DOCSLIB.ORG

An Overview of Punic Key Cryptography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Overview of Punic Key Cryptography AN OVERVIEW OF PUBllC KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY Martin E. Hellman Originally published in IEEE Communications Magazine November 1978 - Valume‘li, Number.6 AUTHOR‘S INTRODUCTION bout 30 years ago when I first started working in factor of approximately 100,000, so that the US$lO DES cryptography from an unclassified point of view, chip referred to in the article is today a very small part of the climate was far from conducive. On hearing of a chip or software and has almost no associated cost. my new interest, most of my colleagues told me I While the cryptanalyst’s costs have also fallen by this same was crazy to try working in an area where NSA had factor, fortunately his work increases much more rapidly if ‘Ahad a megabudget for decades. “How can you hope to dis- we do the larger computations that have become economi- cover anything new. And if you discover anything good, cal. The promulgation of the Advanced Encryption Stan- they’ll classify it.” History has shown that there was more dard (AES) is an important step in this direction. wisdom in their objections than I was willing to allow at Another system that appeared after this article should the time. But some inner foolishness drew me inexorably also be mentioned. Schnorr’s variant of EIGamal’s signa- to the area. And, as sometimes happens, being foolish ture scheme became the basis of the Digital Signature turned out to be smart as well. Two other fools, Diffie and Algorithm. Merkle, independently broke with the conventional wis- The need for large safety margins, mentioned toward dom. Eventually we found each other and joined forces. the end of the article, has been borne out by experience. Somehow we knew that cryptography was something The exponential work factor (at least in 1978) of what I the world would need, and expected great commercial then called the axlx2 system has since been cut to a demand to materialize within five to 10 years. This esti- subexponential level. And the subexponential effort to mate turned out to be optimistic, with widespread com- break RSA has also been significantly decreased. The mercial use taking roughly twice as long to develop. But Number Field Sieve is currently the attack of choice on the scale of deployment has met our grand expectations. both these systems with large keys. Literally millions of people use cryptography daily on the The system I called the axlx2 system in this paper has Internet and, as it should be, most do not even know it is since become known as Diffie-Hellman key exchange. protecting them. Their credit card and other sensitive While that system was first described in a paper by Diffie information is transmitted with a high level of crypto- and me, it is a public key distribution system, a concept graphic protection automatically and transparently. Public developed by Merkle, and hence should be called “Diffie- key cryptography, the subject of this paper, is critical in Hellman-Merkle key exchange” if names are to be associ- allowing that ease of use. ated with it. I hope this small pulpit might help in that Re-reading this article, I am struck by several points: endeavor to recognize Merkle’s equal contribution to the The decreasing cost of computation has continued to invention of public key cryptography. Space does not per- make cryptography ever more ubiquitous. In the 25 years mit an explanation of the quirk of fate that seems to have since the article was written, costs have fallen by a further deprived Merkle of the credit he deserves, but a quirk it is. 42 IEEE CommunicationsMagazine 50th Anniversary Commemorotive Issue/Moy 2002 Some systems will succumb, even with large safety mar- them (e.g., in protecting power networks and other critical gins, and the Trap Door Knapsack method described in infrastructure). The 1996 National Research Council’s the article was found to be insecure. This emphasizes the report, “Cryptography’s Role in Securing the Information experimental nature of cryptography and helps make the Society” (CRISIS), explores that theme in depth. The point that there is no substitute for certification via mock report is notable for its unanimous conclusions even attack by one’s colleagues. though the participants’ backgrounds ranged from the As in 1978, there is still tension between the need for intelligence community to academia. strong cryptography to protect honest