In: Categories » Electronics and communication » Network security » 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 is an algorithm that takes a message of custom length and produces a fixed-length output, called a fingerprint or message digest. Cryptographic hash functions are also called one-way functions, because they are designed in such a way that obtaining the original plaintext is nearly impossible and truly computationally unfeasible (in theory, anyway). A good example of practical one-way function use is packet integrity preservation. Traditional insecure packet or frame checksums are usually calculated as the bit length of a protocol data unit (PDU) divided by a prime number. A cracker can modify the data inside of the packet and easily adjust the checksum to match the new packet content. With a cryptographic hash function substituting the checksum, such a task is simply impossible as long as the hash function is strong and correctly implemented. Many packets will pass until the cracker eventually gets the job done and, most likely by that time the packet's protocol will become obsolete. An example of such improvement is Michael (MIC) in TKIP, which replaces a traditional CRC-32-style integrity check vector (ICV) used by WEP. Michael is not exactly a one-way hash; it is closer to the hash-based message authentication codes (HMACs), which we review later. The design of a strong cryptographic hash function depends on the size of its output (the larger, the better, but using huge data fingerprints is impractical) and avoiding collisions. A collision is a condition in which you can find two different strings of data (messages) that produce the same hash function output: if x != x', hash(x) = hash(x'). If a collision is possible, then x can be successfully replaced by x', and a whole class of attacks on the function, called birthday attacks, becomes possible. Birthday attacks are based on a well-known statistical problem known as the birthday paradox. You need an estimated 253 people in the room for the chance to be greater than even that one of them shares your birthday. However, you need only 23 people in the room for the chance to be greater than even that at least two of them share the same birthday. That is because with only 23 people in the room, there are still 253 different pairs of people present! How does one brute-force a hash function? By taking various data (usually a dictionary), hashing it with the same function, and diffing the result with the hash you brute-force until you get the same hash. If you have to brute-force 2x messages, but find two messages that hash to the same value, you have to brute-force 2^(x/2) messages, a huge difference!
|
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
The next point in our security policy checklist is network positioning and separation. If there is a single access point or wireless bridge on the network, its deployment is straightforward: Plug the IP address into the WAN interface of an appropriately configured firewalling device. Such a device can be a sophisticated commercial wireless gateway, a configured common OS-based firewall, or even a SOHO firewall such as Cisco PIX 501 or Nokia SonicWall. However, if multiple access points are deployed and users are allowed to roam ...
2. RADIUS
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...
3. 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...
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. 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...
8. 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...
9. 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...
10. 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...