DOCSLIB.ORG

Third-Round Report of the SHA-3 Cryptographic Hash Algorithm Competition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NISTIR 7896 Third-Round Report of the SHA-3 Cryptographic Hash Algorithm Competition Shu-jen Chang Ray Perlner William E. Burr Meltem Sönmez Turan John M. Kelsey Souradyuti Paul Lawrence E. Bassham http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7896 NISTIR 7896 Third-Round Report of the SHA-3 Cryptographic Hash Algorithm Competition Shu-jen Chang Ray Perlner William E. Burr Meltem Sönmez Turan John M. Kelsey Souradyuti Paul Lawrence E. Bassham Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7896 November 2012 U.S. Department of Commerce Rebecca M. Blank, Acting Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director ii Abstract The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) opened a public competition on November 2, 2007, to develop a new cryptographic hash algorithm – SHA-3, which will augment the hash algorithms specified in the Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 180-4, Secure Hash Standard (SHS). The competition was NIST’s response to advances in the cryptanalysis of hash algorithms. NIST received sixty-four submissions in October 2008, and selected fifty-one first-round candidates on December 10, 2008; fourteen second-round candidates on July 24, 2009; and five third-round candidates – BLAKE, Grøstl, JH, Keccak and Skein, on December 9, 2010, to advance to the final round of the competition. Eighteen months were provided for the public review of the finalists, and on October 2, 2012, NIST announced the winning algorithm of the SHA-3 competition – Keccak. This report summarizes the evaluation of the five finalists and the selection of the SHA-3 winner. KEY WORDS: Cryptographic hash algorithm; Cryptographic hash function; Cryptography; Cryptographic hash competition; SHA-3 competition. iii Acknowledgements NIST thanks the submitters of all the candidate algorithms, especially the submitters of the SHA- 3 finalists for their continued diligence and support. NIST is also grateful for the efforts of those in the cryptographic community that provided security, implementation, and performance analyses of the candidate algorithms throughout the competition, and those who provided feedback on the hash forum or published papers on the various technical aspects of the candidates. Specifically, NIST thanks the organizers of the following projects: SHA-3 Zoo: Christian Rechberger, Jean-Phillipe Aumasson, Florian Mendel, Tomislav Nad, Martin Schläffer, Gilles van Assche; ECRYPT Benchmarking of All Submitted Hashes (eBASH): Daniel J. Bernstein, Tanja Lange; eXternal Benchmarking eXtension (XBX): Christian Wenzel-Benner, Jens Gräf; George Mason University Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Hardware Benchmarking: Kris Gaj, Jens-Peter Kaps; Virginia Tech Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering ASIC Benchmarking: Patrick Schaumont, Leyla Nazhand-Ali; Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETHZ) ASIC Implementation: Frank K. Gürkaynak; And the authors of the following reports: ECRYPT II SHA-3 Design and Cryptanalysis Report: Christian Rechberger, Tor E. Bjørstad, Joan Daemen, Christophe De Cannière, Praveen Gauravaram, Dmitry Khovratovich, Willi Meier, Tomislav Nad, Ivica Nikolić, Matt Robshaw, Martin Schläffer, Søren S. Thomsen, Elmar Tischhauser, Deniz Toz, Gilles Van Assche, Kerem Varıcı; ECRYPT II Intermediate Status Report: Praveen Gauravaram, Florian Mendel, María Naya-Plasencia, Vincent Rijmen, Deniz Toz; for their outstanding contributions and support to the SHA-3 competition. In addition, NIST extends its appreciation to the KU Leuven Department Elektrotechniek- ESAT/COSIC team led by Bart Preneel, and Sebastiaan Indesteege for their outstanding support to the First SHA-3 Candidate Conference. The authors of this report also thank NIST’s Hirofumi Sakane and Caroline Scace for their support in conducting power analysis of the finalists. Last but not least, the authors thank the other members of NIST’s SHA-3 team, who reviewed the candidate algorithms and the public comments, performed testing, provided technical input and administrative support, and participated in numerous meetings during the five-year competition. They are: Elaine B. Barker, Sara J. Caswell, Donghoon Chang, Lily Chen, Quynh Dang, Morris J. Dworkin, James R. Nechvatal, Rene Peralta, William T. Polk, and Andrew Regenscheid. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of this Document......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Organization of this Document .................................................................................. 3 2. Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Security .................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Cost and Performance .............................................................................................. 4 2.3 Algorithm and Implementation Characteristics .......................................................... 4 3. Selection Process ............................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Security .................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Performance ............................................................................................................. 6 3.3 Other Algorithm and Implementation Characteristics ................................................ 6 3.4 Complementing SHA-2 ............................................................................................. 7 3.5 Selection Conclusion ................................................................................................ 7 4. Security Analysis of the Finalists .................................................................................... 9 4.1 Security Overview ..................................................................................................... 9 4.1.1 Overview of Security Resources .................................................................. 10 4.1.2 Domain Extenders and Proofs ..................................................................... 10 4.1.3 Cryptanalysis and Security Margin .............................................................. 12 4.1.4 Distinguishing Attacks and Differential Properties ........................................ 15 4.1.5 Depth of Analysis and Understandability of Algorithms ................................ 16 4.1.6 Tweak History of the Finalists ...................................................................... 16 4.1.7 Side Channel Attacks and Countermeasures .............................................. 18 4.2 Finalist Profiles and Cryptanalysis .......................................................................... 19 4.2.1 BLAKE ........................................................................................................ 20 4.2.2 Grøstl .......................................................................................................... 23 4.2.3 JH................................................................................................................ 26 4.2.4 Keccak ........................................................................................................ 28 4.2.5 Skein ........................................................................................................... 31 4.3 Security Summary .................................................................................................. 33 5. Performance Comparison of the SHA-3 Finalists ........................................................ 35 5.1 Software Performance ............................................................................................ 35 5.1.1 Computer Systems – the Current Playing Field ........................................... 35 5.1.2 Candidate Software Performance Studies ................................................... 36 5.1.3 Beyond The Superscalar ............................................................................. 42 5.1.4 Software Performance Summary ................................................................. 45 5.2 Hardware Performance ........................................................................................... 46 5.2.1 High-Performance Implementations ............................................................ 48 5.2.2 Compact Implementations ........................................................................... 52 5.2.3 Discussion of SHA-2 and the SHA-3 Finalists ............................................. 55 5.2.4 Hardware Performance Summary ............................................................... 57 6. Other Considerations ..................................................................................................... 58 v 6.1 Intellectual Property ................................................................................................ 58 6.2 Other Features ....................................................................................................... 58 7. Conclusion
Recommended publications
  • The Design of Rijndael: AES - the Advanced Encryption Standard/Joan Daemen, Vincent Rijmen

