Scribd
Upload
29 views

Question No 1: Cryptanalytic Attacks On 3DES

There are two known cryptanalytic attacks against 3DES: 1) Meet-In-The-Middle (MITM) Attacks attempt to reduce the difficulty of a brute-force attack by dividing the encryption into two parts that can each be addressed individually. 2) Related Key Attacks exploit any numerical relationship between keys that could enable the attacker to determine the keys, such as keys that share many bits in common.

Uploaded by

Usman Khan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
29 views

Question No 1: Cryptanalytic Attacks On 3DES

There are two known cryptanalytic attacks against 3DES: 1) Meet-In-The-Middle (MITM) Attacks attempt to reduce the difficulty of a brute-force attack by dividing the encryption into two parts that can each be addressed individually. 2) Related Key Attacks exploit any numerical relationship between keys that could enable the attacker to determine the keys, such as keys that share many bits in common.

Uploaded by

Usman Khan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Question No 1:

Cryptanalytic attacks on 3DES:

In contrast to DES, there are just a couple of known cryptanalytic attacks against 3DES.

Below we discuss those attacks.

 Meet-In-The-Middle (MITM) Attacks

 Related Key Attacks

Meet-In-The-Middle (MITM) Attacks: A Meet-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attack is a

cryptanalytic attack where the attacker uses a space or time tradeoff to help the attack.

Particularly, MitMs endeavor to diminish the measure of trouble required to complete the

ambush in its original state. MitMs can appear as dividing the target correspondence into two

so each part can be tended to individually. It could mean transforming an attack requiring X

measure of time into one requiring Y time and Z space. The point is to altogether decrease the

exertion expected to play out a brute-force attack. Meet-in-the-middle and man-in-the-middle

(MitMs, both) are frequently conflated. The distinction between the two is that the "man"

variation is the place the attacker places themselves between the two clients, eavesdropping

or altering the discussion to do an attack. The "meet" variation isn't interactive, and indeed

the expression "meet" alludes to "how about we meet in the middle" or find a middle ground

by halving.

Related Key Attacks: Related keys will be keys with any numerical relationship that

prompts exploitability in the cipher. This can be a basic relationship, for example, sharing

numerous bits in common. The idea of the outbreak is that the attacker recognizes (or selects)

a connection among a few keys (up to 256 in some recent attacks) and is obtainable entree to
encryption dimensions with such related keys. The attacker aims to find the keys themselves.

For instance, a substitution for WEP, WiFi Protected Access (WPA), uses three degrees of

keys: master key, working key, and RC4 key. The master WPA key is imparted to every

customer and passageway and is utilized in a protocol called Temporal Key Integrity protocol

(TKIP) to make new working keys much of the time enough to obstruct known attack

strategies.

Question No 2:

Yes, it is conceivable to change a block cipher into a stream cipher using cipher feedback

CFB, output feedback OFB, and counter modes CTR. To modification over the block cipher

tasks to stream ciphers, we use the block cipher as a pseudo-random number generator. Also,

take these random bits to link them with the information out by XORing them. Since the

plaintext/ciphertext linking this by XOR, it authorizes stream like handling. Also, ciphertext

and the plaintext are off however the same length in bits. Focus on the cipher feedback or

CFB Mode to make the pseudo-random bits using the encryption function, CFB chaining

receives the input from the earlier ciphertext, and hence, its named cipher feedback mode.

And for the output feedback mode OFB is similar in structure to that of CFB. For OFB the

output of the encryption function is feedback to become the input for encrypting the next

block of plaintext.

You might also like