<<

. 3
( 5)



>>

P NP CRYPTOGRAPHY: The have:
VERSUS AND
assumption P = NP (and even NP ⊆ BPP) is nec-
/
DEFINITION 1 (one-way function). A one-to-one
essary for most of modern cryptography. For exam-
function f is one-way if it satis¬es the following
ple, take any ef¬cient encryption scheme and con-
conditions.
sider the following computational problem: given
1. (Easy to evaluate). f can be evaluated in polyno-
a ciphertext C, ¬nd the corresponding message M
mial time.
along with the key K and any randomization R
2. (Hard to invert). For every probabilistic
used in the encryption process. This is an NP prob-
polynomial-time algorithm A, there is a negli-
lem: the solution (M, K, R) can be veri¬ed by re-
gible function such that
encrypting the message M using the key K and the
Pr [A( f (X )) = X ] ¤ (n),
randomization R and checking whether the result
equals C. Thus, if P = NP, this problem can be
where the probability is taken over selecting an
solved in polynomial time, i.e. there is an ef¬cient
input X of length n uniformly at random and
algorithm for breaking the encryption scheme.7
the random choices of the algorithm A.
However, the assumption P = NP (or even NP ⊆ /
BPP) does not appear suffcient for cryptography. For simplicity, we have only given the de¬nition
The main reason for this is that P = NP refers for one-to-one one-way functions. Without the one-
to worst-case complexity. That is, the fact that a to-one constraint, the de¬nition should refer to the
computational problem is not in P only means problem of ¬nding some preimage of f (X ), i.e., re-
that for every polynomial-time algorithm A, there quire the probability that A( f (X )) ∈ f’1 ( f (X )) is
exist inputs on which A fails to solve . However, negligible.8
these “hard inputs” could conceivably be very rare The input length n can be thought of as corre-
and very hard to ¬nd. Intuitively, to make use of sponding to the security parameter (or key length)
intractability (for the security of cryptosystems), in a cryptographic protocol using f. If f is one-way,
we need to be able to ef¬ciently generate hard in- we are guaranteed that by making n suf¬ciently
stances of an intractable computational problem. large, inverting f takes much more time than eval-
uating f. However, to know how large to set n in an
ONE-WAY FUNCTIONS: The notion of a one-way implementation requires a concrete security ana-
function captures the kind of computational in- logue of the above de¬nition, where the maximum
tractability needed in cryptography. Informally, a success probability is speci¬ed for A with a par-
one-way function is a function f that is “easy to ticular running time on a particular input length
evaluate” but “hard to invert.” That is, we require n, and a particular model of computation.
that the function f can be computed in polynomial The “inversion problem” is an NP problem (to
time, but given y = f (x), it is intractable to recover verify that X is a preimage of Y, simply evaluate
x. It is required that the dif¬culty of inversion f(X ) and compare with Y.) Thus, if NP ⊆ BPP
holds even when the input x is chosen at random. then one-way functions do not exist. However, the
Thus, we can ef¬ciently generate hard instances converse is an open problem, and proving it would
be a major breakthrough in complexity theory. For-
6 BPP stands for “bounded-error probabilistic polynomial tunately, even though the existence of one-way
time.”
functions does not appear to follow from NP ⊆ /
7 Technically, to conclude that the cryptosystem is broken re-

BPP, there are a number of natural candidates
quires that the message M is uniquely determined by cipher-
text C. This will essentially be the case for most messages if the for one-way functions.
message length is greater than the key length. (If the message
length is less than or equal to the key length, then there exist
8
encryption schemes that achieve information-theoretic secu- For technical reasons, we also need to require that f does
not shrink its input too much, e.g. that the length of | f (x)| and
rity (for a single encryption, e.g., the one-time pad), regardless
of whether or not P = NP.) length of |x| are polynomially related (in both directions.)
96 Computational complexity


SOME CANDIDATE ONE-WAY FUNCTIONS: THEOREM 1. The existence of one-way functions is
necessary and suf¬cient for each of the following:
r
These examples are described informally, and
The existence of commitment schemes
r
may not all match up perfectly with the sim-
The existence of pseudorandom number genera-
pli¬ed de¬nition above. In particular, some are
actually collections of one-way functions F = { fi : tors
r
Di ’ Ri }, in the functions fi are parameterized by The existence of pseudorandom functions
r The existence of symmetric cryptosystems
r
an index i that is generated by some randomized
algorithm.9 The existence of digital signature schemes.
1. (Multiplication) f ( p, q) = p · q, where p and
These results are proven via the notion of re-
q are primes of equal length. Inverting f is
ducibility mentioned above, albeit in much more
the FACTORING problem (see integer factoring),
sophisticated forms. For example, to show that the
which indeed seems intractable even on ran-
dom inputs of the form p · q. existence of one-way functions implies the exis-
f (x1 , . . . , xn , S) = (x1 , . . . , xn , tence of pseudorandom generators, one describes
2. (Subset Sum)
a general construction of a pseudorandom gener-
i∈S xi ). Here each xi is an n-bit integer and
S ⊆ [n]. Inverting f is the SUBSET SUM problem ator G from any one-way function f. To prove the
correctness of this construction, one shows how to
(see knapsack cryptographic schemes). This
“reduce” the task of inverting the one-way func-
problem is known to be NP-complete, but for
tion f to that of “distinguishing” the output of the
the reasons discussed above, this does not
pseudorandom generator G from a truly random
provide convincing evidence that f is one-way
sequence. That is, any polynomial-time algorithm
(nevertheless it seems to be so).
3. (The Discrete Log Collection) f (x) = g x , that distinguishes the pseudorandom generator
G,g
where G is a cyclic group (e.g., G = Z— for prime can be converted into a polynomial-time algorithm
p
p), g is a generator of G, and x ∈ {1, . . . , |G| ’ 1}. that inverts the one-way function. But if f is one-
way, it cannot be inverted, so we conclude that the
Inverting f is the DISCRETE LOG problem (see
G,g
pseudorandom generator is secure. These reduc-
discrete logarithm problem), which seems in-
tions are much more delicate than those arising
tractable. This (like the next two examples) is
in, say, the NP-completeness, because they involve
actually a collection of one-way functions, pa-
nontraditional computational tasks (e.g., inver-
rameterized by the group G and generator g.
4. (The RSA Collection) f (x) = x e mod n, where sion, distinguishing) that must be analyzed in the
n,e
average case (i.e., with respect to non-negligible
n is the product of two equal-length primes, e
satis¬es gcd(e, φ(n)) = 1, and x ∈ Z— . Inverting success probability).
n
The general constructions asserted in Theorem
f is the RSA problem.
n,e
1 are very involved and not ef¬cient enough to
5. (Rabin™s Collection) (see Rabin cryptosystem,
Rabin digital signature scheme). f (x) = x 2 mod be used in practice (though still polynomial time),
n
n, where n is a composite and x ∈ Z— . Inverting so it should be interpreted only as a “plausibil-
n
ity result.” However, from special cases of one-
f is known to be as hard as factoring n.
n
way functions, such as one-way permutations (see
6. (Hash Functions and Block Ciphers). Most
one-way function) or some of the speci¬c candidate
cryptographic hash functions seem to be ¬nite
one-way functions mentioned earlier, much more
analogues of one-way functions with respect to
ef¬cient constructions are known.
concrete security. Similarly, one can obtain can-
didate one-way functions from block ciphers,
TRAPDOOR FUNCTIONS: For some tasks in
say by de¬ning f (K ) to be the block cipher ap-
cryptography, most notably public-key encryption
plied to some ¬xed message using key K.
(see public-key cryptography), one-way functions
In a long sequence of works by many re-
do not seem to suf¬ce, and additional proper-
searchers, it has been shown that one-way func-
ties are used. One such property is the trap-
tions are indeed the “right assumption” for
door property, which requires that the function
complexity-based cryptography. On one hand, al-
can be easily inverted given certain “trapdoor
most all tasks in cryptography imply the ex-
information.” We do not give the full de¬nition
istence of one-way functions. Conversely (and
here, but just list the main properties. (See also
more remarkably), many useful cryptographic
trapdoor one-way function.)
tasks can be accomplished given any one-way
function.
DEFINITION 2 (trapdoor functions, informal).
A collection of one-to-one functions F = { fi : Di ’
9 Actually, one can convert a collection of one-way functions
Ri } is a collection of trapdoor functions if
into a single one-way function, and conversely. See [3].
Contract signing 97


1. (Ef¬cient generation). There is a probabilistic it relates to cryptography, and the texts [4, 5] for
polynomial-time algorithm that, on input a se- other aspects of complexity theory.
curity parameter n, generates a pair (i, ti ), where
Salil Vadhan
i is the index to a (random) function in the
family and t i is the associated “trapdoor infor-
References
mation.”
2. (Easy to evaluate). Given i and x ∈ Di , one can
compute fi (x) in polynomial time. [1] Garey, Michael R. and David S. Johnson (1979).
Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory
3. (Hard to invert). There is no probabilistic
of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman and Company,
polynomial-time algorithm that on input (i,
San Francisco.
fi (x)) outputs x with non-negligible probability.
[2] Goldreich, Oded (1999). Modern Cryptography,
(Here, the probability is taken over i, x ∈ Di, and
Probabilistic Proofs, and Pseudorandomness, Num-
the coin tosses of the inverter.)
ber 17 in Algorithms and Combinatorics. Springer-
4. (Easy to invert with trapdoor). Given ti and Verlag, Berlin.
fi (x), one can compute x in polynomial time. [3] Goldreich, Oded (2001). Foundations of Cryptogra-
phy: Basic Tools. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
Thus, trapdoor functions are collections of one- bridge, MA.
[4] Papadimitriou, Christos H. (1994). Computational
way functions with an additional trapdoor prop-
Complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
erty (Item 4). The RSA and Rabin collections
[5] Sipser, Michael (1997). Introduction to the Theory of
described earlier have the trapdoor property. Spe-
Computation. PWS Publishing, Boston, MA.
ci¬cally, they can be inverted in polynomial time
given the factorization of the modulus n.
One of the main applications of trapdoor func-
tions is for the construction of public-key encryp-
CONTRACT SIGNING
tion schemes.