    The Design of Rijndael: AES - the Advanced Encryption Standard/Joan Daemen, Vincent Rijmen

    Joan Daernen · Vincent Rijrnen Theof Design Rijndael AES - The Advanced Encryption Standard With 48 Figures and 17 Tables Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York Barcelona Hong Kong London Milan Paris Springer TnL-1Jn Joan Daemen Foreword Proton World International (PWI) Zweefvliegtuigstraat 10 1130 Brussels, Belgium Vincent Rijmen Cryptomathic NV Lei Sa 3000 Leuven, Belgium Rijndael was the surprise winner of the contest for the new Advanced En­ cryption Standard (AES) for the United States. This contest was organized and run by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) be­ ginning in January 1997; Rij ndael was announced as the winner in October 2000. It was the "surprise winner" because many observers (and even some participants) expressed scepticism that the U.S. government would adopt as Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data an encryption standard any algorithm that was not designed by U.S. citizens. Daemen, Joan, 1965- Yet NIST ran an open, international, selection process that should serve The design of Rijndael: AES - The Advanced Encryption Standard/Joan Daemen, Vincent Rijmen. as model for other standards organizations. For example, NIST held their p.cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1999 AES meeting in Rome, Italy. The five finalist algorithms were designed ISBN 3540425802 (alk. paper) . .. by teams from all over the world. 1. Computer security - Passwords. 2. Data encryption (Computer sCIence) I. RIJmen, In the end, the elegance, efficiency, security, and principled design of Vincent, 1970- II. Title Rijndael won the day for its two Belgian designers, Joan Daemen and Vincent QA76.9.A25 D32 2001 Rijmen, over the competing finalist designs from RSA, IBl\!I, Counterpane 2001049851 005.8-dc21 Systems, and an English/Israeli/Danish team.
  • A Quantitative Study of Advanced Encryption Standard Performance