people’s sensitive Lastly, from a personal point of view, as I look back 25 information from bad guys and the government’s need to years, I feel a deep sense of gratitude that I was privileged spy on the bad guys when they use cryptography to protect to play a role in such an exciting drama. I thank the IEEE their own secrets. The horror of 9/11 helps bring both Communications Society for bringing a whiff of nostalgia those needs into focus since cryptography can be used both into my life as I write this retrospective. to protect the planning of terrorist operations and to foil ryptography has been of great impor- no physical mail is given this protection. Confi- tance to the military and diplomatic dential physical messages are not written on communities since antiquity but failed, postcards-and, even if they were, could not be until recently, to attract much commer- scanned at a cost of only $1 for several million cial attention. Recent commercial words. interest, by contrast, has been almost explosive due to the rapid computeri- zation of information storage, trans- THE COST OF ENCRYPTION mission, and spying. Books about World War 11 intelligence opera- Telephone lines are vulnerable to wiretap- tions make it clear that the allies were routinely ping, and if carried by microwave radio, this reading enciphered German messages. The need not entail the physical tapping of any wires. weakness of the Japanese codes was established The act becomes passive and almost unde- by the Congressional hearings into the Pearl tectable. It, recently came to light that the Rus- Harbor disaster, and while it is less well publi- sians were using the antenna farms on the roofs cized, the Germans had broken the primary of their embassy and consulates to listen in on American field cipher. domestic telephone conversations, and that they If the major military powers of World War I1 had been successful in sorting out some conver- could not afford secure cryptographic equip- sations to Congressmen. ment, how is industry to do so in its much more Human sorting could be used, but is too cost-conscious environment? expensive because only a small percentage of Encryption is a special form of computation the traffic is interesting. Instead, the Russians and, just as it was possible to build good, inexpen- automatically sorted the traffic on the basis of sive, reliable, portable computers in the 1940s, it the dialing tones which precede each conversa- was impossible to build good (secure), inexpen- tion and specify the number being called. These sive, reliable, portable encryption units. The sci- tones can be demodulated and a microprocessor entific calculator that sells for under $100 today used to activate a tape recorder whenever an would have cost on the order of a million dollars “interesting” telephone number (one stored in and required an entire room to house it in 1945. memory) is detected. The low cost of such a While embryonic computers were devel- device makes it possible to economically sort oped during the War (often for code break- thousands of conversations for even one inter- ing), they were too expensive, unreliable, and esting one. bulky for field use. Most computational aids The problem is compounded in remote com- were mechanical in nature and based on gears. puting because the entire “conversation” is in Similarly, all of the major field ciphers computer readable form. An eavesdropper can employed gear-based devices and, just as Bab- then cheaply sort messages not only on the basis bage’s failure indicates the difficulty of build- of the called number, but also on the content of ing a good computer out of gears, it is also the message, and record all messages that con- difficult to build a good cryptosystem from tain one or more keywords. By including a name gears. The development of general-purpose or product on this list, an eavesdropper will digital hardware has freed the designers of obtain all messages from, to, or about the “tar- cryptographic equipment to use the best oper- geted” person or product. While each fact by ations from a cryptographic point of view, itself may not be considered sensitive, the com- without having to worry about extraneous pilation of so many facts will often be considered mechanical constraints. highly confidential. As an illustration of the current low cost of It is now seen why electronic mail must be encryption, the recently promulgated national cryptographically protected, even though almost Data Encryption Standard (DES) can be imple- mented on a single