A contract is a nonrepudiable agreement on a
THEOREM 2. If trapdoor functions exist, then
given contract text, i.e., a contract can be used to
public-key encryption schemes exist.
prove agreement between the signatories to any
veri¬er. A contract signing scheme [4] is used to
There are a number of other useful strength-
fairly compute a contract such that, even if one of
enings of the notion of a one-way function, dis-
the signatories misbehaves, either both or none of
cussed elsewhere in this volume: claw-free per-
the signatories obtain a contract. Contract signing
mutations, collision-resistant hash functions (see
generalizes fair exchange of signatures: a contract
collision resistance), and universal one-way hash
signing protocol does not need to output signa-
functions.
tures but can de¬ne its own format instead. Con-
tract signing can be categorized by the properties
OTHER INTERACTIONS WITH CRYPTOGRAPHY: of fair exchange (like abuse-freeness) as well as
The interaction between computational complex- the properties of the nonrepudiation tokens it pro-
ity and cryptography has been very fertile. Above, duces (like third-party time stamping of the con-
we have described the role that computational tract). Unlike agreement protocols, contract sign-
complexity plays in cryptography. Conversely, ing needs to provide a nonrepudiable proof that an
several important concepts that originated in agreement has been reached.
cryptography research have had a tremendous im- Early contract signing protocols were either
pact on computational complexity. Two notable ex- based on an in-line Trusted Third Party [8], grad-
amples are the notions of pseudorandom number ual exchange of secrets [5], or gradual increase
generators and interactive proof systems. For of privilege [3]. Like fair exchange protocols, two-
more on these topics and the resulting develop- party contract signing protocols either do not guar-
ments in computational complexity, see [2]. antee termination or may else produce a partially
signed contract. As a consequence, a trusted third
FURTHER READING: Above, we have touched party is needed for most practical applications.
upon only a small portion of computational com- Optimistic contract signing [7] protocols optimize
plexity, and even in the topics covered, many im- by involving this third-party only in case of excep-
portant issues were ignored (not to mention histor- tions. The ¬rst optimistic contract signing scheme
ical references). Thus, we refer the reader to the has been described in [6]. An optimistic contract
text [3] for more on computational complexity as signing scheme for asynchronous networks has
98 Control vectors


........................................... Optimistic Phase w/o T TP: .....................................
Signatory A Signatory B


m1 := signA ( m1 , tstart ,TTP, A, B, CA)
?
C A = C B?

m2 := signB( m2 , m1)
if m2: output m2
elseif no m5: abort
m3 := signA( m3 , m2)
if m3: output m3
else: continue
.............................................. Error Recovery w/ TTP: .............. ............. ..... ..........
Signatory A T TPT Signatory B


m4 := signB ( m4 , m2)
check

m5 := signT ( m5 , m4)m5 := signT ( m5 , m4)
output m5 output m5

Fig. 1. Sketch of an optimistic synchronous contract signing protocol [7]

been described in [1]. An example for a multiparty Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences,
University of California at Berkeley, Berkley,
abuse-free optimistic contract signing protocol has
CA.
been published in [2]. A simple optimistic con-
[5] Blum, Manuel (1983). “Coin ¬‚ipping by telephone,
tract signing protocol for synchronous networks is
a protocol for solving impossible problems.” ACM
sketched in Figure 1: party A sends a proposal,
SIGACT News, 15 (1), 23“27.
party B agrees, and party A con¬rms. If party
[6] Even, Shimon (1983). “A protocol for signing con-
A does not con¬rm, B obtains its contract from tracts.” ACM SIGACT News, 15 (1), 34“39.
the TTP. (Note that the generic fair exchange pro- [7] P¬tzmann, Birgit, Matthias Schunter, and Michael
tocol (see fair exchange) can be adapted for con- Waidner (1998). “Optimal ef¬ciency of optimistic
tract signing, too, by using a signature under C as contract signing.” 17th Symposium on Principles of
itemX , using (C, X) as description descX , and using Distributed Computing (PODC). ACM Press, New
the signature veri¬cation function as the veri¬ca- York, 113“122.
[8] Rabin, Michael O. (1983). “Transaction protection
tion function.)
by beacons.” Journal of Computer and System Sci-
Matthias Schunter ences, 27, 256“267.

References

[1] Asokan, N., Victor Shoup, and Michael Waidner
CONTROL VECTORS
(1988). “Optimistic fair exchange of digital signa-
tures.” Advances in Cryptology”EUROCRYPT™98,
A method introduced”and patented in a number
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1403, ed.
of application scenarios”by IBM in the 1980s for
K. Nyberg. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 591“606.
[2] Baum-Waidner, Birgit and Michael Waidner (2000). the control of cryptographic key usage. The basic
“Round-optimal and abuse-free optimistic multi- idea is that each cryptographic key has an asso-
party contract signing.” 27th International Collo- ciated control vector, which de¬nes the permitted
quium on Automata, Languages and Programming uses of the key within the system, and this is en-
(ICALP), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.
forced by the use of tamper resistant hardware. At
1853, eds. U. Montanari, J.D.P Rolim, and E. Welzl.
key generation, the control vector is cryptograph-
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 524 ff.
ically coupled to the key, e.g., by XOR-ring the key
[3] Ben-Or, M., O. Goldreich, S. Micali, and R.L. Rivest
with the control vector before encryption and dis-
(1990). “A fair protocol for signing contracts.” IEEE
tribution. Each encrypted key and control vector
Transactions on Information Theory, 36 (1), 40“46.
is stored and distributed within the cryptographic
[4] Blum, Manuel (1981). “Three applications of the
system as a single token.
oblivious transfer.” Version 2. Department of
Copy protection 99


As an example, nonrepudiation may be achieved This approach is somewhat unrealistic because
between two communicating hardware boxes by even a small number of remaining unregistered
the use of a conventional MAC algorithms using recorders can be used by organized hackers to
symmetric methods. The communicating boxes produce large quantities of pirated copies.
would share the same key, but whereas one box Instead of protecting the distribution media of
would only be allowed to generate a MAC with digital content, one can protect copyrighted digi-
that key, the other box would only be able to ver- tal content itself by marking copyrighted content
ify a MAC with the same key. The transform of and enforcing playback control by allowing only
the same key from, e.g., MAC-generation to MAC- players that interpret these copyright marks ac-
veri¬cation is known as key translation and needs cording to certain access policies (access control).
to be carried out in tamper resistant hardware as This approach works for digital content that is be-
well. Similarly the same symmetric key may be ing distributed on physical media as well as being
used for encryption only enforced by one control broadcast or distributed online. It is an example
vector in one device and for decryption only en- of a digital rights management system (DRMS).
forced by a different control vector in a different Mark copyrighted content: If consumers are
device. allowed to make a few backup copies for their
personal use, then the copyrighted digital con-
Peter Landrock tent itself can be marked as copy protected in
order to be distinguishable from unprotected
digital content. The more robust the marking,
i.e., the harder it is to remove it without signif-
COPY PROTECTION icantly degrading the quality of the digital con-
tent, the stronger copy protection mechanism
can be achieved.
Copy protection attempts to ¬nd ways which limit
Playback control: Players for copyrighted con-
the access to copyrighted material and/or inhibit
tent need to have a tamper resistant access cir-
the copy process itself. Examples of copy protec-
cuitry that is aware of the copy protection mark-
tion include encrypted digital TV broadcast, access
ing, or players need to use online license servers
controls to copyrighted software through the use of
to check the actual marks. Before converting
license servers or through the use of special hard-
digital content into audible or visible signals,
ware add-ons (dongles), and technical copy protec-
the player compares the actual marking against
tion mechanisms on the media.
the licenses or tickets, which are either built into
Copy protection mechanisms can work pro-
their access circuitry or retrieved from a license
actively by aiming to prevent users from accessing
server online, and stops if the former does not
copy protected content.
match the latter. The exact behavior of players is
For content that is distributed on physical me-
determined by access policies. There can be dif-
dia such as ¬‚oppy disks, digital audio tape (DAT),
ferent kinds of tickets or licenses. Tickets of one
CD-ROM or digital versatile disk (DVD), copy pro-
kind may represent the right of ownership of a
tection can be achieved by master copy control and
particular piece of content, i.e., the piece of con-
copy generation control:
tent can be played or used as many times as the
Master copy control: If consumers are not al-
owner wishes. Tickets of another kind may rep-
lowed to even make backup copies of their mas-
resent the right of one-time play or use (pay-per-
ter media, then one can mark the master media
view). Other kinds of tickets can be de¬ned. The
themselves in addition to or instead of marking
more tamper resistant the access circuitry is or
the copyrighted content. This was an inexpen-
the more protected the communication with the
sive and common way to protect software dis-
license server and the license server itself, the
tributed for example on ¬‚oppy disks. One of the
stronger the copy protection mechanism that
sectors containing critical parts of the software
can be achieved.
was marked as bad such that data could be read
Marking of copyrighted content can use anything
from that sector, but could not be copied to an-
from simple one-bit marks to XrML tags to sophis-
other ¬‚oppy disk.
ticated watermarking techniques. An example of
Copy generation control: If consumers are al-
the former is to de¬ne a new audio ¬le format, in
lowed to make copies of their master copy, but
which the mark is a part of the header block but
not of copies of the master copy, then one needs
is not removable without destroying the original
to establish control over the vast majority of con-
signal, because part of the de¬nition of the ¬le for-
tent recorders, which must be able to effectively
mat requires the mark to be therein. In this case
prevent the making of unauthorized copies.
100 Copy protection


