note: SP 800-78-2 is superseded in its entirety by the publication of SP 800-78-3 (December 2010). Superseding Publication(s) The attached publication has been superseded by the following publication(s): Series/Number: NIST Special Publication 800-78-3 Title: Cryptographic Algorithms and Key Sizes for Personal Identity Verification Author(s): W. Timothy Polk, Donna F. Dodson, William E. Burr, Hildegard Ferraiolo, David Cooper Publication Date(s): December 2010 URL/DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-78-3 Additional Information (if applicable) Contact: Computer Security Division (Information Technology Lab) Latest revision of the SP 800-78-4 (as of August 7, 2015) attached publication: Related information: http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/piv/ Withdrawal N/A announcement (link): Date updated: ƵŐƵƐƚϳ, 2015 NIST Special Publication 800-78-2 Cryptographic Algorithms and Key Sizes for Personal Identity Verification W. Timothy Polk Donna F. Dodson William. E. Burr I N F O R M A T I O N S E C U R I T Y Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD, 20899-8930 February 2010 U.S. Department of Commerce Gary Locke, Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Outline Block Ciphers
    Block Ciphers: DES, AES Guevara Noubir http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/noubir/Courses/CSG252/F04 Textbook: —Cryptography: Theory and Applications“, Douglas Stinson, Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, 2002 Reading: Chapter 3 Outline n Substitution-Permutation Networks n Linear Cryptanalysis n Differential Cryptanalysis n DES n AES n Modes of Operation CSG252 Classical Cryptography 2 Block Ciphers n Typical design approach: n Product cipher: substitutions and permutations n Leading to a non-idempotent cipher n Iteration: n Nr: number of rounds → 1 2 Nr n Key schedule: k k , k , …, k , n Subkeys derived according to publicly known algorithm i n w : state n Round function r r-1 r n w = g(w , k ) 0 n w : plaintext x n Required property of g: ? n Encryption and Decryption sequence CSG252 Classical Cryptography 3 1 SPN: Substitution Permutation Networks n SPN: special type of iterated cipher (w/ small change) n Block length: l x m n x = x(1) || x(2) || … || x(m) n x(i) = (x(i-1)l+1, …, xil) n Components: π l → l n Substitution cipher s: {0, 1} {0, 1} π → n Permutation cipher (S-box) P: {1, …, lm} {1, …, lm} n Outline: n Iterate Nr times: m substitutions; 1 permutation; ⊕ sub-key; n Definition of SPN cryptosytems: n P = ?; C = ?; K ⊆ ?; n Algorithm: n Designed to allow decryption using the same algorithm n What are the parameters of the decryption algorithm? CSG252 Classical Cryptography 4 SPN: Example n l = m = 4; Nr = 4; n Key schedule: n k: (k1, …, k32) 32 bits r n k : (k4r-3, …, k4r+12) z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F π S(z) E 4 D 1 2 F B 8 3 A 6 C
    [Show full text]
  • The Whirlpool Secure Hash Function
    Cryptologia, 30:55–67, 2006 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0161-1194 print DOI: 10.1080/01611190500380090 The Whirlpool Secure Hash Function WILLIAM STALLINGS Abstract In this paper, we describe Whirlpool, which is a block-cipher-based secure hash function. Whirlpool produces a hash code of 512 bits for an input message of maximum length less than 2256 bits. The underlying block cipher, based on the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), takes a 512-bit key and oper- ates on 512-bit blocks of plaintext. Whirlpool has been endorsed by NESSIE (New European Schemes for Signatures, Integrity, and Encryption), which is a European Union-sponsored effort to put forward a portfolio of strong crypto- graphic primitives of various types. Keywords advanced encryption standard, block cipher, hash function, sym- metric cipher, Whirlpool Introduction In this paper, we examine the hash function Whirlpool [1]. Whirlpool was developed by Vincent Rijmen, a Belgian who is co-inventor of Rijndael, adopted as the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES); and by Paulo Barreto, a Brazilian crypto- grapher. Whirlpool is one of only two hash functions endorsed by NESSIE (New European Schemes for Signatures, Integrity, and Encryption) [13].1 The NESSIE project is a European Union-sponsored effort to put forward a portfolio of strong cryptographic primitives of various types, including block ciphers, symmetric ciphers, hash functions, and message authentication codes. Background An essential element of most digital signature and message authentication schemes is a hash function. A hash function accepts a variable-size message M as input and pro- duces a fixed-size hash code HðMÞ, sometimes called a message digest, as output.