    A Quantitative Study of Advanced Encryption Standard Performance

    United States Military Academy USMA Digital Commons West Point ETD 12-2018 A Quantitative Study of Advanced Encryption Standard Performance as it Relates to Cryptographic Attack Feasibility Daniel Hawthorne United States Military Academy, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usmalibrary.org/faculty_etd Part of the Information Security Commons Recommended Citation Hawthorne, Daniel, "A Quantitative Study of Advanced Encryption Standard Performance as it Relates to Cryptographic Attack Feasibility" (2018). West Point ETD. 9. https://digitalcommons.usmalibrary.org/faculty_etd/9 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by USMA Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Point ETD by an authorized administrator of USMA Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD PERFORMANCE AS IT RELATES TO CRYPTOGRAPHIC ATTACK FEASIBILITY A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Computer Science By Daniel Stephen Hawthorne Colorado Technical University December, 2018 Committee Dr. Richard Livingood, Ph.D., Chair Dr. Kelly Hughes, DCS, Committee Member Dr. James O. Webb, Ph.D., Committee Member December 17, 2018 © Daniel Stephen Hawthorne, 2018 1 Abstract The advanced encryption standard (AES) is the premier symmetric key cryptosystem in use today. Given its prevalence, the security provided by AES is of utmost importance. Technology is advancing at an incredible rate, in both capability and popularity, much faster than its rate of advancement in the late 1990s when AES was selected as the replacement standard for DES. Although the literature surrounding AES is robust, most studies fall into either theoretical or practical yet infeasible.
  • Argon and Argon2

    Argon and Argon2

    Argon and Argon2 Designers: Alex Biryukov, Daniel Dinu, and Dmitry Khovratovich University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] https://www.cryptolux.org/index.php/Password https://github.com/khovratovich/Argon https://github.com/khovratovich/Argon2 Version 1.1 of Argon Version 1.0 of Argon2 31th January, 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Argon 5 2.1 Specification . 5 2.1.1 Input . 5 2.1.2 SubGroups . 6 2.1.3 ShuffleSlices . 7 2.2 Recommended parameters . 8 2.3 Security claims . 8 2.4 Features . 9 2.4.1 Main features . 9 2.4.2 Server relief . 10 2.4.3 Client-independent update . 10 2.4.4 Possible future extensions . 10 2.5 Security analysis . 10 2.5.1 Avalanche properties . 10 2.5.2 Invariants . 11 2.5.3 Collision and preimage attacks . 11 2.5.4 Tradeoff attacks . 11 2.6 Design rationale . 14 2.6.1 SubGroups . 14 2.6.2 ShuffleSlices . 16 2.6.3 Permutation ...................................... 16 2.6.4 No weakness,F no patents . 16 2.7 Tweaks . 17 2.8 Efficiency analysis . 17 2.8.1 Modern x86/x64 architecture . 17 2.8.2 Older CPU . 17 2.8.3 Other architectures . 17 3 Argon2 19 3.1 Specification . 19 3.1.1 Inputs . 19 3.1.2 Operation . 20 3.1.3 Indexing . 20 3.1.4 Compression function G ................................. 21 3.2 Features . 22 3.2.1 Available features . 22 3.2.2 Server relief . 23 3.2.3 Client-independent update .
  • IMPLEMENTATION and BENCHMARKING of PADDING UNITS and HMAC for SHA-3 CANDIDATES in FPGAS and ASICS by Ambarish Vyas a Thesis Subm

    IMPLEMENTATION and BENCHMARKING of PADDING UNITS and HMAC for SHA-3 CANDIDATES in FPGAS and ASICS by Ambarish Vyas a Thesis Subm

    IMPLEMENTATION AND BENCHMARKING OF PADDING UNITS AND HMAC FOR SHA-3 CANDIDATES IN FPGAS AND ASICS by Ambarish Vyas A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of George Mason University in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Computer Engineering Committee: Dr. Kris Gaj, Thesis Director Dr. Jens-Peter Kaps. Committee Member Dr. Bernd-Peter Paris. Committee Member Dr. Andre Manitius, Department Chair of Electrical and Computer Engineering Dr. Lloyd J. Griffiths. Dean, Volgenau School of Engineering Date: ---J d. / q /9- 0 II Fall Semester 2011 George Mason University Fairfax, VA Implementation and Benchmarking of Padding Units and HMAC for SHA-3 Candidates in FPGAs and ASICs A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science at George Mason University By Ambarish Vyas Bachelor of Science University of Pune, 2009 Director: Dr. Kris Gaj, Associate Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Fall Semester 2011 George Mason University Fairfax, VA Copyright c 2011 by Ambarish Vyas All Rights Reserved ii Acknowledgments I would like to use this oppurtunity to thank the people who have supported me throughout my thesis. First and foremost my advisor Dr.Kris Gaj, without his zeal, his motivation, his patience, his confidence in me, his humility, his diverse knowledge, and his great efforts this thesis wouldn't be possible. It is difficult to exaggerate my gratitude towards him. I also thank Ekawat Homsirikamol for his contributions to this project. He has significantly contributed to the designs and implementations of the architectures. Additionally, I am indebted to my student colleagues in CERG for providing a fun environment to learn and giving invaluable tips and support.
  • RESOURCE-EFFICIENT CRYPTOGRAPHY for UBIQUITOUS COMPUTING Lightweight Cryptographic Primitives from a Hardware & Software Perspective