the signal would not really be literally “destroyed” kinds of decryption keys can be de¬ned. The
but any application using this ¬le format would more tamper resistant the access circuitry or the
not touch it without a valid mark. Some electronic more protected the communication with the li-
copyright management systems (ECMS) propose cense server and the license server itself, the
mechanisms like this. Such schemes are weak as stronger the copy protection mechanism that
anyone with a computer or a digital editing work- can be achieved.
station would be able to convert the information to In order to effectively prevent consumers from
another format and remove the mark at the same copying digital content protected in this way, the
time. Finally this new audio format would be in- players must not allow consumers to easily ac-
compatible with the existing one. Thus the mark cess the decrypted digital content. Otherwise, the
should really be embedded in the audio signal. containing approach would not prevent consumers
This is very similar to S.C.M.S. (Serial Code Man- from reselling, trading, or exchanging digital con-
agement System). When Phillips and Sony intro- tent at their discretion. As a ¬rst line of protection,
duced the “S/PDIF” (Sony/Phillips Digital Inter- players should not provide a high quality output
change Format), they included the S.C.M.S. which interface for the digital content. A stronger level
provides a way copies of digital music are regu- of protection is achieved if the decryption mecha-
lated in the consumer market. This information is nism is integrated into the display, such that pi-
added to the stream of data that contains the mu- rates would only obtain signals of degraded qual-
sic when one makes a digital copy (a “clone”). This ity. The content scrambling system (CSS) used for
is in fact just a bit saying: digital copy prohibited digital versatile disks (DVDs) [2] is an example of
or permitted. Some professional equipment are ex- the containing approach: in CSS, each of n manu-
empt from having S.C.M.S. With watermarking facturers (n being several hundreds by 2002) has
however, the copy control information is part one or more manufacturer keys, and each player
of the audiovisual signal and aims at surviv- has one or more keys of its manufacturer built in.
ing ¬le format conversion and other transfor- Each DVD has its own disk key dk , which is stored
mations. n times in encrypted form, once encrypted under
An alternative to marking is containing copy- each manufacturer key. The DVD content is en-
righted content. With this approach, the recording crypted under respective sector keys, which are
industry encrypts copyrighted digital content un- all derived from the disk key dk .
der certain encryption keys such that only players Copy protection mechanisms can also work
with appropriate decryption keys can access and retroactively by deterring authorized users from
playback the content. leaking copies to unauthorized users. This ap-
Encrypt copyrighted content: The copyrighted proach requires solving the following two prob-
digital content itself is encrypted in order to lems.
be accessible by authorized consumers only. Mark copy protected content individually:
The more robust the encryption, the stronger Copy protected digital content carries informa-
the copy protection mechanism that can be tion about its origin, i.e. the original source, au-
achieved. thor, distributor, etc. in order to allow to trace
Playback control: Players for copyrighted con- its distribution and spreading. It is like em-
tent need to have a tamper resistant access cir- bedding a unique serial number in each autho-
cuitry that is aware of certain decryption keys rized copy of protected content. The more ro-
that are necessary to unlock the contents the bust the embedded marking, i.e., the harder it
consumer wants to be played. Before converting is to remove it without signi¬cantly degrading
digital content into audible or visible signals, the quality of the digital content, the stronger
the player needs to look up the respective de- the copy protection mechanism that can be
cryption keys, which are either built into the achieved.
access circuitry of the player or are retrieved Deter from unauthorized access: Players need
from a license server online. The exact behav- to have no tamper resistant access circuitry nor
ior of players is determined by access policies. online access to license servers. Instead, each
There can be different kinds of decrypting keys. customer who receives an authorized copy is
Decrypting keys of one kind may represent the registered with the serial number of the copy
right of ownership of a particular piece of con- provided. The marking serves as forensic ev-
tent, i.e., the piece of content can be played or idence in investigations to ¬gure out where
used as many times as the owner wishes. Tick- and when unauthorized copies of original con-
ets of another kind may represent the right tent have surfaced. This retroactive approach
of one-time play or use (pay-per-view). Other can be combined with the above mentioned
Copy protection 101


proactive approach by using the embedded se- tium™s reputation and revenue so much that the
rial numbers as individual watermarks, which SDMI consortium threatened to sue the authors
are recognized by players for the respective if they would present their work at a public con-
content. ference. Attacks on various other copy protection
This approach can use anything from hidden mechanisms have been described by Anderson in
serial numbers to sophisticated ¬ngerprinting Section 20.3.30 of [1].
techniques. Fingerprints are characteristics of an The requirements on ¬ngerprinting are contra-
object that tend to distinguish it from other simi- dictory as well. On one hand the broadcaster or
lar objects. They enable the owner to trace autho- copyright holder may want to easily recognize the
rized users distributing them illegally. In the case ¬ngerprint, preferably visually. This allows easy
of encrypted satellite television broadcasting, for tracing of a decoder that is used for illegal pur-
instance, users could be issued a set of keys to de- poses. This approach is very similar to the com-
crypt the video streams and the television station monly used watermarking by means of the logo of a
could insert ¬ngerprint bits into each packet of TV station that is continuously visible in one of the
the traf¬c to detect unauthorized uses. If a group corners of the screen. On the other hand, the ¬n-
of users give their subset of keys to unauthorized gerprint should be hidden, in order not to disturb
people (so that they can also decrypt the traf¬c), at paying viewers with program-unrelated messages
least one of the key donors can be traced when the on their screen, or to avoid any pirate detecting
unauthorized decoder is captured. In this respect, and erasing the ¬ngerprint electronically. In the
¬ngerprinting is usually discussed in the context latter case, one may require speci¬c equipment to
of the traitor tracing problem. detect and decode a ¬ngerprint.
Copy protection is inherently dif¬cult to achieve Despite the inherent technical dif¬culties to
in open systems for at least two reasons: build effective large-scale copy protection systems,
The requirements on watermarking are contra- the content industries (TV producers, movie mak-
dictory. In order to build an effective large-scale ers, audio makers, software companies, publish-
copy protection system, the vast majority of avail- ers) have and will continue to have a strong inter-
able players had to be equipped with some kind est in protecting their revenues against pirates.
of tamper resistant circuitry or had online ac- They are trying to overcome the contradictory
cess to some license servers. Such circuitry had requirements mentioned above by two comple-
to be cheap and be integrated right into the play- menting approaches: they try to control the en-
ers, and such online service had to be cheap tire market of media players and recorders by
and conveniently fast. Otherwise, the watermark- contracting with the large suppliers. While they
ing had no chance to gain any signi¬cant mar- opt for relatively weak but inexpensive access cir-
ket share. However, tamper resistant hardware cuitry for these players, they compensate for the
is expensive, so the cost per player limits the weakness by promoting suitable laws that deter
strength of the tamper resistance of its access cir- consumers from breaking this access circuitry or
cuitry. Online services incur communication costs resorting to unauthorized players, or using unau-
on consumers and do not give them the indepen- thorized recorders. An example for trying to make
dence and speed of of¬‚ine access circuitry. The secure access circuitry pervasive in the PC market
way how the CSS used for DVDs was “hacked” is is the trusted computing platform alliance (TCPA)
just one more incident demonstrating the contra- [8]. An example of such legislative initiative is
dicting requirements: since the encryption mech- the digital millenium copyright act (DMCA) [4] in
anism was chosen to be a weak feedback shift the United States. It prohibits the modi¬cation of
register cipher, it was only a matter of time un- any electronic copyright arrangement information
til a program called DeCSS surfaced, which can (CMI) bundled with digital content, such as details
decipher any DVD. The access circuitry of play- of ownership and licensing, and outlaws the man-
ers into which the deciphering algorithm is built ufacture, importation, sale, or offering for sale of
was not well protected against reverse engineer- anything primarily designed to circumvent copy-
ing the algorithm, and hence, the secret algorithm right protection technology.
leaked, and with it the DVD keys one by one. The It is clear that the issue of copy protection is a
watermarking scheme of the Secure Digital Mu- special case of the more general issue of digital
sic Initiative (SDMI) [7], (a successor of MP3) was rights management (DRM). Both issues bear the
broken by Fabien Petitcolas [6]. Later, a public risk of a few companies de¬ning the access poli-
challenge of this watermarking scheme was bro- cies, which are enforced by the players and thus
ken by Felten et al. [3]. The SDMI consortium felt determine what and how a vast majority of peo-
this piece of research might jeopardize the consor- ple would be able to read, watch, listen to, or work
102 Correcting-block attack