integrated circuit chip, and will sell in the $10 range before long. While This work was suppolled in part under NSF Grant ENG some have criticized the standard as not being 10173. At the time ofpublication Martin Hellman was adequately secure [l],this inadequacy is due to with the Department of Electrical Engineering at Stanford political considerations and is not the fault of Universip. insufficient technology. IEEE CommunitotionsMogozine 50th Anniversory Commemorotive Issue/Moy 2002 43 without any prearrangement between the conver- sants and without access to a sccure key distribu- tion channel. As indicated in the figure, two-way communication is allowed and there are indepen- P=SL’(O dent random number generators at both the trans- Receiver .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public-Key Cryptography
    Public Key Cryptography EJ Jung Basic Public Key Cryptography public key public key ? private key Alice Bob Given: Everybody knows Bob’s public key - How is this achieved in practice? Only Bob knows the corresponding private key Goals: 1. Alice wants to send a secret message to Bob 2. Bob wants to authenticate himself Requirements for Public-Key Crypto ! Key generation: computationally easy to generate a pair (public key PK, private key SK) • Computationally infeasible to determine private key PK given only public key PK ! Encryption: given plaintext M and public key PK, easy to compute ciphertext C=EPK(M) ! Decryption: given ciphertext C=EPK(M) and private key SK, easy to compute plaintext M • Infeasible to compute M from C without SK • Decrypt(SK,Encrypt(PK,M))=M Requirements for Public-Key Cryptography 1. Computationally easy for a party B to generate a pair (public key KUb, private key KRb) 2. Easy for sender to generate ciphertext: C = EKUb (M ) 3. Easy for the receiver to decrypt ciphertect using private key: M = DKRb (C) = DKRb[EKUb (M )] Henric Johnson 4 Requirements for Public-Key Cryptography 4. Computationally infeasible to determine private key (KRb) knowing public key (KUb) 5. Computationally infeasible to recover message M, knowing KUb and ciphertext C 6. Either of the two keys can be used for encryption, with the other used for decryption: M = DKRb[EKUb (M )] = DKUb[EKRb (M )] Henric Johnson 5 Public-Key Cryptographic Algorithms ! RSA and Diffie-Hellman ! RSA - Ron Rives, Adi Shamir and Len Adleman at MIT, in 1977. • RSA
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Cryptography in Modern World
    Cryptography in Modern World Julius O. Olwenyi, Aby Tino Thomas, Ayad Barsoum* St. Mary’s University, San Antonio, TX (USA) Emails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract — Cryptography and Encryption have been where a letter in plaintext is simply shifted 3 places down used for secure communication. In the modern world, the alphabet [4,5]. cryptography is a very important tool for protecting information in computer systems. With the invention ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ of the World Wide Web or Internet, computer systems are highly interconnected and accessible from DEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZABC any part of the world. As more systems get interconnected, more threat actors try to gain access The ciphertext of the plaintext “CRYPTOGRAPHY” will to critical information stored on the network. It is the be “FUBSWRJUASLB” in a Caesar cipher. responsibility of data owners or organizations to keep More recent derivative of Caesar cipher is Rot13 this data securely and encryption is the main tool used which shifts 13 places down the alphabet instead of 3. to secure information. In this paper, we will focus on Rot13 was not all about data protection but it was used on different techniques and its modern application of online forums where members could share inappropriate cryptography. language or nasty jokes without necessarily being Keywords: Cryptography, Encryption, Decryption, Data offensive as it will take those interested in those “jokes’ security, Hybrid Encryption to shift characters 13 spaces to read the message and if not interested you do not need to go through the hassle of converting the cipher. I. INTRODUCTION In the 16th century, the French cryptographer Back in the days, cryptography was not all about Blaise de Vigenere [4,5], developed the first hiding messages or secret communication, but in ancient polyalphabetic substitution basically based on Caesar Egypt, where it began; it was carved into the walls of cipher, but more difficult to crack the cipher text.