    RESOURCE-EFFICIENT CRYPTOGRAPHY for UBIQUITOUS COMPUTING Lightweight Cryptographic Primitives from a Hardware & Software Perspective

    RESOURCE-EFFICIENT CRYPTOGRAPHY FOR UBIQUITOUS COMPUTING Lightweight Cryptographic Primitives from a Hardware & Software Perspective DISSERTATION for the degree of Doktor-Ingenieur of the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology at the Ruhr University Bochum, Germany by Elif Bilge Kavun Bochum, December 2014 Copyright © 2014 by Elif Bilge Kavun. All rights reserved. Printed in Germany. Anneme ve babama... Elif Bilge Kavun Place of birth: Izmir,˙ Turkey Author’s contact information: [email protected] www.emsec.rub.de/chair/ staff/elif bilge kavun Thesis Advisor: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Christof Paar Ruhr-Universit¨atBochum, Germany Secondary Referee: Prof. Christian Rechberger Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, Denmark Thesis submitted: December 19, 2014 Thesis defense: February 6, 2015 v Abstract Technological advancements in the semiconductor industry over the last few decades made the mass production of very small-scale computing devices possible. Thanks to the compactness and mobility of these devices, they can be deployed “pervasively”, in other words, everywhere and anywhere – such as in smart homes, logistics, e-commerce, and medical technology. Em- bedding the small-scale devices into everyday objects pervasively also indicates the realization of the foreseen “ubiquitous computing” concept. However, ubiquitous computing and the mass deployment of the pervasive devices in turn brought some concerns – especially, security and privacy. Many people criticize the security and privacy management in the ubiquitous context. It is even believed that an inadequate level of security may be the greatest barrier to the long-term success of ubiquitous computing. For ubiquitous computing, the adversary model and the se- curity level is not the same as in traditional applications due to limited resources in pervasive devices – area, power, and energy are actually harsh constraints for such devices.
  • Deanonymisation of Clients in Bitcoin P2P Network

    Deanonymisation of Clients in Bitcoin P2P Network

    Deanonymisation of clients in Bitcoin P2P network Alex Biryukov Dmitry Khovratovich Ivan Pustogarov University of Luxembourg University of Luxembourg University of Luxembourg [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract about 100,000 nowadays. The vast majority of these peers Bitcoin is a digital currency which relies on a distributed (we call them clients), about 90%, are located behind NAT set of miners to mint coins and on a peer-to-peer network and do not allow any incoming connections, whereas they to broadcast transactions. The identities of Bitcoin users choose 8 outgoing connections to servers (Bitcoin peers with are hidden behind pseudonyms (public keys) which are rec- public IP). ommended to be changed frequently in order to increase In a Bitcoin transaction, the address of money sender(s) transaction unlinkability. or receiver(s) is a hash of his public key. We call such We present an efficient method to deanonymize Bitcoin address a pseudonym to avoid confusion with the IP ad- users, which allows to link user pseudonyms to the IP ad- dress of the host where transactions are generated, and the dresses where the transactions are generated. Our tech- latter will be called just address throughout the text. In niques work for the most common and the most challenging the current Bitcoin protocol the entire transaction history scenario when users are behind NATs or firewalls of their is publicly available so anyone can see how Bitcoins travel ISPs. They allow to link transactions of a user behind a from one pseudonym to another and potentially link differ- NAT and to distinguish connections and transactions of dif- ent pseudonyms of the same user together.
  • SHA-3 Update