with. A moderate overview of the hot debate about The hash functions based on algebraic struc-
content monopolies, pricing, free speech, demo- tures are particularly vulnerable to this attack,
cratic, privacy, and legislative issues, etc. is found since it is often possible to invert the compres-
at [5]. sion function using algebraic manipulations [9].
A typical countermeasure to a correcting-block at-
Gerrit Bleumer tack consists of adding redundancy to the message
blocks in such a way that it becomes computation-
ally infeasible to ¬nd a correcting block with the
References
necessary redundancy. The price paid for this so-
lution is a degradation of the performance.
[1] Anderson, Ross (2001). Security Engineering.
A ¬rst example is a multiplicative hash pro-
Wiley & Sons, New York.
posed by Bosset in 1977 [1], based on GL2 (GF( p)),
[2] Bloom, Jefrey A., Ingemar J. Cox, Ton Kalker, Jean-
the group of 2 — 2 invertible matrices over
Paul, M.G. Linnartz, Matthew L. Miller, C. Brendan,
the ¬nite ¬eld GF( p), with p = 10 007. Camion
and S. Traw (1999). “Copy protection for DVD video.”
Proceedings of the IEEE, 87 (7), 1267“1276. showed how to ¬nd a second preimage using a
[3] Craver, Scott A., Min Wu, Bede Liu, Adam Sub- correcting-block attack that requires 48 correcting
ble¬eld, Ben Swartzlander, Dan S. Wallach, Drew
blocks of 6 bits each [2].
Dean, and Edward W. Felten (2001). “Reading be-
In 1984 Davies and Price [4] proposed a hash
tween the lines: Lessons from the SDMI Chal-
function with the following compression func-
lenge.” 10th Usenix Security Symposium 2002, The
tion f :
USENIX Association 2001, 353“363.
[4] Digital Millenium Copyright Act: http://www.loc f = (Hi’1 • X i )2 mod N ,
.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf
where Xi is the message block, Hi’1 is the chain-
[5] Digital Rights Management: http://www.epic.org/
ing variable, and N is an RSA modulus (see RSA
privacy/drm/
[6] Petitcolas, Fabien A., Ross Anderson, Markus G. digital signature scheme). In order to preclude a
Kuhn (1998). “Attacks on copyright marking sys- correcting block attack, the text input is encoded
tems.” Information Hiding, Lecture Notes in Com- such that the most (or least) signi¬cant 64 bits
puter Science, vol. 1525, ed. D. Aucsmith. Springer- of each block are equal to 0. However, Girault
Verlag, Berlin, 218“238.
[5] has demonstrated that a second preimage can
[7] Secure Digital Music Initiative http://www.sdmi.org
be found using the extended Euclidean algorithm
[8] Trusted Computing Platform Initiative: http://
(see Euclidean algorithm); improved results can
www.trustedcomputing.org
be found in [6].
The 1988 scheme of CCITT X.509 Annex D [8]
tried to remedy this approach by distributing the
redundancy (one nibble in every byte). However,
CORRECTING-BLOCK Coppersmith [3] applied a correcting-block attack
ATTACK to ¬nd two distinct messages X and X such that
h(X ) = 256 · h(X) .
This attack can ¬nd collisions or (second) preim-
This is a highly undesirable property, which
ages for certain classes of hash functions. It con-
a.o. implies that this hash function cannot be
sists of substituting all blocks of the input except
used in combination with a multiplicative digital
for one or more blocks. This attack often applies to
signature scheme such as RSA. In 1998, ISO has
the last block and is then called a correcting-last-
adopted two improved schemes based on modular
block attack, but it can also apply to the ¬rst block
arithmetic (ISO/IEC 10118-4 Modular Arithmetic
or to some blocks in the middle. For a preimage at-
Secure Hash, MASH-1 and MASH-2 [7]), which so
tack, one chooses an arbitrary message X and ¬nds
far have resisted correcting-block attacks.
one or more correcting blocks Y such that h(X Y)
takes a certain value (here denotes concatena-
B. Preneel
tion). For a second preimage attack on the target
message X Y, one chooses X and searches for one References
or more correcting blocks Y such that h(X Y ) =
h(X Y) (note that one may select X = X). For a col- [1] Bosset, J. (1977). “Contre les risques d™alt´ ration,
e
lision attack, one chooses two arbitrary messages un syst` me de certi¬cation des informations.” 01 In-
e
X and X with X = X; subsequently one searches formatique, 107.
for one or more correcting blocks denoted by Y and [2] Camion, P. (1986). “Can a fast signature scheme
Y , such that h(X Y ) = h(X Y). without secret be secure?” Proc. 2nd International
Correlation attack for stream ciphers 103


ORIGINAL CORRELATION ATTACK ON COM-
Conference on Applied Algebra, Algebraic Algo-
BINATION GENERATORS: The correlation attack
rithms, and Error-Correcting Codes, Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, vol. 228, ed. A. Poli. Springer- exploits the existence of a statistical dependence
Verlag, Berlin, 215“241. between the keystream and the output of a single
[3] Coppersmith, D. (1989). “Analysis of ISO/CCITT
constituent LFSR. In a binary combination gener-
document X.509 annex D.” IBM T.J. Watson Center,
ator, such a dependence exists if and only if the
Yorktown Heights, NY. Internal Memo.
output of the combining function f is correlated to
[4] Davies, D. and W.L. Price (1984). “Digital signa-
one of its inputs, i.e., if
tures, an update.” Proc. 5th International Confer-
pi = Pr[ f (x1 , . . . , xn ) = xi ] = 1
ence on Computer Communication, October 1984,
2
845“849.
for some i, 1 ¤ i ¤ n. It equivalently means that
[5] Girault, M. (1988). “Hash-functions using
the keystream sequence s = (st )t≥0 is correlated to
modulo-n operations.” Advances in Cryptology”
the sequence u = (ut )t≥0 generated by the ith con-
EUROCRYPT™87, Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, vol. 304, eds. D. Chaum and W.L. Price. stituent LFSR. Namely, the correlation between
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 217“226. both sequences calculated on N bits
[6] Girault, M. and J.-F. Misarsky (1997). “Selective
N’1
forgery of RSA signatures using redundancy.” Ad-
(’1)st +ut mod 2
vances in Cryptology”EUROCRYPT™97, Lecture
t=0
Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1233, ed. W. Fumy.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 495“507. (where the sum is de¬ned over real numbers)
[7] ISO/IEC 10118 (1998). “Information technology” is a random variable which is binomially dis-
security techniques”hash-functions.” Part 4: Hash- tributed with mean value N(1 ’ 2 pi ) and with
Functions Using Modular Arithmetic, 10118-
variance 4Npi (1 ’ pi ) (when N is large enough).
4:1998.
It can be compared to the correlation between
[8] ITU-T X.500 (1988). “The directory”overview of
the keystream s and a sequence r = (rt )t≥0 in-
concepts.” ITU-T Recommendation X.500 (same as
dependent of s (i.e., such that Pr[st = rt ] = 1/2).
IS 9594-1, 1989).
For such a sequence r, the correlation between s
[9] Preneel, B. (1993). “Analysis and design of cryp-
and r is binomially distributed with mean value 0
tographic hash functions.” Doctoral Dissertation,
and with variance N. Thus, an exhaustive search
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
for the initialization of the ith LFSR can be per-
formed. The value of the correlation enables to dis-
tinguish the correct initial state from a wrong one
CORRELATION ATTACK since the sequence generated by a wrong initial
state is assumed to be statistically independent of
FOR STREAM CIPHERS the keystream. Table 1 gives a complete descrip-
tion of the attack.
The correlation attack for stream ciphers was pro-
In practice, an initial state is accepted if the
posed by Siegenthaler in 1985. It applies to any
magnitude of the correlation exceeds a certain
running-key generator composed of several linear
feedback shift registers (LFSRs). The correlation
Table 1. Correlation attack
attack is a divide-and-conquer technique: it aims
at recovering the initial state of each constituent Input. s0 s1 . . . s N’1 , N keystream bits,
LFSRs separately from the knowledge of some pi = Pr [ f(x1 , . . . , xn ) = xi ] = 1/2.
Output. u0 . . . u Li ’1 , the initial state of the i-th
keystream bits (in a known plaintext attack).
A similar ciphertext only attack can also be constituent LFSR.
For each possible initial state u0 . . . u Li ’1
mounted when there exists redundancy in the
Generate the ¬rst N bits of the sequence u
plaintext (see [3]).
produced by the ith LFSR from the chosen
The original correlation attack presented in [3]
initial state.
applies to some combination generators composed
Compute the correlation between s0 s1 . . . s N’1
of n LFSRs of lengths L1 , . . . , Ln . It enables to
and
recover the complete initialization of the gen- u0 u1 . . . u N’1 :
n
i=1 2 ’ 1 trials instead of
Li
erator with only
n
the i=1 2 Li ’ 1 tests required by an exhaus- N’1
(’1)st +ut mod 2
±←
tive search. Some ef¬cient variants of the origi- i=0
nal correlation attack can also be applied to other
If ± is close to N(1 ’ 2 pi )
keystream generators based on LFSRs, like ¬lter
return u0 u1 . . . u Li ’1
generators (see fast correlation attack for details).
104 Correlation attack for stream ciphers