    [Show full text]
  • CS 255: Intro to Cryptography 1 Introduction 2 End-To-End
    Programming Assignment 2 Winter 2021 CS 255: Intro to Cryptography Prof. Dan Boneh Due Monday, March 1st, 11:59pm 1 Introduction In this assignment, you are tasked with implementing a secure and efficient end-to-end encrypted chat client using the Double Ratchet Algorithm, a popular session setup protocol that powers real- world chat systems such as Signal and WhatsApp. As an additional challenge, assume you live in a country with government surveillance. Thereby, all messages sent are required to include the session key encrypted with a fixed public key issued by the government. In your implementation, you will make use of various cryptographic primitives we have discussed in class—notably, key exchange, public key encryption, digital signatures, and authenticated encryption. Because it is ill-advised to implement your own primitives in cryptography, you should use an established library: in this case, the Stanford Javascript Crypto Library (SJCL). We will provide starter code that contains a basic template, which you will be able to fill in to satisfy the functionality and security properties described below. 2 End-to-end Encrypted Chat Client 2.1 Implementation Details Your chat client will use the Double Ratchet Algorithm to provide end-to-end encrypted commu- nications with other clients. To evaluate your messaging client, we will check that two or more instances of your implementation it can communicate with each other properly. We feel that it is best to understand the Double Ratchet Algorithm straight from the source, so we ask that you read Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Signal’s published specification here: https://signal.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review on Elliptic Curve Cryptography for Embedded Systems
    International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011 A REVIEW ON ELLIPTIC CURVE CRYPTOGRAPHY FOR EMBEDDED SYSTEMS Rahat Afreen 1 and S.C. Mehrotra 2 1Tom Patrick Institute of Computer & I.T, Dr. Rafiq Zakaria Campus, Rauza Bagh, Aurangabad. (Maharashtra) INDIA [email protected] 2Department of C.S. & I.T., Dr. B.A.M. University, Aurangabad. (Maharashtra) INDIA [email protected] ABSTRACT Importance of Elliptic Curves in Cryptography was independently proposed by Neal Koblitz and Victor Miller in 1985.Since then, Elliptic curve cryptography or ECC has evolved as a vast field for public key cryptography (PKC) systems. In PKC system, we use separate keys to encode and decode the data. Since one of the keys is distributed publicly in PKC systems, the strength of security depends on large key size. The mathematical problems of prime factorization and discrete logarithm are previously used in PKC systems. ECC has proved to provide same level of security with relatively small key sizes. The research in the field of ECC is mostly focused on its implementation on application specific systems. Such systems have restricted resources like storage, processing speed and domain specific CPU architecture. KEYWORDS Elliptic curve cryptography Public Key Cryptography, embedded systems, Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm ( ECDSA), Elliptic Curve Diffie Hellman Key Exchange (ECDH) 1. INTRODUCTION The changing global scenario shows an elegant merging of computing and communication in such a way that computers with wired communication are being rapidly replaced to smaller handheld embedded computers using wireless communication in almost every field. This has increased data privacy and security requirements.
    [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]
  • Cryptographic Control Standard, Version
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Chief Information Officer Computer Security Standard Office Instruction: OCIO-CS-STD-2009 Office Instruction Title: Cryptographic Control Standard Revision Number: 2.0 Issuance: Date of last signature below Effective Date: October 1, 2017 Primary Contacts: Kathy Lyons-Burke, Senior Level Advisor for Information Security Responsible Organization: OCIO Summary of Changes: OCIO-CS-STD-2009, “Cryptographic Control Standard,” provides the minimum security requirements that must be applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) systems which utilize cryptographic algorithms, protocols, and cryptographic modules to provide secure communication services. This update is based on the latest versions of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Guidance and Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) publications, Committee on National Security System (CNSS) issuances, and National Security Agency (NSA) requirements. Training: Upon request ADAMS Accession No.: ML17024A095 Approvals Primary Office Owner Office of the Chief Information Officer Signature Date Enterprise Security Kathy Lyons-Burke 09/26/17 Architecture Working Group Chair CIO David Nelson /RA/ 09/26/17 CISO Jonathan Feibus 09/26/17 OCIO-CS-STD-2009 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Basics of Digital Signatures &
    > DOCUMENT SIGNING > eID VALIDATION > SIGNATURE VERIFICATION > TIMESTAMPING & ARCHIVING > APPROVAL WORKFLOW Basics of Digital Signatures & PKI This document provides a quick background to PKI-based digital signatures and an overview of how the signature creation and verification processes work. It also describes how the cryptographic keys used for creating and verifying digital signatures are managed. 1. Background to Digital Signatures Digital signatures are essentially “enciphered data” created using cryptographic algorithms. The algorithms define how the enciphered data is created for a particular document or message. Standard digital signature algorithms exist so that no one needs to create these from scratch. Digital signature algorithms were first invented in the 1970’s and are based on a type of cryptography referred to as “Public Key Cryptography”. By far the most common digital signature algorithm is RSA (named after the inventors Rivest, Shamir and Adelman in 1978), by our estimates it is used in over 80% of the digital signatures being used around the world. This algorithm has been standardised (ISO, ANSI, IETF etc.) and been extensively analysed by the cryptographic research community and you can say with confidence that it has withstood the test of time, i.e. no one has been able to find an efficient way of cracking the RSA algorithm. Another more recent algorithm is ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm), which is likely to become popular over time. Digital signatures are used everywhere even when we are not actually aware, example uses include: Retail payment systems like MasterCard/Visa chip and pin, High-value interbank payment systems (CHAPS, BACS, SWIFT etc), e-Passports and e-ID cards, Logging on to SSL-enabled websites or connecting with corporate VPNs.
