In: Categories » Electronics and communication » Network security » Asymmetric Cryptography
|
Message authentication using HMACs works just fine, but how do we distribute symmetric cipher keys among the users? We can pass them around on floppies or fancy USB pen-drives with encrypted partitions on them, but what if many users live all over the world? What if the physical key distribution method takes time and the keys must be frequently changed? This is the case with the traditional WEP, which should be rotated every few minutes. Key-encrypting keys (KEKs) were offered as symmetric cipher keys used only to encrypt other symmetric cipher keys before they are distributed. Therefore, only the distribution of KEK is required. Still, how do we distribute the KEK in a secure manner? Won't it become a single point of failure for the whole organization? A model of physical KEK distribution would become very vulnerable to social engineering attacks and we know that social engineering tends to wreak more havoc than all known cracking tools combined (see Mitnick's The Art of Deception (John Wiley & Sons, 2002, ISBN: 0471237124) as a reference). Besides, from a management viewpoint, won't such a system give too much power and responsibility to a small group of people, perhaps even a single person on a technical team? The answer lies in using asymmetric ciphers. One-way hashes are nothing more than fancy symmetric ciphers that take a constant of necessary length as plaintext, enciphered data as a large "key," and run a huge amount of complex rounds to make the decryption unfeasible. Symmetric ciphers are nothing more than sophisticated, modern-day, digital Enigma-style rotor machines. Replace the rotors and cogwheels with CPU registers and available instructions, make them operate in accordance with well-established laws and principles (Shannon, Feistel, etc.), and you will get the idea. Asymmetric ciphers, on the contrary, are based on solving specific mathematical tasks in the world of large numbers. In layman's terms, imagine an equation impossible to solve without a certain variable. That variable is kept secret and is called a private key. The rest of the variables can be given to anyone else to initiate the task; this is called a public key. The algorithm of the equation itself does not have to be secret, and encrypting or decrypting data depends on the success of solving the equation. To get closer to the heart of the problem, imagine a cryptographic hash function that is relatively easy to compute but practically impossible to invert, unless a certain value is known. That value (or, more likely, values) is called a trapdoor. The mathematical relationship between the trapdoor (the basis for the private key) and variables given to the public (the basis for the public key) is very costly to solve, making the deduction of private key from the public one close to impossible if you take into account the computational power of today's machines. This is referred to as a hard problem. As far as the practical implementation of such a mathematical concept goes, mankind came up with three secure hard problems to use: factoring large numbers into prime factors, calculating discrete logarithms in a finite field, and, as a variation of this, calculating elliptic curve discrete logarithms. All these problems have one thing in common: Although conceptually they might not be too difficult to solve, in practice and with current computing power, solving one of these problems might take more time than it takes our universe to expand to the point of collapse and the next Big Bang. Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman proposed the idea of asymmetric cryptography in 1976. Their method was based on calculating discrete logarithms in a finite field. Although it might sound sophisticated to a non-mathematician, in reality the Diffie–Hellman (DH) system is very simple and elegant.
|
legal disclaimer
1) Our website is not responsible for the information contained by this article as well for any and all copyright infringements by authors and writers. E-articles is a free information resource. If you suspect this article for any copyright infringements, please read the Terms of service and contact us to investigate the problem.
2) The E-articles directory team is not responsible for inaccuracies, falsehoods, or any other types of misinformation this tutorial may contain and will not be liable for any loss or damage suffered by a user through the user's reliance on the information gained here. Please read the Terms of service
Useful tools and features
If you like this article (tutorial), please link to it from your web page using the information above. Linking to this page, this is the only way to help us improve our service, the same time providing your visitors with a way to improve their online experience.
related articles
This section takes a few steps to describe the basic principles of the AAA methodology, which is considered to be the fundamental structure behind the Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS). Additionally we briefly identify the functionality and principles of the RADIUS protocol. In the middle of the section we go through the steps required to install, configure, maintain, and monitor your RADIUS services. We conclude with practical implementations of the RADIUS protocol in relation to user authentication on wirele...