decision threshold which is deduced from the ex- LFSR 1
pected false alarm probability Pf and the non-
s
LFSR 2
detection probability Pn (see [3]). The required f
.
.
keystream length N depends on the probabil- .
ity pi and on the length Li of the involved LFSR:
for Pn = 1.3 — 10’3 and Pf = 2’Li , the attack LFSR n
correlation
requires
LFSR i1
2
ln(2 Li ’1 ) + 3 2 pi (1 ’ pi ) u
. g
√ .
N .
2( pi ’ 0.5) LFSR ik

running-key bits. Clearly, the attack performs Fig. 1. Correlation attack involving several constituent
2 Li ’1 trials on average where Li is the length of LFSRs of a combination generator
the target LFSR. The correlation attack only ap-
plies if the probability pi differs from 1/2.
function m+1 xi j + µ [1, 4]. Thus, the most ef¬-
j=1
cient correlation attacks that can be mounted rely
CORRELATION ATTACK ON OTHER KEY- on the correlation between the keystream s and
STREAM GENERATORS: More generally, the cor- the sequence u obtained by adding the outputs
relation attack applies to any keystream genera- of LFSRs i1 , i2 , . . . , im+1 . This correlation corres-
tor as soon as the keystream is correlated to the ponds to
output sequence u of a ¬nite state machine whose
1 1
initial state depends on some key bits. These key
Pr[st = ut ] = ’ n+1 | f (t)|,
bits can be determined by recovering the initial- 22
ization of u as follows: an exhaustive search for where n is the number of variables of the combin-
the initialization of u is performed, and the cor- ing function, t is the n-bit vector whose ith com-
rect one is detected by computing the correlation ponent equals 1 if and only if i ∈ {i1 , i2 , . . . , im+1 }
between the corresponding sequence u and the and f denotes the Walsh transform of f (see
keystream. Boolean functions). In order to increase the com-
plexity of the correlation attack, the combining
CORRELATION ATTACK ON COMBINATION function used in a combination generator should
GENERATORS INVOLVING SEVERAL LFSRS: have a high correlation-immunity order and a high
nonlinearity (more precisely, its Walsh coef¬cients
For combination generators, the correlation at-
f (t) should have a low magnitude for all vec-
tack can be prevented by using a combining func-
tors t with a small Hamming weight). For an m-
tion f whose output is not correlated to any of
resilient combining function, the complexity of the
its inputs. Such functions are called ¬rst-order
correlation attack is 2 Li1 +Li2 +···+Lim+1 . It can be sig-
correlation-immune (or 1-resilient in the case
ni¬cantly reduced by using some improved algo-
of balanced functions). In this case, the run-
rithms, called fast correlation attacks.
ning key is statistically independent of the out-
put of each constituent LFSR; any correlation
Anne Canteaut
attack should then consider several LFSRs si-
multaneously. More generally, a correlation at-
References
tack on a set of k constituent LFSRs, namely
LFSR i1 , . . . , LFSR ik , exploits the existence of
a correlation between the running-key s and [1] Canteaut, A. and M. Trabbia (2000). “Improved
fast correlation attacks using parity-check equa-
the output u of a smaller combination genera-
tions of weight 4 and 5.” Advances in Cryptology”
tor, which consists of the k involved LFSRs com-
EUROCRYPT 2000, Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-
bined by a Boolean function g of k variables (see
ence number 1807, ed. B. Preneel. Springer-Verlag,
Figure 1). Since Pr[st = ut ] = Pr[ f (x1 , . . . , xn ) =
Berlin, 573“588.
g(xi1 , . . . , xik )] = pg , this attack only succeeds when
[2] Siegenthaler, T. (1984). “Correlation-immunity of
pg = 1/2. The smallest number of LFSRs that nonlinear combining functions for cryptographic ap-
can be attacked simultaneously is equal to m + plications.” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, IT-30 (5),
1 where m is the highest correlation-immunity 776“780.
order of the combining function. Moreover, the [3] Siegenthaler, T. (1985). “Decrypting a class of
Boolean function g of (m + 1) variables which pro- stream ciphers using ciphertext only.” IEEE Trans.
vides the best approximation of f is the af¬ne Computers, C-34 (1), 81“84.
Correlation immune and resilient boolean functions 105


also have high algebraic degree d —¦ f and high non-
[4] Zhang, M. (2000). “Maximum correlation analysis of
linearity N L( f ) (see Boolean functions). There are
nonlinear combining functions in stream ciphers.”
Journal of Cryptology, 13 (3), 301“313. necessary trade-offs between the number of vari-
ables, the algebraic degree, the nonlinearity, and
the resiliency order of a function.
“ Siegenthaler™s bound [5] states that any m-
resilient function (0 ¤ m < n ’ 1) has algebraic
CORRELATION IMMUNE
degree smaller than or equal to n ’ m ’ 1 and
AND RESILIENT BOOLEAN that any (n ’ 1) resilient function is af¬ne
FUNCTIONS (Siegenthaler also proved that any n-variable
mth order correlation-immune function has de-
gree at most n ’ m).
Cryptographic Boolean functions must be bal-
“ The values of the Walsh transform of an n-
anced (i.e., their output must be uniformly
variable, m-resilient function are divisible by
distributed) for avoiding statistical dependence
2m+2 if m ¤ n ’ 2, cf. [4] (and they are divisi-
between their input and their output (such sta-
n’m’2
tistical dependence can be used in attacks). m+2+
ble by 2 if f has degree d, see [2]).
d

Moreover, any combining function f (x) (see These divisibility bounds have provided non-
combination generator), used for generating the trivial upper bounds on the nonlinearities of re-
pseudorandom sequence in a stream cipher, must silient functions [2, 4], also partially obtained
stay balanced if we keep constant some coordi- in [6, 7]. The nonlinearity of any m-resilient
nates xi of x (at most m of them, where m is as large function is upper bounded by 2n’1 ’ 2m+1 . This
as possible). We say that f is then m-resilient. More bound is tight, at least when m ≥ 0.6n, and any
generally, a (non necessarily balanced) Boolean m-resilient function achieving it also achieves
function, whose output distribution probability is Siegenthaler™s bound (see [6]).
unaltered when any m of its input bits are kept High order resilient functions with high degrees
constant, is called mth order correlation-immune. and high nonlinearities are needed for applica-
The notion of correlation-immune function is re- tions in stream ciphers.
lated to the notion of orthogonal array (see [1]).
Only resilient functions are of practical interest
EXAMPLE [1]. Let r be a positive integer smaller
as cryptographic functions.
than n; denote n ’ r by s; let g be any Boolean
The notion of correlation immunity was intro-
function on F2 s and let φ be a mapping from F2 s to
duced by Siegenthaler in [5]; it is related to an
F2 r . De¬ne the function:
attack on pseudorandom generators using com-
bining functions: if such combining function f is r
f (x, y) = x · φ(y) • g(y) = xi φi (y) • g(y),
not mth order correlation-immune, then there ex- φ,g
ists a correlation between the output of the func- i=1
x ∈ F2 , y ∈ F2 ,
r s
tion and (at most) m coordinates of its input; if (2)
m is small enough, a divide-and-conquer attack
where φi (y) is the ith coordinate of φ(y). Then, if ev-
due to Siegenthaler (see correlation attack for
ery element in φ(F2 s ) has Hamming weight strictly
stream ciphers) and later improved by several au-
greater than k, then f is m-resilient with m ≥ k.
φ,g
thors (see fast correlation attack) uses this weak-
In particular, if φ(F2 ) does not contain the null
s
ness for attacking the system.
vector, then f is balanced.
φ,g
The maximum value of m such that f is m-
resilient is called the resiliency order of f.
Examples of m-resilient functions achieving the
Correlation immunity and resiliency can be
best possible nonlinearity 2n’1 ’ 2m+1 (and thus
characterized through the Walsh transform
the best degree) have been obtained for n ¤ 10 and
f (u) = x∈Fn (’1) f (x)•x·u , see [3]: f is mth order
2
correlation-immune if and only if f (u) = 0 for all for every m ≥ 0.6n (n being then not limited, see
u ∈ F2 n such that 1 ¤ w H (u) ¤ m, where w H de- [6]). They have been constructed by using the fol-
notes the Hamming weight (that is, the num- lowing methods permitting to construct resilient
ber of nonzero coordinates); and it is m-resilient functions from known ones:
r
if and only if f (u) = 0 for all u ∈ F2 n such that [1, 5] Let g be a Boolean function on F2 n .
w H (u) ¤ m. Consider the Boolean function on F2 n+1 :
f (x1 , . . . , xn , xn+1 ) = g(x1 , . . . , xn ) • xn+1 . Then,
It is not suf¬cient for a combining function f,
N L( f ) = 2N L(g) and d —¦ f = d —¦ g if d —¦ g ≥ 1.
used in a stream cipher, to be m-resilient with
If g is m-resilient, then f is (m + 1)-resilient.
large m. As any cryptographic function, it must
106 Covert channels

