Scribd
Upload
45 views

Using Cryptography For Network Security: - Common Problems

The document discusses several cryptographic protocols for key exchange and authentication between two parties: - Symmetric key protocols rely on pre-shared keys and a trusted third party for key exchange, while public key protocols directly establish keys between parties. - Protocols must address man-in-the-middle attacks and replay attacks by including freshness mechanisms like timestamps or nonces. - Authentication protocols use challenges and responses to prove identity, but must be carefully designed to prevent impersonation attacks.

Uploaded by

Xozan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
45 views

Using Cryptography For Network Security: - Common Problems

The document discusses several cryptographic protocols for key exchange and authentication between two parties: - Symmetric key protocols rely on pre-shared keys and a trusted third party for key exchange, while public key protocols directly establish keys between parties. - Protocols must address man-in-the-middle attacks and replay attacks by including freshness mechanisms like timestamps or nonces. - Authentication protocols use challenges and responses to prove identity, but must be carefully designed to prevent impersonation attacks.

Uploaded by

Xozan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 24

Using Cryptography for Network Security

Host A

TCP/IP
Internet

Host B

Common problems:
Authentication - A and B want to prove their identities
to one another
Key-distribution - A and B want to agree on a session
key that can be used to encrypt all subsequent
communications

Cryptographic Protocols
A protocol is an agreed-upon sequence of actions
performed by two or more principals
Cryptographic protocols make use of
cryptography to accomplish some task securely
Example:
How can Alice and Bob agree on a session key to
protect a conversation?
Answer: use a key-exchange cryptographic protocol

Key Exchange with Symmetric Cryptography


Assume Alice and Bob each share a key with a
Key Distribution Center (KDC)
KA is the key shared by Alice and the KDC
KB is the key shared by Bob and the KDC

To agree on a session key:


Alice contacts the KDC and requests a session key for
Bob and her
The KDC generates a random session key, encrypts it
with both KA and KB, and sends the results to Alice

Key Exchange with Symmetric Cryptography (cont)

Agreeing on a session key (cont):


Alice decrypts the part of the message
encrypted with KA and learns the session key
Alice sends the part of the message encrypted
with KB to Bob
Bob receives Alices message, decrypts it, and
learns the session key
Alice and Bob communicate securely using the
session key

Key Exchange with Symmetric Cryptography (cont)

The key-exchange protocol:


A: => KDC (A,B);
KDC: => A (E(KAB,KA), E(KAB,KB));
A: => B (E(KAB,KB));

Key Exchange with Symmetric Cryptography (cont)

Issues:
Security depends on secrecy of KA and KB
KDC must be secure and trusted by both Alice and
Bob
KA and KB should be used sparingly

The use of a new session key for each


conversation limits the chances/value of
compromising a session key

Attacking the Protocol


Alice and Bob set up a secure session protected by KAB
An intruder, Mallory, watches them do this and stores the
KDCs message to Alice and all the subsequent messages
between Alice Bob encrypted with KAB
Mallory cryptanalyzes the session between Alice and Bob
and eventually recovers KAB
The next time Alice and Bob want to talk Mallory
intercepts the KDCs reply and replays the old message
containing KAB
Alice and Bob conduct a secure conversation which is
protected by KAB which is known to Mallory

Attacking the Protocol (cont)


A: => KDC (A,B);
KDC: => A (E(KAB,KA), E(KAB,KB));
A: => B (E(KAB,KB));
// Alice and Bob encrypt their messages using KAB
// Mallory recovers KAB by analyzing Alice and Bobs session
A: => KDC (A,B);
KDC: => A (E(KAB,KA), E(KAB,KB));
// Mallory intercepts the above message and replaces it
M: => A (E(KAB,KA), E(KAB,KB));
A: => B (E(KAB,KB));
// Mallory reads all traffic session between Alice and Bob

What Went Wrong?


Alice and Bob need to be able to distinguish
between a current (or fresh) response from the
KDC and an old one
Solutions:
Alice and Bob could keep track of all previously-used
session keys and never accept an old session key
KDC could include freshness information in its
messages
Timestamps
Nonces

Using Timestamps to Establish Freshness


A: => KDC (A,B);
KDC: => A (E((KAB,TKDC),KA), E((KAB,TKDC),KB));
A: => B (E((KAB,TKDC),KB));
Where TKDC is a timestamp from the KDCs clock
and:
Alice and Bobs clocks are both synchronized
with the KDCs
Alice and Bob both check the KDCs message to
make sure it was generated recently

Using Nonces to Establish Freshness


A nonce is a randomly-generated value that:
Is never reused
Can be used to prove the freshness of a message
A: => KDC (A,B,NA);
B: => KDC (A,B, NB);
KDC: => A (E((KAB,NA),KA));
KDC: => B (E((KAB,NB),KB));

Key-Exchange with Public-Key Cryptography


Alice learns Bobs public key (by either asking
Bob or some third party)
Alice generates a random session key, KAB
Alice encrypts the session key with Bobs public
key
Alice sends Encrypt(KAB,BPublic) to Bob
Bob receives Alices message and decrypts it with
his private key
Alice and Bob encrypt their subsequent
communications with KAB