    [Show full text]
  • Selecting Cryptographic Key Sizes
    J. Cryptology (2001) 14: 255–293 DOI: 10.1007/s00145-001-0009-4 © 2001 International Association for Cryptologic Research Selecting Cryptographic Key Sizes Arjen K. Lenstra Citibank, N.A., 1 North Gate Road, Mendham, NJ 07945-3104, U.S.A. [email protected] and Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Eric R. Verheul PricewaterhouseCoopers, GRMS Crypto Group, Goudsbloemstraat 14, 5644 KE Eindhoven, The Netherlands eric.verheul@[nl.pwcglobal.com, pobox.com] Communicated by Andrew Odlyzko Received September 1999 and revised February 2001 Online publication 14 August 2001 Abstract. In this article we offer guidelines for the determination of key sizes for symmetric cryptosystems, RSA, and discrete logarithm-based cryptosystems both over finite fields and over groups of elliptic curves over prime fields. Our recommendations are based on a set of explicitly formulated parameter settings, combined with existing data points about the cryptosystems. Key words. Symmetric key length, Public key length, RSA, ElGamal, Elliptic curve cryptography, Moore’s law. 1. Introduction 1.1. The Purpose of This Paper Cryptography is one of the most important tools that enable e-commerce because cryp- tography makes it possible to protect electronic information. The effectiveness of this protection depends on a variety of mostly unrelated issues such as cryptographic key size, protocol design, and password selection. Each of these issues is equally important: if a key is too small, or if a protocol is badly designed or incorrectly used, or if a pass- word is poorly selected or protected, then the protection fails and improper access can be gained. In this article we give some guidelines for the determination of cryptographic key sizes.
    [Show full text]
  • Block Cipher and Data Encryption Standard (DES)
    Block Cipher and Data Encryption Standard (DES) 2021.03.09 Presented by: Mikail Mohammed Salim Professor 박종혁 Cryptography and Information Security 1 Block Cipher and Data Encryption Standard (DES) Contents • What is Block Cipher? • Padding in Block Cipher • Ideal Block Cipher • What is DES? • DES- Key Discarding Process • Des- 16 rounds of Encryption • How secure is DES? 2 Block Cipher and Data Encryption Standard (DES) What is Block Cipher? • An encryption technique that applies an algorithm with parameters to encrypt blocks of text. • Each plaintext block has an equal length of ciphertext block. • Each output block is the same size as the input block, the block being transformed by the key. • Block size range from 64 -128 bits and process the plaintext in blocks of 64 or 128 bits. • Several bits of information is encrypted with each block. Longer messages are encoded by invoking the cipher repeatedly. 3 Block Cipher and Data Encryption Standard (DES) What is Block Cipher? • Each message (p) grouped in blocks is encrypted (enc) using a key (k) into a Ciphertext (c). Therefore, 푐 = 푒푛푐푘(푝) • The recipient requires the same k to decrypt (dec) the p. Therefore, 푝 = 푑푒푐푘(푐) 4 Block Cipher and Data Encryption Standard (DES) Padding in Block Cipher • Block ciphers process blocks of fixed sizes, such as 64 or 128 bits. The length of plaintexts is mostly not a multiple of the block size. • A 150-bit plaintext provides two blocks of 64 bits each with third block of remaining 22 bits. • The last block of bits needs to be padded up with redundant information so that the length of the final block equal to block size of the scheme.
