Cryptography is an indispensable tool for protecting information in computer systems. In this course you will learn the inner workings of cryptographic systems and how to correctly use them in real-world applications. The course begins with a detailed discussion of how two parties who have a shared secret key can communicate securely when a powerful adversary eavesdrops and tampers with traffic. We will examine many deployed protocols and analyze mistakes in existing systems. The second half of the course discusses public-key techniques that let two parties generate a shared secret key. Throughout the course participants will be exposed to many exciting open problems in the field and work on fun (optional) programming projects. In a second course (Crypto II) we will cover more advanced cryptographic tasks such as zero-knowledge, privacy mechanisms, and other forms of encryption.
PMAC and the Carter-Wegman MAC
Loading...
来自 Stanford University 的课程
Cryptography I
2078 个评分
从本节课中
Message Integrity
Week 3. This week's topic is data integrity. We will discuss a number of classic constructions for MAC systems that are used to ensure data integrity. For now we only discuss how to prevent modification of non-secret data. Next week we will come back to encryption and show how to provide both confidentiality and integrity. This week's programming project shows how to authenticate large video files. Even if you don't do the project, please read the project description --- it teaches an important concept called a hash chain.
与讲师见面
Dan BonehProfessor
Computer Science
In the last two segments we talked about the CBC-MAC and NMAC to convert a PRF for
small messages into a PRF for much larger messages. Those two constructions were
sequential, in the sense that if you had multiple processors you couldn't make the
construction work any faster. In this segment we're gonna look at a parallel MAC
that also converts a small PRF into a large PRF, but does it in a very
parallelizable fashion. In particular we're gonna look at a parallel MAC construction
called PMAC, that uses an underlying PRF to construct a PRF for much larger
messages. In particular, the PRF can process much longer messages that can have
variable length and have as many as L blocks in them. Now the construction works
as follows. We take our message and we break it into blocks. And then we process
each block independently of the other. So, the first thing we do, is we evaluate some
function P and we XOR the result into the first message block, and then we
apply our function F using a key k1. We do the same for each one of the
message blocks and you notice that we can do it all parallel, all message blocks are
processed independently of one another. And we collect all these results into some
final XOR and then we encrypt one more time to get the final tag value. Now for a
technical reason, actually on the very last one. We actually don't need to apply
the PRF F, but as I said, this is just for technical reason, and I'm going to
ignore that for now. Now, I want to explain what the function P is for and
what it does. So imagine, just for a second, that the function P isn't actually
there. That is, imagine we actually, directly feed each message block into the
PRF without applying any other processing to it. Then I claim that the
resulting MAC is completely insecure and the reason is essentially no order is
enforced between the message blocks. In particular, if I swap two message blocks,
that doesn't change the value of the final tag. Because the XOR is commutative, the
tag will be the same whether we swap the blocks or not. As a result, an attacker
can request the tag for a particular message, and then he obtains the tag for a
message where two of the blocks are swapped and that counts as an existential
forgery. So what this function P tries to do is essentially enforce order on these
blocks. And you notice that the function takes, first of all, it's a heed function,
so it takes a key as input. And second of all, more importantly, it takes the block
number as input. In other words, the value of the function is different for
each one of the blocks. And that's actually exactly what's preventing this,
blocks swapping attack. So the function P actually, is a very easy to compute
function. Essentially given the key and the message block, all it is, is just a
multiplication in some finite fields. So it's a very, very simple function to
compute. It adds very little to the running time of PMAC. And yet, it's
enough in ensure that the PMAC is actually secure. As we've said, the key
for PMAC is this pair of keys. One key for the PRF, and one key for this masking
function P. And finally, I'll tell you that if the message length is not a
multiple of the block length. That is, imagine the last block is shorter than
full block length, then PMAC actually uses a padding that's similar to CMAC, so that
there is no need for an additional dummy block, ever. So that's the PMAC
construction and as usual, we can state its security theorem. So the security
theorem, by now, you should be used to it. Essentially, it says that if you give me
an adversary attacking PMAC, I can construct an adversary attacking the
underlying PRF. Plus an additional error term. And so, since again, the PRF is
secure, we know that this term is negligible. And so if we want this term to
be negligible, we know that, we need this error term to also be negligible. Here, as
usual, q is the number of messages that are MAC-ed using a particular key. And L
is the maximum length of all those messages. And PMAC is secure, as long as
its product is less than the square root of the block size. So for A, yes, this would be
two to the 128, and the square root, therefore, would be two to the 64th. So the
MAC would be secure, as long as Q times L is less than two to the 64th. And every time,
as it gets closer to that value, of course, you would have to change the key
in order to continue MAC-ing more messages. So the main thing to remember is
that PMAC also gives us a PRF, and when it processes the message blocks independently
of one another. Turns out that PMAC also has a very interesting property. Namely,
that PMAC math is incremental. So let me explain to you what that means. So suppose
the function F that's used to construct PMAC is not just a PRF, but, in fact, a
permutation, PRP. So we can actually invert it when we need to. Now suppose
we've already computed the MAC for a particularly long message m. And now,
suppose just one message block of this long message changes. So here, m[1] has
changed into m'[1]. But the remaining message blocks all remain the
same. For other MAC-s, like CBC-MAC, even though only one message block changed, you
would have to recompute the tag on the entire message. Recomputing the tag
basically will take time that's proportional to the length of the message.