2. PDAs Versus Laptops
The first question that beginners ask before assembling their kit is whether a laptop or a PDA should be used for wireless penetration testing of any kind. Our answer is to use both if you can. The main advantage of PDAs (apart from size) is decreased power consumption, letting you cover a significant territory while surveying the site. The main disadvantage is the limited resources, primarily nonvolatile memory. The CPU horsepower is not that important here as we are not cracking AES. Other disadvantages are the limited amount...
3. Cryptographic Hash Functions
Can symmetric cryptography meet the requirements of the Biba model, based on the data integrity checks and proper authentication? The answer is "yes," but in a very inefficient way. Recall the practical authentication example with the UNIX (well, Linux in our case) password encryption flaw when DES in ECB is used. Of course, any of the feedback modes or 128-bit block ciphers can be used instead of DES, with the obvious performance penalties. However, in our example, MD5 scales very well. A cryptographic hash function i...
4. 802.11i Wireless Security Standard and WPA
Thus, the main hope of the international 802.11 community and network administrators lies with the 802.11i standard development. Sometimes 802.11i is referred to as the Robust Security Network (RSN) as compared to traditional security network (TSN). The "i" IEEE task group was supposed to produce a new wireless security standard that should have completely replaced legacy WEP by the end of 2003. In the meantime, some bits and pieces of the incoming 802.11i standard have been implemented by wireless equipment and software vendor...
5. Proprietary Improvements to WEP and WEP Usage
The article devoted to the proprietary and standards-based improvements for currently vulnerable 802.11 safeguards. The most publicized 802.11 vulnerability is the insecurity of WEP. We have already reviewed the cryptographic weaknesses of WEP linked to the key IV space reuse and insecure key-from-string generation algorithm. There are also well-known WEP key management issues: All symmetric cipher implementations suffer secure key distribution problems. WEP is no exception. In the original design,...
6. Penetration Testing as Your First Line of Defense
It is hard to overemphasize the importance of penetration testing in the overall information security structure and the value of viewing your network through the cracker's eyes prior to further hardening procedures. There are a variety of issues specific to penetration testing on wireless networks. First of all, the penetration tester should be very familiar with RF theory and specific RF security problems (i.e., signal leak and detectability, legal regulations pertaining to the transmitter power output, and characteris...
7. Examples and Analysis of Common Wireless Attack Signatures
The best way of knowing these signatures is trying out the tools in question and sniffing out their output: "Attack through defending, defend through attacking" (Dr. Mudge). The best source on wireless network intrusion tool detection and attack signatures we are aware of is Joshua Wright's "Layer 2 Analysis of WLAN Discovery Applications for Intrusion Detection" and "Detecting Wireless LAN MAC Address Spoofing" papers. A large part of this tutorial is inspired by these brilliant articles and our experience of analyzing WLAN tr...
8. Deploying a Wireless IDS Solution for Your WLAN
How many IDS solutions that implement the recommendations and follow the guidelines we have already discussed are present on the modern wireless market? The answer is none. There are many wireless IDS solutions that look for illicit MAC addresses and ESSIDs on the monitored WLAN. Some of these solutions are even implemented as specialized hardware devices. Although something is better than nothing, in our opinion such "solutions" are a waste of both money and time. They might also give you a false sense of security. Let's...
9. Hash Functions Their Performance and HMACs
Other widely used hash functions include 128-bit MD5 from RSA Data Security, Inc., which is a very fast and commonly implemented hash. MD5 is traditionally used to encrypt Linux user passwords (hashes start with the "$1$" character), authenticate routing protocols like RIPv2 and OSPF, create checksums of binaries in RPMs, and verify the integrity of Free/OpenBSD ports files. The specifications of MD5 are available in RFC 1321. Host intrusion detection tools like Tripwire (http://www.tripwire.com) use MD5 to take snapshots of a syst...