    SHA-3 Update

    SHA+3%update% %% % Quynh%Dang% Computer%Security%Division% ITL,%NIST% IETF%86% SHA-3 Competition 11/2/2007% SHA+3%CompeDDon%Began.% 10/2/2012% Keccak&announced&as&the&SHA13&winner.& IETF%86% Secure Hash Algorithms Outlook ► SHA-2 looks strong. ► We expect Keccak (SHA-3) to co-exist with SHA-2. ► Keccak complements SHA-2 in many ways. Keccak is good in different environments. Keccak is a sponge - a different design concept from SHA-2. IETF%86% Sponge Construction Sponge capacity corresponds to a security level: s = c/2. IETF%86% SHA-3 Selection ► We chose Keccak as the winner because of many different reasons and below are some of them: ► It has a high security margin. ► It received good amount of high-quality analyses. ► It has excellent hardware performance. ► It has good overall performance. ► It is very different from SHA-2. ► It provides a lot of flexibility. IETF%86% Keccak Features ► Keccak supports the same hash-output sizes as SHA-2 (i.e., SHA-224, -256, -384, -512). ► Keccak works fine with existing applications, such as DRBGs, KDFs, HMAC and digital signatures. ► Keccak offers flexibility in performance/security tradeoffs. ► Keccak supports tree hashing. ► Keccak supports variable-length output. IETF%86% Under Consideration for SHA-3 ► Support for variable-length hashes ► Considering options: ► One capacity: c = 512, with output size encoding, ► Two capacities: c = 256 and c = 512, with output size encoding, or ► Four capacities: c = 224, c = 256, c=384, and c = 512 without output size encoding (preferred by the Keccak team). ► Input format for SHA-3 hash function(s) will contain a padding scheme to support tree hashing in the future.
  • Fair and Comprehensive Methodology for Comparing Hardware Performance of Fourteen Round Two SHA-3 Candidates Using Fpgas

    Fair and Comprehensive Methodology for Comparing Hardware Performance of Fourteen Round Two SHA-3 Candidates Using Fpgas

    Fair and Comprehensive Methodology for Comparing Hardware Performance of Fourteen Round Two SHA-3 Candidates Using FPGAs Kris Gaj, Ekawat Homsirikamol, and Marcin Rogawski ECE Department, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, U.S.A. {kgaj,ehomsiri,mrogawsk}@gmu.edu http://cryptography.gmu.edu Abstract. Performance in hardware has been demonstrated to be an important factor in the evaluation of candidates for cryptographic stan- dards. Up to now, no consensus exists on how such an evaluation should be performed in order to make it fair, transparent, practical, and ac- ceptable for the majority of the cryptographic community. In this pa- per, we formulate a proposal for a fair and comprehensive evaluation methodology, and apply it to the comparison of hardware performance of 14 Round 2 SHA-3 candidates. The most important aspects of our methodology include the definition of clear performance metrics, the de- velopment of a uniform and practical interface, generation of multiple sets of results for several representative FPGA families from two major vendors, and the application of a simple procedure to convert multiple sets of results into a single ranking. Keywords: benchmarking, hash functions, SHA-3, FPGA. 1 Introduction and Motivation Starting from the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) contest organized by NIST in 1997-2000 [1], open contests have become a method of choice for select- ing cryptographic standards in the U.S. and over the world. The AES contest in the U.S. was followed by the NESSIE competition in Europe [2], CRYPTREC in Japan, and eSTREAM in Europe [3]. Four typical criteria taken into account in the evaluation of candidates are: security, performance in software, performance in hardware, and flexibility.
  • Lecture9.Pdf

    Lecture9.Pdf

    Merkle- Suppose H is a Damgaord hash function built from a secure compression function : several to build a function ways keyed : m : = H Ilm 1 . end FCK ) (k ) Prep key , " " ↳ - Insecure due to structure of Merkle : can mount an extension attack: H (KH m) can Barnyard given , compute ' Hlkllmllm ) by extending Merkle- Danged chain = : m : 2 . FCK ) 11k) Append key , Hlm ↳ - - to : Similar to hash then MAC construction and vulnerable same offline attack adversary finds a collision in the - - > Merkle and uses that to construct a for SHA I used PDF files Barnyard prefix forgery f , they ↳ - Structure in SHA I (can matches exploited collision demonstration generate arbitrary collisions once prefix ) ' = : FCK m - H on h 3. method , ) ( K HMH K) for reasonable randomness ( both Envelope pseudo assumptions e.g , : = - = i - - : F ( m m } : h K m h m k 4. nest ( ki ) H Ck H (k m ( , and m ( ) is a PRF both Two , kz , ) (ka HH , )) F- , ) ) Falk , ) , ) key , - of these constructions are secure PRFS on a variable size domain hash- based MAC ✓ a the - nest with correlated : HMAC is PRF / MAC based on two key (though keys) : = m H H ka m HMACCK ( K H ( , )) , ) , where k ← k ④ and kz ← k to , ipad opad and and are fixed ( in the HMAC standard) ipad opad strings specified I 0×36 repeated %x5C repeated : k . a Since , and ka are correlated need to make on h remains under Sety , stronger assumption security leg , pseudorandom related attack) Instantiations : denoted HMAC- H where H is the hash function Typically , HMAC- SHAI %" - - HMAC SHA256
  • Hash Functions