It turns out, with PMAC, if we only change one block, or a small number of
blocks, actually, we can recompute the value of the tag for the new message very,
very quickly. And let me ask you a puzzle to see if you can figure out how to do
that yourself. And remember, the function F is a PRP, and therefore is invertible.
So let's see if you can figure out how to compute the MAC in the new message by
yourself. So it turns out this can be done. And you can quickly recompute the
tag on the new message using this third line here. Just to make sure we all see
the solution let's quickly go back to the original diagram for PMAC and I can show
you what I mean. So imagine this one message block changed into some other
block, say, it changed into M'[1]. Then what we could do is we can take the tag on
the original message before the change was made. So we can invert the function F, and
determine the value before the function F was applied. Now, well, since we now have
an XOR of a bunch of blocks, what we can do is we can cancel out the XOR
that came from the original message block, basically by XOR-ing this value that came
from the original message block into this XOR-ed accumulator. And then XOR-ing again
the value that would come from the new message block back into the XOR
accumulator. And then apply the function F again. And that will give us the tag for
the new message, where just one block was changed. So in symbols, basically, I wrote
the formula over here. You can see, basically, we decrypt the tag, and then we
XOR with the block that comes from the original message block. We XOR again with
the block that comes from the new message block. And then we re-encrypt the final
XOR accumulator to get the new tag for the message with a one block changed. So
that's kind of a neat property. It kind of shows that if you have very large
messages, you can very quickly update the tag. Of course you would need the secret
key to do the update, but you can quickly update the tag if just a small number of
message blocks changed. Okay, so that concludes our discussion of PMAC. And now
I wanna switch topics a little bit, and talk about the concept of a one time MAC,
which is basically the analog of the one time pad, but in the world of integrity.
So let me explain what I mean by that. So imagine we wanna build a MAC that is only
used for integrity of a single message. In other words, every time we compute the
integrity of a particular message, we also change the key. So that any particular key
is used only for integrity of one message. Then we can define the security game as
basically saying, the attacker's gonna see one message. Therefore, we only allow him
to do one chosen message attack. So he gets to submit one message query, and he
is given the tag corresponding to that one message query. And now his goal is to
forge a message tag pair. Okay, so you can see his goal was to produce one
message tag pair that verifies correctly and is different from the pair that he was
actually given. As we'll see, just like the one time pad and stream ciphers were
quite useful, it turns out one time MAC-s are also quite useful for the same
applications when we only wanna use a key to encrypt or to provide integrity for
just a single message. So as usual we would say that a one time act is secure,
because basically no adversary can win this game. Now the interesting thing is
that one time MAC-s, just like the one time pad can be secure against infinitely
powerful adversaries. And not only that, because they're only designed to be secure
for one time use, they can actually be faster than MAC-s that are based on PRFs.
And so I just wanted to give you a quick example of one one time MAC, this is a
classic construction for a one time MAC, let me show you how it works. The first
step is to pick a prime that's slightly larger than our block size. In this case
we're going to use 128-bit blocks, so let's pick the first prime that's bigger
than two to the 128th. This happens to be two to the 128th plus 51. And now the key
is going to be a pair of random numbers in the range 1 to our prime, so 1 to q. So we
choose two random integers in the range 1 to q. Now we're given a message so we're
going to take our message and break it into blocks where each block is 128 bits,
and we're going to regard each number as an integer in the range 0 to 2 to the
128th minus 1. Now the MAC is defined as follows. The first thing we do is we take
our message blocks and we kind of construct the polynomial out of them. So
if there are L blocks in our message, we're going to construct the polynomial of
degree L and you notice that the constant term of the polynomial is set to zero. And
then we define the MAC very simply. Basically what we do is we take the
polynomial that corresponds to the message, we evaluate it at the point K
that's one half of our secret key, and then we add the value A which is the
second half of our secret key. And that's it. That's the whole MAC. So just
basically construct the polynomial that corresponds to our message, evaluate that
polynomial at half of the secret key, and add the other half of the secret key to
the result, and of course reduce final result modulo q. Okay so that's it, so
the whole MAC, it's a one time secure MAC and we will argue that this MAC is one
time secure, essentially by arguing that if I tell you the value of MAC for one
particular message, that tells you nothing at all about the value of the MAC at
another message. And as a result, even though you've seen the value of the MAC on
a particular message, you have no way of forging this MAC on some other message.