    [Show full text]
  • SHA-3 and the Hash Function Keccak
    Christof Paar Jan Pelzl SHA-3 and The Hash Function Keccak An extension chapter for “Understanding Cryptography — A Textbook for Students and Practitioners” www.crypto-textbook.com Springer 2 Table of Contents 1 The Hash Function Keccak and the Upcoming SHA-3 Standard . 1 1.1 Brief History of the SHA Family of Hash Functions. .2 1.2 High-level Description of Keccak . .3 1.3 Input Padding and Generating of Output . .6 1.4 The Function Keccak- f (or the Keccak- f Permutation) . .7 1.4.1 Theta (q)Step.......................................9 1.4.2 Steps Rho (r) and Pi (p).............................. 10 1.4.3 Chi (c)Step ........................................ 10 1.4.4 Iota (i)Step......................................... 11 1.5 Implementation in Software and Hardware . 11 1.6 Discussion and Further Reading . 12 1.7 Lessons Learned . 14 Problems . 15 References ......................................................... 17 v Chapter 1 The Hash Function Keccak and the Upcoming SHA-3 Standard This document1 is a stand-alone description of the Keccak hash function which is the basis of the upcoming SHA-3 standard. The description is consistent with the approach used in our book Understanding Cryptography — A Textbook for Students and Practioners [11]. If you own the book, this document can be considered “Chap- ter 11b”. However, the book is most certainly not necessary for using the SHA-3 description in this document. You may want to check the companion web site of Understanding Cryptography for more information on Keccak: www.crypto-textbook.com. In this chapter you will learn: A brief history of the SHA-3 selection process A high-level description of SHA-3 The internal structure of SHA-3 A discussion of the software and hardware implementation of SHA-3 A problem set and recommended further readings 1 We would like to thank the Keccak designers as well as Pawel Swierczynski and Christian Zenger for their extremely helpful input to this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 the Data Encryption Standard (DES)
    Chapter 2 The Data Encryption Standard (DES) As mentioned earlier there are two main types of cryptography in use today - symmet- ric or secret key cryptography and asymmetric or public key cryptography. Symmet- ric key cryptography is the oldest type whereas asymmetric cryptography is only being used publicly since the late 1970’s1. Asymmetric cryptography was a major milestone in the search for a perfect encryption scheme. Secret key cryptography goes back to at least Egyptian times and is of concern here. It involves the use of only one key which is used for both encryption and decryption (hence the use of the term symmetric). Figure 2.1 depicts this idea. It is necessary for security purposes that the secret key never be revealed. Secret Key (K) Secret Key (K) ? ? - - - - Plaintext (P ) E{P,K} Ciphertext (C) D{C,K} Plaintext (P ) Figure 2.1: Secret key encryption. To accomplish encryption, most secret key algorithms use two main techniques known as substitution and permutation. Substitution is simply a mapping of one value to another whereas permutation is a reordering of the bit positions for each of the inputs. These techniques are used a number of times in iterations called rounds. Generally, the more rounds there are, the more secure the algorithm. A non-linearity is also introduced into the encryption so that decryption will be computationally infeasible2 without the secret key. This is achieved with the use of S-boxes which are basically non-linear substitution tables where either the output is smaller than the input or vice versa. 1It is claimed by some that government agencies knew about asymmetric cryptography before this.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurocrypt 2013 Athens, Greece, May 28Th, 2013