    Hash Functions

    Hash Functions A hash function is a function that maps data of arbitrary size to an integer of some fixed size. Example: Java's class Object declares function ob.hashCode() for ob an object. It's a hash function written in OO style, as are the next two examples. Java version 7 says that its value is its address in memory turned into an int. Example: For in an object of type Integer, in.hashCode() yields the int value that is wrapped in in. Example: Suppose we define a class Point with two fields x and y. For an object pt of type Point, we could define pt.hashCode() to yield the value of pt.x + pt.y. Hash functions are definitive indicators of inequality but only probabilistic indicators of equality —their values typically have smaller sizes than their inputs, so two different inputs may hash to the same number. If two different inputs should be considered “equal” (e.g. two different objects with the same field values), a hash function must re- spect that. Therefore, in Java, always override method hashCode()when overriding equals() (and vice-versa). Why do we need hash functions? Well, they are critical in (at least) three areas: (1) hashing, (2) computing checksums of files, and (3) areas requiring a high degree of information security, such as saving passwords. Below, we investigate the use of hash functions in these areas and discuss important properties hash functions should have. Hash functions in hash tables In the tutorial on hashing using chaining1, we introduced a hash table b to implement a set of some kind.
  • GCM) for Confidentiality And

    GCM) for Confidentiality And

    NIST Special Publication 800-38D Recommendation for Block DRAFT (April, 2006) Cipher Modes of Operation: Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) for Confidentiality and Authentication Morris Dworkin C O M P U T E R S E C U R I T Y Abstract This Recommendation specifies the Galois/Counter Mode (GCM), an authenticated encryption mode of operation for a symmetric key block cipher. KEY WORDS: authentication; block cipher; cryptography; information security; integrity; message authentication code; mode of operation. i Table of Contents 1 PURPOSE...........................................................................................................................................................1 2 AUTHORITY.....................................................................................................................................................1 3 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................1 4 DEFINITIONS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS.................................................................................2 4.1 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................2 4.2 SYMBOLS ....................................................................................................................................................4 4.2.1 Variables................................................................................................................................................4
  • Permutation-Based Encryption, Authentication and Authenticated Encryption

    Permutation-Based Encryption, Authentication and Authenticated Encryption

    Permutation-based encryption, authentication and authenticated encryption Permutation-based encryption, authentication and authenticated encryption Joan Daemen1 Joint work with Guido Bertoni1, Michaël Peeters2 and Gilles Van Assche1 1STMicroelectronics 2NXP Semiconductors DIAC 2012, Stockholm, July 6 . Permutation-based encryption, authentication and authenticated encryption Modern-day cryptography is block-cipher centric Modern-day cryptography is block-cipher centric (Standard) hash functions make use of block ciphers SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-512, Whirlpool, RIPEMD-160, … So HMAC, MGF1, etc. are in practice also block-cipher based Block encryption: ECB, CBC, … Stream encryption: synchronous: counter mode, OFB, … self-synchronizing: CFB MAC computation: CBC-MAC, C-MAC, … Authenticated encryption: OCB, GCM, CCM … . Permutation-based encryption, authentication and authenticated encryption Modern-day cryptography is block-cipher centric Structure of a block cipher . Permutation-based encryption, authentication and authenticated encryption Modern-day cryptography is block-cipher centric Structure of a block cipher (inverse operation) . Permutation-based encryption, authentication and authenticated encryption Modern-day cryptography is block-cipher centric When is the inverse block cipher needed? Indicated in red: Hashing and its modes HMAC, MGF1, … Block encryption: ECB, CBC, … Stream encryption: synchronous: counter mode, OFB, … self-synchronizing: CFB MAC computation: CBC-MAC, C-MAC, … Authenticated encryption: OCB, GCM, CCM … So a block cipher