r [5] Let g and h be two Boolean functions on immune functions.” Proceedings of Selected Areas in
F2 . Consider the function f (x1 , . . . , xn , xn+1 ) =
n Cryptography 2000, Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-
xn+1 g(x1 , . . . , xn ) • ˜(xn+1 • 1)h(x1 , . . . , xn ) on ence, vol. 2012, eds. D.R. Stinson and S.E. Tavares.
Springer, 262“274.
F2 n+1 . Then, N L f ≥ N Lg + N Lh (moreover, if g
and h are such that, for every word a, at least
one of the numbers g(a), h(a) is null, then N L( f )
equals 2n’1 + min(N L(g), N L(h))). COVERT CHANNELS
If the algebraic normal forms of g and h do
not have the same monomials of highest degree, Lampson [8, p. 614] informally speci¬ed a special
then d —¦ f = 1 + max(d —¦ g, d —¦ h). type of communication being:
If g and h are m-resilient, then f is m-
resilient (moreover, if for every a ∈ F2 n of weight Covert channels, i.e. those not intended for in-
m + 1, we have g(a) + h(a) = 0, then f is (m + formation transfer at all, such as the service
1)-resilient; this happens with h(x) = g(x1 • program™s effect on the system load.
1, . . . , xn • 1) • , where = m mod 2, see [1]).
r [6] Let g be any Boolean function on F2 n . A more general de¬nition can be found in [14,
De¬ne the Boolean function f on F2 n+1 by p. 110].
f (x1 , . . . , xn , xn+1 ) = xn+1 • g(x1 , . . . , xn’1 , xn • Covert channels often involve what is called tim-
xn+1 ). Then, N L( f) = 2 N L(g) and d —¦ f = ing channels and storage channels. An example
d —¦ g if d —¦ g ≥ 1. If g is m-resilient, then of a timing channel is the start-time of a pro-
f is m-resilient (and it is (m + 1)-resilient cess. The modulation of disc space is an example
if g(a1 , . . . , an’1 , 1) is null for every vector of a storage channel. Methods that describe how
(a1 , . . . , an’1 ) of weight at most m). covert channels can be fought can, e.g., be found
in [9]. For more information about covert channels,
Claude Carlet
see [1].
Simmons [10] introduced the research on covert
References
channels to the cryptographic community by in-
troducing a special type of channel, which he
[1] Camion, P., C. Carlet, P. Charpin, and N. Sendrier
called a subliminal channel. (Simmons did not
(1992). “On correlation-immune functions.” Ad-
regard these channels as ¬tting the de¬nition
vances in Cryptology”CRYPTO™91, Lecture Notes
of a covert channel.) He observed that covert
in Computer Science, vol. 576, ed. J. Feigenbaum.
Springer, 86“100. data could be hidden within the authenticator
[2] Carlet, C. (2001). “On the coset weight divisibil- of an authentication code [10]. The capacity of
ity and nonlinearity of resilient and correlation- this channel was not large (a few bits per au-
immune functions.” Proceedings of SETA™01 (Se- thenticator), but as Simmons disclosed 10 years
quences and their Applications 2001), Discrete
later [12, pp. 459“462] (see also [13]), the poten-
Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science.
tial impact on treaty veri¬cation and on the na-
Springer, Berlin, 131“144.
tional security of the USA could have been catas-
[3] Xiao, Guo-Zhen and J.L. Massey (1988). “A spectral
trophic.
characterization of correlation-immune combining
In 1987 the concept of subliminal channel was
functions.” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, IT-34 (3), 569“
extended to be hidden inside a zero-knowledge
571.
interactive proof [6]. The concept was generalized
[4] Sarkar, P. and S. Maitra (2000). “Nonlinearity
bounds and constructions of resilient Boolean func- to a hidden channel inside any cryptographic sys-
tions.” Advances in Cryptology”CRYPTO 2000, tem [3, 4]. Mechanisms to protect against sublim-
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1880, ed. inal channels were also presented [3, 4] and rein-
Mihir Bellare. Springer, 515“532. vented 5 years later [11]. Problems with some of
[5] Siegenthaler, T. (1984). “Correlation-immunity of
these solutions were discussed in [5] (see [2]) for a
nonlinear combining functions for cryptographic ap-
more complete discussion.
plications.” IEEE Transactions on Information the-
A subliminal channel in a key-distribution
ory, IT-30 (5), 776“780.
scheme (see key management) could undermine
[6] Tarannikov, Y.V. (2000). “On resilient Boolean func-
key escrow, as discussed in [7]. Kleptography is
tions with maximum possible nonlinearity.” Pro-
the study of how a designer, making a black box
ceedings of INDOCRYPT 2000, Lecture Notes in
cipher, can leak the user™s secret key subliminally
Computer Science, vol. 1977, eds. B.K. Roy and E.
Okamoto. Springer, 19“30. to the designer (see, e.g., [15]).
[7] Zheng, Y. and X.-M. Zhang (2001). “Improving upper
Yvo Desmedt
bound on the nonlinearity of high order correlation
CPS, certi¬cate practice statement 107


References [14] U.S. Department of Defense (1983). Department
of Defense Trusted Computer System Evaluation
Criteria. Also known as the Orange Book.
[1] Bishop, M. (2003). Computer Security. Addison-
[15] Young, A. and M. Yung (1997). “Kleptography:
Wesley, Reading, MA.
Using cryptography against cryptography.” Ad-
[2] Burmester, M., Y.G. Desmedt, T. Itoh, K. Saku-
vances in Cryptology”EUROCRYPT™97, Lecture
rai, H. Shizuya, and M. Yung (1996). “A progress
Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1233, ed. W. Fumy.
report on subliminal-free channels.” Information
Springer-Verlag, Konstanz, Germany, 62“74.
Hiding, First International Workshop, Proceedings,
May 30“June 1 (Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-
ence, vol. 1174, ed. R. Anderson). Springer-Verlag,
Cambridge, UK, 159“168.
[3] Desmedt, Y. (1990). “Abuses in cryptography and
CPS, CERTIFICATE
how to ¬ght them.” Advances in Cryptology”
PRACTICE STATEMENT
CRYPTO™88, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
vol. 403, ed. S. Goldwasser. Springer-Verlag, Santa
Barbara, CA, 375“389.
A Certi¬cation Authority (CA) describes in a Cer-
[4] Desmedt, Y. (1990). “Making conditionally se-
ti¬cate Practice Statement (CPS) the procedures
cure cryptosystems unconditionally abuse-free in
and practices that it employs when managing cer-
a general context.” Advances in Cryptology”
ti¬cates (issuing, revoking, renewing, and rekey-
CRYPTO™89, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
ing). The CPS describes manual processes for se-
vol. 435, ed. G. Brassard. Springer-Verlag, Santa
curely operating the CA and contains information
Barbara, CA, 6“16.
[5] Desmedt, Y. (1996). “Simmons™ protocol is not free on cryptographic aspects, including management
of subliminal channels.” Proceedings: 9th IEEE of the keys used by the CA (see also key manage-
Computer Security Foundations Workshop, June ment). The certi¬cate authority documents in its
10“12. Kenmare, Ireland, 170“175. CPS that it manages certi¬cates according to some
[6] Desmedt, Y., C. Goutier, and S. Bengio (1988). “Spe-
certi¬cate policy (see trust model). The certi¬cate
cial uses and abuses of the Fiat“Shamir passport
policy lists the requirements for the management
protocol.” Advances in Cryptology”CRYPTO™87,
of certi¬cates by the CA and de¬nes the applica-
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 293, ed.
bility of a certi¬cate issued under this policy. The
C. Pomerance. Springer-Verlag, Santa Barbara,
policy might for example indicate that the certi¬-
CA, 21“39.
cate may be used for authenticating the subject
[7] Kilian, J. and T. Leighton (1995). “Failsafe
(holder) in certain types of business transactions.
key escrow, revisited.” Advances in Cryptology”
CRYPTO™95, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, The certi¬cate policy under which a certi¬cate
vol. 963, ed. D. Coppersmith. Springer-Verlag, is issued may be indicated in the certi¬cate. For
Santa Barbara, CA, 208“221. X.509 certi¬cates a speci¬c extension is de¬ned for
[8] Lampson, B.W. (1973). “A note on the con¬nement this purpose. This information allows relying par-
problem.” Comm. ACM, 16 (10), 613“615.
ties to decide whether the certi¬cate may be used
[9] Simmons, G.J. (1983). “Veri¬cation of treaty
in a given situation without knowing the CPS of
compliance-revisited.” Proc. of the 1983 IEEE Sym-
the CA issuing the certi¬cate.
posium on Security and Privacy, April 25“27, 1983.
Whereas the policy lists the requirements for
IEEE Computer Society Press, Oakland, CA, 61“
the CA, the CPS describes how the CA meets these
66.
requirements. Thus the two documents will often
[10] Simmons, G.J. (1983). “The prisoners™ problem and
have similar structures. The certi¬cate policy may
the subliminal channel.” Advances in Cryptology”
CRYPTO™83, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, in particular de¬ne the rules for approving that a
ed. D. Chaum. Plenum Press, New York, 51“67. given CPS satis¬es the policy and for validating
[11] Simmons, G.J. (1993). “An introduction to the that the CA continuously follows the CPS. It may,
mathematics of trust in security protocols.” Pro- for example, be required that an independent au-
ceedings: Computer Security Foundations Work-
ditor initially approves that the CPS complies with
shop VI, June 15“17. IEEE Computer Society
the certi¬cate policy and yearly reviews the pro-
Press, Franconia, NH, 121“127.
cedures actually followed by the CA against the
[12] Simmons, G.J. (1994). “Subliminal channels; past
CPS.
and present.” European Trans. on Telecommunica-
As a consequence, different certi¬cation author-
tions, 5 (4), 459“473.
ities following different certi¬cate practice state-
[13] Simmons, G.J. (1996). “The history of subliminal
ments may issue certi¬cates under the same policy
channels.” Information Hiding, First International
Workshop, Proceedings, May 30“June 1, (Lecture as long as their CPS satis¬es the policy.
Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1174, ed. R. Ander-
Torben Pedersen
son). Springer-Verlag, Cambridge, UK, 237“256.
108 Cramer“Shoup public key system