    [Show full text]
  • (Advance Encryption Scheme (AES)) and Multicrypt Encryption Scheme
    International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 2, Issue 4, April 2012 1 ISSN 2250-3153 Analysis of comparison between Single Encryption (Advance Encryption Scheme (AES)) and Multicrypt Encryption Scheme Vibha Verma, Mr. Avinash Dhole Computer Science & Engineering, Raipur Institute of Technology, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India [email protected], [email protected] Abstract- Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) is a suggested a couple of changes, which Rivest incorporated. After specification for the encryption of electronic data. It supersedes further negotiations, the cipher was approved for export in 1989. DES. The algorithm described by AES is a symmetric-key Along with RC4, RC2 with a 40-bit key size was treated algorithm, meaning the same key is used for both encrypting and favourably under US export regulations for cryptography. decrypting the data. Multicrypt is a scheme that allows for the Initially, the details of the algorithm were kept secret — encryption of any file or files. The scheme offers various private- proprietary to RSA Security — but on 29th January, 1996, source key encryption algorithms, such as DES, 3DES, RC2, and AES. code for RC2 was anonymously posted to the Internet on the AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) is the strongest encryption Usenet forum, sci.crypt. Mentions of CodeView and SoftICE and is used in various financial and public institutions where (popular debuggers) suggest that it had been reverse engineered. confidential, private information is important. A similar disclosure had occurred earlier with RC4. RC2 is a 64-bit block cipher with a variable size key. Its 18 Index Terms- AES, Multycrypt, Cryptography, Networking, rounds are arranged as a source-heavy Feistel network, with 16 Encryption, DES, 3DES, RC2 rounds of one type (MIXING) punctuated by two rounds of another type (MASHING).
    [Show full text]
  • Data Encryption Standard (DES)
    6 Data Encryption Standard (DES) Objectives In this chapter, we discuss the Data Encryption Standard (DES), the modern symmetric-key block cipher. The following are our main objectives for this chapter: + To review a short history of DES + To defi ne the basic structure of DES + To describe the details of building elements of DES + To describe the round keys generation process + To analyze DES he emphasis is on how DES uses a Feistel cipher to achieve confusion and diffusion of bits from the Tplaintext to the ciphertext. 6.1 INTRODUCTION The Data Encryption Standard (DES) is a symmetric-key block cipher published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 6.1.1 History In 1973, NIST published a request for proposals for a national symmetric-key cryptosystem. A proposal from IBM, a modifi cation of a project called Lucifer, was accepted as DES. DES was published in the Federal Register in March 1975 as a draft of the Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS). After the publication, the draft was criticized severely for two reasons. First, critics questioned the small key length (only 56 bits), which could make the cipher vulnerable to brute-force attack. Second, critics were concerned about some hidden design behind the internal structure of DES. They were suspicious that some part of the structure (the S-boxes) may have some hidden trapdoor that would allow the National Security Agency (NSA) to decrypt the messages without the need for the key. Later IBM designers mentioned that the internal structure was designed to prevent differential cryptanalysis.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Effective Key Length for a Block Cipher
    What is the Effective Key Length for a Block Cipher: an Attack on Every Block Cipher Jialin Huang and Xuejia Lai Shanghai Jiaotong University Abstract. Recently, several important block ciphers are considered to be broken by the bruteforce-like cryptanalysis, with a time complexity faster than exhaustive key search by going over the entire key space but performing less than a full encryption for each possible key. Motivated by this observation, we describe a meet-in-the-middle attack that can always be successfully mounted against any practical block ciphers with success probability one. The data complexity of this attack is the smallest according to the unicity distance. The time complexity can be written as 2k(1 − ) where > 0 for all block ciphers. Previously, the security bound that is commonly accepted is the length k of the given master key. From our result we point out that actually this k-bit security is always overestimated and can never be reached due to the inevitable key bits loss. No amount of clever design can prevent it, but increments of the number of rounds can reduce this key loss as much as possible. We give more insight in the problem of the upper bound of effective key bits in block ciphers, and show a more accurate bound. A suggestion about the relation between the key size and block size is given. That is, when the number of rounds is fixed, it is better to take a key size equal to the block size. Moreover, effective key bits of many well-known block ciphers are calculated and analyzed, which also confirm their lower security margin than thought before.
    [Show full text]