Now I should emphasize that this is a one time MAC, but it's not two time secure. In
other words, if you get to see the value of the MAC on two different messages, that
actually completely compromises the secret key. And you can actually predict a MAC
for a third or fourth message of your choice. So then the MAC becomes forgeable.
But for one time use, it is a perfectly secure MAC, and I'll tell you that in fact
it's a very fast MAC to evaluate. So now that we've constructed one time MAC-s,
turns out there's actually a general technique that will convert one time MAC-s
into many time MAC-s. And I just wanted to briefly show you how that works. So
suppose we have our one time MAC, let's call it S and V for signing and
verification algorithms, and let's just assume that the tags themselves are n bit
strings. In addition, let's also look at a PRF, a secure PRF, that also happens to
output n bit strings but also takes as inputs n bit strings. So let's now define
a general construction for a MAC. These MAC-s are called Carter-Wegman MAC-s that
works as follows. Basically what we would do is we would apply the one time MAC to
the message M and then we're going to encrypt the results using the PRF. So how do
we encrypt the result? Well, we choose a random r and then we compute kind of a
one time path from this r by applying the PRF to it. And then we XOR the result
with the actual one time MAC. So the neat thing about this construction is that the
fast one time MAC is applied to the long message, which could be gigabytes long.
And the slower PRF is only applied to this nonce r, which is then used to
encrypt the final results of the MAC. And you can argue that if the MAC that was
given to us as a building block is a one time secure MAC, and the PRF is secure,
then, in fact, we get a many time secure MAC that happens to output 2n bit tags.
So we're gonna see Carter-Wegman MAC-s later on when we talk about authenticated
encryption. And, in fact, one of the NIST standard methods for doing encryption with
integrity, uses a Carter-Wegman MAC for providing integrity. I want to mention
that this Carter-Wegman MAC is a good example of a randomized MAC where this nonce
r is chosen afresh every time the tag is computed. And so for example if you try to
compute a tag for the same message twice each time you'll choose a different r and
as a result you'll get different tags both times. And so this is a nice example of a
MAC that's actually not a pseudo random function, not a PRF, because a single
message could actually be mapped to many different tags all of which are valid for
that one message. To conclude our discussion on the Carter-Wegman MAC, let me
ask you the following question. Here we have the equation for the Carter-Wegman
MAC. As usual, you see the nonce r as part of the MAC. And the second part of
the MAC I'm gonna denote by t. This is basically the one time MAC applied to the
message M, and then encrypted using the pseudo-random function applied to the
nonce r. So we'll denote the result of this XOR by t. So my question to
you is, given the Carter-Wegman MAC pair r,t for particular message m, how
would you verify that this MAC is valid? And recall that its algorithm V here, is
the verification algorithm for the underlying one time MAC. So this is the
right answer, and to see why, just observe that this XOR here decrypts the quantity t
to its plain text value, which is basically the original underlying one time
MAC. And so we can directly feed that into the verification algorithm for the one
time MAC. The last type of MAC I wanted to tell you about is one that is very
popular in internet protocols. It's called the HMAC. But before we talk about the HMAC we
have to talk about hash functions and in particular, collision resistant hash
functions and we are going to do that in the next module. So this is the end of our
first module on MAC-s and I wanted to point out that there's beautiful theory that
went into constructing all the MAC-s that we saw. I gave you the highlights showed
you the main constructions, but there's really quite a bit of theory that
goes into constructing these MAC-s, and if you'd like to learn more about that, I
listed a couple of key papers you might want to look at. Let me quickly tell you what they
are. The first one is, what's called the three key construction, which is the basis
of CMAC. A very elegant paper that give a very efficient construction out of CBC-MAC.
The second paper is a more technical paper, but basically shows how to prove
that bounds of CBC-MAC as a PRF. The third paper talks about PMAC and its
construction. Again, a very acute paper. The fourth paper talks about security of
NMAC and HMAC as well. HMAC we're going to cover in, the next module. The last paper
I listed asks an intriguing question. Recall that all of our constructions, we
always assume that AES is a pseudo-random function for sixteen byte messages and we
then built a pseudo-random function and therefore a MAC for much longer messages.
This paper says well, what do we do if AES is not a pseudo-random function, but still
satisfies some weaker security property called an unpredictable function. And then
they ask if AES is only an unpredictable function, but not a pseudo-random
function, can we still build MAC-s for long messages? And so they succeed in actually
giving constructions just based on the weaker assumption that AES is an
unpredictable function. But their constructions are far less sufficient than
CBC-MAC or NMAC, or PMAC that we discussed in these segments. And so if you're
interested in a different perspective on how to build MAC-s from block ciphers like
AES, please take a look at this paper. And there are actually some nice open
questions to work on in this area. So this concludes our first segment on integrity.
And in the next segment, we're gonna talk about collision resistance.