Reference Cramer and Shoup prove that the system is
IND-CCA2 if the DDH assumption [3] (see Deci-
sional Dif¬e“Hellman problem) holds in G and
[1] RfC2527: Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastruc-
the hash function H is collision resistant. They
ture Certi¬cate Policy and Certi¬cation Practices
Framework. See http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html show that if a successful IND-CCA2 attacker ex-
ists, then (assuming H is collision resistant) one
can construct an algorithm B, with approximately
the same running as the attacker, that decides if
CRAMER“SHOUP PUBLIC a given 4-tuple g, g, a, a ∈ G is a random DDH tu-
ˆ ˆ
KEY SYSTEM ple or a random tuple in G4 . Very brie¬‚y, Algo-
rithm B works as follows: it gives the attacker
a public key for which B knows the private key.
The Cramer“Shoup cryptosystem [6, 8] is the ¬rst
This enables B to respond to the attacker™s de-
public-key cryptography system that is ef¬cient
cryption queries. The given 4-tuple is then used to
and is proven to be chosen ciphertext secure with-
construct the challenge ciphertext given to the at-
out the random oracle model using a standard
tacker. Cramer and Shoup show that if the 4-tuple
complexity assumption. Before describing the sys-
is a random DDH tuple, then the attacker will win
tem we give a bit of history.
the semantic security game with non-negligible
The standard notion of security for a public-key
advantage. However, if the input 4-tuple is a ran-
encryption system is known as semantic security
dom tuple in G4 , then the attacker has zero advan-
under an adaptive chosen ciphertext attack and
tage in winning the semantic security game. This
denoted by IND-CCA2. The concept is due to
behavioral difference enables B to decide whether
Rackoff and Simon [12] and the ¬rst proof that
the given input tuple is a random DDH tuple
such systems exist is due to Dolev et al. [9]. Several
or not.
ef¬cient constructions for IND-CCA2 systems exist
We brie¬‚y mention a number of variants of the
in the random oracle model. For example, OAEP is
system. Ideally, one would like an IND-CCA2 sys-
known to be IND-CCA2 when using the RSA trap-
tem that can be proven secure in two different
door permutation [2, 10]. Until the discovery of
ways: (i) without random oracles it can be proven
the Cramer“Shoup system, there were no ef¬-
secure using the decisional Dif¬e“Hellman as-
cient IND-CCA2 systems that are provably se-
sumption, and (ii) with random oracles it can be
cure under standard assumptions without random
proven secure using the much weaker computa-
oracles.
tional Dif¬e“Hellman assumption. For such a sys-
The Cramer“Shoup system makes use of a
tem, the random oracle model provides a hedge in
group G of prime order q. It also uses a hash
function H : G3 ’ Zq (see also modular arith- case the DDH assumption is found to be false. A
small variant of the Cramer“Shoup system above
metic). We assume that messages to be encrypted
can be shown to have this property [8].
are elements of G. The most basic variant of the
Occasionally, one only requires security against
systems works as follows:
a weak chosen ciphertext attack in which the at-
Key Generation. Pick an arbitrary generator g

of G. Pick a random w in Zq and random x1 , x2 , tacker can only issue decryption queries before be-
y1 , y2 , z in Zq . Set g = gw , e = g x1 g x2 , f = g y1 g y2 ,
ˆ ˆ ˆ ing given the challenge ciphertext [1, 11]. A sim-
h = g . The public key is (g, g, e, f, g, G, q, H)
z ˆ pler version of the Cramer“Shoup system, called
and the private key is (x1 , x2 , y1 , y2 , z, G, q, H). CS-Lite, can be shown to be secure against this
weaker chosen ciphertext attack assuming DDH
Encryption. Given the public key
(g, g, e, f, h, G, q, H) and a message m ∈ G:
ˆ holds in G. This variant is obtained by computing
d as d = eu . There is no need for y1 , y2 , f, or the
1. Pick a random u in Zq .
2. Set a = gu , a = gu , c = hu · m, v = H(a, a, c),
ˆ hash function H. When decrypting we verify that
ˆ ˆ
d = a x1 a x2 in step 2.
d=e f . u uv
ˆ
3. The ciphertext is C = (a, a, c, d) ∈ G4 . Finally, one may wonder how to construct
ˆ
Decryption. To decrypt a ciphertext C = ef¬cient IND-CCA2 systems using an assump-
(a, a, c, d) using the private key (x1 , x2 , y1 , y2 , tion other than DDH. Cramer and Shoup [7]
ˆ
showed that their system is a special case of a
z, G, q, H):
more general paradigm. Using this generaliza-
ˆ
1. Test that a, a, c, d belong to G; output ˜reject™
tion they construct a CCA2 system based on the
and halt if not.
2. Compute v = H(a, a, c) ∈ Zq . Test that d = Quadratic Residuosity assumption modulo a com-
ˆ
x1 +vy1 x2 +vy2
posite. They obtain a more ef¬cient system us-
ˆ
a a ; output ˜reject™ and halt if not.
3. Compute m = c/a z ∈ G and output m as the ing a stronger assumption known as the Pal-
lier assumption. Other constructions for ef¬cient
decryption of C.
Credentials 109