Attacking the Protocol


Recall the man-in-the-middle attack
If Mallory can trick Alice into thinking that MPublic is
Bobs public key
Mallory can decrypt Alices first message to Bob
Encrypt(KAB,MPublic)
Mallory learns the proposed session key KAB
Mallory can send Bob: Encrypt(KAB,BPublic)
Alice and Bob will encrypt their subsequent
communications with KAB thinking that it is secure

This is a very serious problem because its often


difficult to be sure you know somebodys public
key

Authentication
Authentication is the process of proving your
identity to someone else
One-way
Two-way

Authentication protocols are often designed using


a challenge and response mechanism
Authenticator creates a random challenge
Authenticatee proves identity by replying with the
appropriate response

One-way Authentication Using Symmetric-Key Cryptography

Assume that Alice and Bob share a secret symmetric key,


KAB
One-way authentication protocol:
Alice creates a nonce, NA, and sends it to Bob as a challenge
Bob encrypts Alices nonce with their secret key and returns the
result, Encrypt(NA, KAB), to Alice
Alice can decrypt Bobs response and verify that the result is her
nonce

A: => B(NA);
B: => A(Encrypt(NA, KAB));

One-way Authentication Using Symmetric-Key Cryptography

Problem: an adversary, Mallory, might be able to


impersonate Bob to Alice:
Alice sends challenge to Bob (intercepted by Mallory)
Mallory does not know KAB and thus cannot create the appropriate
response
Mallory may be able to trick Bob (or Alice) into creating the
appropriate response for her:
A: => M(NA);
M: => B(NN);
B: => M(Encrypt(NA, KAB));
M: => A(Encrypt(NA, KAB));

One-way Authentication Using Public-Key Cryptography

Alice sends a nonce to Bob as a challenge


Bob replies by encrypting the nonce with his private key
Alice decrypts the response using Bobs public key and
verify that the result is her nonce
A: => B(NA);
B: => A(Encrypt(NA, BPrivate));
Encrypting any message that someone sends as an
authentication challenge might not be a good idea

One-way Authentication Using Public-Key Cryptography

Another challenge-and-response authentication protocol:


Alice performs a computation based on some random numbers
(chosen by Alice) and her private key and sends the result to Bob
Bob sends Alice a random number (chosen by Bob)
Alice makes some computation based on her private key, her
random numbers, and the random number received from Bob and
sends the result to Bob
Bob performs some computations on the various numbers and
Alices public key to verify that Alice knows her private key

Advantage: Alice never encrypts a message chosen by


someone else

Authentication and Key-Exchange Protocols


Combine authentication and key-exchange
Assume Carla and Diane are on opposite ends of a network
and want to talk securely
Want to agree on a new session key securely
Want to each be sure that they are talking to the other and not an
intruder

Wide-Mouth Frog
Assumes a trusted third-party, Sam, who shares a secret keys, KC
and KD, respectively, with Carla and Diane

Authentication and Key-Exchange Protocols


Wide-Mouth Frog
C: => S(C,Encrypt((D,KCD,TC),KCS));
S: => D(Encrypt((C, KCD, TS), KDS));

Observations:
Reliance on synchronized clocks to generate timestamps
Depends on a third-party that both participants trust
Initiator is trusted to generate good session keys

Authentication and Key-Exchange Protocols


Yahalom
C => D (C,NC);
D => S (D,Encrypt((C,NC,ND),KD));
S => C (Encrypt((D,KCD,NC,ND),KC),Encrypt((C,KCD),KD));
C => D (Encrypt((C,KCD),KD),Encrypt(ND,KCD));

Note: Diane is the first one to contact Sam who only


sends one message to Carla

Authentication and Key-Exchange Protocols


Denning and Sacco (public-key)
Carla sends a message to Sam including her name and Dianes name
Sam replies with signed copies of both Carla and Dianes public key
C: => S(C,D);

S: => C(Encrypt((C,CPublic,TS),SPriavte),Encrypt((D,DPublic,TS),SPriavte));
C: => D(Encrypt((C,CPublic,TS),SPriavte),Encrypt((D,DPublic,TS),SPriavte));

Carla generates the session key, KCD, and signed a message containing
it and a timestamp with her private key
C: => D(Encrypt(Encrypt((KCD,TC),CPrivate),DPublic));

Authentication and Key-Exchange Protocols


A weakness of the Denning and Sacco protocol
Harry can trick Diane into thinking that she is communicating with
Carla when she is really communicating with Harry
Harry establishes a session key, KCH, with Carla
C: => H(Encrypt(Encrypt((KCH,TC),CPrivate),HPublic));

Harry decrypts Carlas message and learns KCH


Harry encrypts Carlas signed message with Dianes public key,
and sends the result to Diane claiming to be Carla
H: => D(Encrypt(Encrypt((KCH,TC),CPrivate),DPublic));

Diane will decrypt the message, check the signature and


timestamp, and believe that she is talking to Carla with KCH as the
session key

Authentication and Key-Exchange Protocols

Fixing the Denning and Sacco protocol:


Add the other partys name to the key exchange
message:
C: => D(Encrypt(Encrypt((D,KCD,TC),CPrivate),DPublic));

You might also like