    Keccak Guido Bertoni1 Joan Daemen1 Michaël Peeters2 Gilles Van Assche1 1STMicroelectronics 2NXP Semiconductors Eurocrypt 2013 Athens, Greece, May 28th, 2013 1 / 57 Symmetric crypto: what textbooks and intro’s say Symmetric cryptographic primitives: Block ciphers Stream ciphers Hash functions And their modes-of-use Picture by GlasgowAmateur 2 / 57 Outline 1 The sponge construction 2 Inside Keccak 3 Outside Keccak (using sponge and duplex) 4 Keccak towards the SHA-3 standard 5 Further inside Keccak 3 / 57 The sponge construction Outline 1 The sponge construction 2 Inside Keccak 3 Outside Keccak (using sponge and duplex) 4 Keccak towards the SHA-3 standard 5 Further inside Keccak 4 / 57 The sponge construction Our beginning: RadioGatún Initiative to design hash/stream function (late 2005) rumours about NIST call for hash functions forming of Keccak Team starting point: fixing Panama [Daemen, Clapp, FSE 1998] RadioGatún [Keccak team, NIST 2nd hash workshop 2006] more conservative than Panama arbitrary output length primitive expressing security claim for arbitrary output length primitive Sponge functions [Keccak team, Ecrypt hash, 2007] … closest thing to a random oracle with a finite state … Sponge construction calling random permutation 5 / 57 The sponge construction The sponge construction More general than a hash function: arbitrary-length output Calls a b-bit permutation f, with b = r + c r bits of rate c bits of capacity (security parameter) 6 / 57 The sponge construction Generic security of the sponge construction Theorem (Indifferentiability of the sponge construction) The sponge construction calling a random permutation, S0[F], is 2 (tD, tS, N, e)-indifferentiable from a random oracle, for any tD, tS = O(N ), c e e ≈ N N < 2 and for any with > fP(N) 2c+1 .
    [Show full text]
  • Broad View of Cryptographic Hash Functions
    IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Vol. 10, Issue 4, No 1, July 2013 ISSN (Print): 1694-0814 | ISSN (Online): 1694-0784 www.IJCSI.org 239 Broad View of Cryptographic Hash Functions 1 2 Mohammad A. AlAhmad , Imad Fakhri Alshaikhli 1 Department of Computer Science, International Islamic University of Malaysia, 53100 Jalan Gombak Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2 Department of Computer Science, International Islamic University of Malaysia, 53100 Jalan Gombak Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Abstract Cryptographic hash function is a function that takes an arbitrary length as an input and produces a fixed size of an output. The viability of using cryptographic hash function is to verify data integrity and sender identity or source of information. This paper provides a detailed overview of cryptographic hash functions. It includes the properties, classification, constructions, attacks, applications and an overview of a selected dedicated cryptographic hash functions. Keywords-cryptographic hash function, construction, attack, classification, SHA-1, SHA-2, SHA-3. Figure 1. Classification of cryptographic hash function 1. INTRODUCTION CRHF usually deals with longer length hash values. An A cryptographic hash function H is an algorithm that takes an unkeyed hash function is a function for a fixed positive integer n * arbitrary length of message as an input {0, 1} and produce a which has, as a minimum, the following two properties: n fixed length of an output called message digest {0, 1} 1) Compression: h maps an input x of arbitrary finite bit (sometimes called an imprint, digital fingerprint, hash code, hash length, to an output h(x) of fixed bit length n.
    [Show full text]