IND-CCA2 systems are given in [4, 5]. Finally, we [11] Naor, Moni and Moti Yung (1990). “Public-key cryp-
tosystems provably secure against chosen cipher-
note that Sahai and Elkind [13] show that the
text attacks.” Proceedings of 22nd ACM Sympo-
Cramer“Shoup system can be linked to the Naor“
sium on Theory of Computing, May 1990, 427“437.
Yung double encryption paradigm [11].
[12] Rackoff, C. and D. Simon (1991). “Noninterac-
tive zero-knowledge proof of knowledge and cho-
Dan Boneh
sen ciphertext attack.” Advances in Cryptology”
CRYPTO™91, Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-
References ence, vol. 576, ed. J. Feigenbaum. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 433“444.
[13] Sahai, Amit and Edith Elkind (2002). “A uni-
[1] Bellare, M., A. Desai, D. Pointcheval, and P. Rog-
¬ed methodology for constructing public-key en-
away (1998). “Relations among notions of security
cryption schemes secure against adaptive chosen-
for public-key encryption schemes.” Advances in
ciphertext attack.” http://eprint.iacr.org/2002/042/
Cryptology”CRYPTO™98, Lecture Notes in Com-
puter Science, vol. 1462, ed. H. Krawczyk. Springer,
Berlin, 26“45.
[2] Bellare, M. and P. Rogaway (1994). “Optimal
CREDENTIALS
asymmetric encryption.” Advances in Cryptology”
EUROCRYPT™94, Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-
ence, vol. 950, ed. A. De Santis. Springer, Berlin,
In a general sense, credentials are something that
92“111.
gives a title to credit or con¬dence. In computer
[3] Boneh, Dan (1998). “The decision Dif¬e“Hellman
systems, credentials are descriptions of privileges
problem.” Proceedings of the 3rd Algorithmic
that are issued by an authority to a subject. The
Number Theory Symposium, Lecture Notes in
privilege may be an access right, an eligibility,
Computer Science, vol. 1423, ed. J.P. Buhler.
or membership (see also privilege management
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 48“63.
[4] Boneh, Dan and Xavier Boyen (2004). “Ef¬cient and access control). Examples from real life are
selective-ID secure identity based encryption with- driver™s licenses, club membership cards, or pass-
out random oracles.” Advances in Cryptology” ports. A credential can be shown to a veri¬er in or-
EUROCRYPT 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer der to prove one™s eligibility or can be used toward
Science, vol. 3027, eds. C. Cachin and J. Camenisch.
a recipient in order to exercise the described privi-
223“238.
lege or receive the described service. The integrity
[5] Canetti, Ran, Shai Halevi, and Jonathan Katz
of a credential scheme relies on the veri¬ers being
(2004). “Chosen-ciphertext security from identity-
able to effectively check the following three condi-
based encryption.” Advances in Cryptology”
tions before granting access or providing service:
EUROCRYPT 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer
1. The credential originates from a legitimate au-
Science, vol. 3027, eds. C. Cachin and J. Camenisch.
thority. For example, the alleged authority is
207“222.
[6] Cramer, Ronald and Victor Shoup (1998). “A known or listed as an approved provider of cre-
practical public key cryptosystem provably se- dentials for the requested service.
cure against adaptive chosen ciphertext attack.” 2. The credential is legitimately shown or used by
Advances in Cryptology”CRYPTO™98, Lecture the respective subject.
Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1462, ed. Hugo
3. The privilege described is suf¬cient for the ser-
Krawczyk. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 13“25.
vice requested.
[7] Cramer, Ronald and Victor Shoup (2002). “Uni-
In centralized systems, credentials are called ca-
versal hash proofs and a paradigm for chosen ci-
pabilities, i.e., descriptions of the access rights
phertext secure public key encryption.” Advances
to certain security critical objects (see access
in Cryptology”EUROCRYPT 2002, Lecture Notes
control). The centralized system manages the is-
in Computer Science, vol. 2332, ed. Lars Knudsen.
suing of capabilities to subjects through a trusted
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 45“64.
[8] Cramer, Ronald and Victor Shoup (2004). “De- issuing process, and all attempts of subjects to ac-
sign and analysis of practical public-key encryption cess objects through a trusted veri¬er, i.e., the ac-
schemes secure against adaptive chosen ciphertext cess enforcement mechanism. If the subject has
attack.” SIAM Journal of Computing, 33 (1), 167“ suf¬cient capabilities assigned, it is allowed to ac-
226.
cess the requested object, otherwise the access is
[9] Dolev, D., C. Dwork, and M. Naor (2000). “Non-
denied. The capabilities and their assignment to
malleable cryptography.” SIAM Journal of Com-
subjects are stored in a central trusted repository,
puting, 30 (2), 391“437.
where they can be looked up by the access enforce-
[10] Fujisaki, Eiichiro, Tatsuaki Okamoto,
ment mechanism. Thus, in centralized systems,
David Pointcheval, and Jacques Stern (2004).
the integrity requirements 1, 2, 3 are enforced by
“RSA-OAEP is secure under the RSA assumption.”
trusted central processes.
J. Cryptology, 17 (2), 81“104.
110 Credentials


In distributed systems there are autonomous Such a system would effectively ban drivers with-
entities acting as issuing authorities, as users who out a valid license, but it could also effectively
get credentials issued or show/use credentials, or monitor the moving of all honest drivers. Consid-
as veri¬ers. Distributed credentials need to sat- erations like this led Chaum [8] to look for privacy
isfy the above integrity requirements even in the in credentials:
presence of one or more cheating users, possi- Unlinkable credentials can be issued and
bly collaborating. In addition, one can be inter- shown/used in such a way that even a coalition
ested in privacy requirements of users against of cheating issuers and veri¬ers has no chance
cheating issuers and veri¬ers, possibly collabo- to determine which issuing and showing/using
rating. David Chaum introduced credentials in or which two showings/usings originate from the
this context of distributed systems in [8]. Dis- same credential (see unlinkability).
tributed credentials have been proposed to repre- Unlinkable credentials also leave the holders
sent such different privileges as electronic cash, anonymous, because if transactions on the same
passports, driver™s licenses, diplomas, and many credential cannot be linked, neither can such
others. Depending on what privilege a credential transactions be linked to the credential holder™s
represents, its legitimate use must be restricted identity. (Otherwise, they were no longer unlink-
appropriately (see integrity requirement 3 above). able.)
The following atomic use restrictions have been In the cryptographic literature, the term cre-
considered in the literature. dential is most often used for nontransferable
Nontransferable credentials cannot be (suc- and unlinkable credentials, i.e., those that are
cessfully) shown by subjects to whom they have irreversibly tied to human individuals, and pro-
not been issued in the ¬rst place. Such creden- tecting the privacy of users. Numerous crypto-
tials could represent nontransferable privileges graphic solutions have been proposed both for con-
such as diplomas or passports. sumable credentials and for personal credentials
Revocable credentials cannot be (successfully) alike. Chaum et al. [14] kicked off the develop-
shown after they have expired or have been ment of consumable credentials. Improvements
revoked. Such credentials could represent re- followed by Chaum et al. [10“12], Chaum and
vocable privileges such as driver™s licenses or Pedersen [15], Cramer and Pedersen [17], Brands
public key certi¬cates commonly used in public [2], Franklin and Yung [21], and others. Brands so-
key infrastructures (PKI). lution achieves overspending prevention by using
Consumable credentials cannot be (success- a wallet-with-observer architecture (see [19] and
fully) shown after they have been used a spec- electronic wallet), overspender detection without
i¬ed number of times. Such credentials could assuming tamper resistant hardware, and uncon-
represent privileges that get consumed when ditional unlinkability of payments also without
you use them, e.g., electronic cash. assuming tamper resistant hardware. Brands so-
More complex use restrictions can be de¬ned lution satis¬ed almost all requirements that had
by combining these atomic use restrictions in been stated by 1992 for ef¬cient of¬‚ine consum-
Boolean formulae. For example, revocable non- able credentials (e-cash) in a surprisingly ef¬cient
transferable credentials could be used as driver™s way.
licenses that expire after a speci¬ed period of, e.g., Naccache and von Solms [23] pointed out later
2 years. that unconditional unlinkability (which implies
A credential scheme is called online if its cre- payer anonymity) might be undesirable in practice
dentials can be shown and used only by involv- because it would allow blackmailing and money
ing a central trusted authority that needs to clear laundering. They suggested to strive for a better
the respective transactions. If the holder and ver- balance between the individuals™ privacy and law
i¬er can do so without involving a third party, the enforcement. This work triggered a number of pro-
credentials scheme is called of¬‚ine. Online cre- posals for consumable credentials with anonymity
dential schemes are regarded as more secure for revocation by Stadler et al. [24], Brickell et al. [4],
the issuers and veri¬ers, while of¬‚ine credential Camenisch et al. [7], and Frankel et al. [20].
schemes are regarded as more ¬‚exible and conve- About the same amount of work has been
nient to customers. done on developing personal credential schemes.
Credentials and their use could carry a lot of per- Quite surprisingly, the problem of nontransfer-
sonal information about their holders. For exam- ability between cheating collaborating individu-
ple, consider an automated toll system that checks als was neglected in many of the early papers
the driver™s license of each car driver frequently by Chaum and Evertse [8, 9, 13] and Chen [16].
but conveniently via wireless road check points. Chen™s credentials are more limited than Chaum™s
Credentials 111


and Evertse™s because they can be shown only tials. Individuals must either transfer all their
˚
once. Damard [18] stated nontransferability as a credentials or none (all-or-nothing nontransfer-
security requirement but the proposed solution ability). They argue that even collaborating at-
did not address nontransferability. Chaum and tackers would refrain from granting each other
Pedersen [15] introduced the wallet-with-observer access to their credit card accounts, when they
architecture and proposed personal credentials to are collaborating only to share, e.g., a driver™s li-
be kept inside wallet databases, i.e., decentral- cense. Obviously, this deterrence from not trans-
ized databases keeping all the privileges of their ferring credentials is quickly neutralized if two or
respective owners. Their proposal only partially more participants mutually transfer credentials
addressed nontransferability by suggesting “dis- to each other. If any of them misuses a credit card
tance bounding protocols” (Brands and Chaum [3]) account of the other, he may experience the same
in order to ensure the physical proximity of a kind of misuse with his own credit card account as
wallet-with-observer during certain transactions. a matter of retaliation. It appears as if this con-
Distance bounding protocols can prevent Ma¬a cept promotes and protects closed groups of crim-
frauds, where the individual present at an organi- inal credential sharers. In addition, it would be
zation connects her device online to the wallet of hard in practice to guarantee that for each in-
another remote individual who holds the required dividual the risk of sharing any particular cre-
credential and then diverts the whole communica- dential is signi¬cantly higher than the respective
tion with the organization to that remote wallet. bene¬ts. Thus, for most real-world applications
Distance bounding cannot, however, discourage such as driver™s licenses, membership cards, or
individuals from simply lending or trading their passports, this deterrence approach to nontrans-
wallets. Lysyanskaya et al. [22] proposed a general ferability would face severe acceptance problems
scheme based on one-way functions and general from the issuers™ and veri¬ers™ perspective. Their
zero-knowledge proofs, which is impractical, and scheme also supports anonymity revocation as an
a practical scheme that has the same limitations option, but at the cost of about a 10-fold increase
as Chen™s: credentials can be shown only once. of computational complexity. Subsequent work by
The fundamental problem of enforcing non- Camenisch and Lysyanskaya [6] also shows how

<<

. 3
( 5)



>>