Introduction to Computer and Network Security Iliano Cervesato 9 September 2008 – Cryptographic Protocols

2 Where we are  Course intro  Cryptography  Intro to crypto  Modern crypto  Symmetric encryption  Asymmetric encryption  Beyond encryption  Cryptographic protocols  Attacking protocols  Program/OS security & trust  Networks security  Beyond technology

3 Outline  What is a protocol?  Authentication protocols  Other cryptographic protocols  Challenge-response exchanges  Key distribution  Shared-key protocols  Needham-Schroeder shared-key  Denning-Sacco  Public-key protocols  Needham-Schroeder public-key  Diffie-Hellman protocol  station-to-station  Repeated authentication protocols  Neuman-Stubblebine “Cryptography is not broken, it is circumvented” [Shamir]

4 Protocols Expected behaviors when engaging in communication  When 2 people want to talk  Buying something at the souq  Driving conventions  Calling up your friend, …  When interacting with an organization  Bureaucracy  Official visits by head of states, …  …  When computers want to talk

5 Computer Protocols  What sets them apart?  No human involved!  Automated  Inflexible  No common-sense  What protocols are there in a computer?  Hundreds!  Communication protocols  , http, Ethernet, …  Security protocols

6 Security Protocols  Communication protocols ensure that communication actually happens  Security protocols ensure that communication is not abused  Protect contents  Protect communicating parties  Protect intent of communication  Protect possibility of communication

7 Common Security Goals  Confidentiality  Message cannot be observed in transit  Achieved using some form of encryption

8 Authentication  Ensure that we are talking with who we think  Much more subtle than secrecy  How to establish a secret channel in the first place  Negotiate parameters of channel  Ensure channel remains trusted  Authentication protocols

9 Other Security Goals  Non-Repudiation  Party cannot claim he didn’t do it  For auditing, electronic contract signing, …  Non-Malleability  Message cannot be changed en route  For electronic voting, …  Anonymity  Hide who is communicating  Availability  User can always get through  …

10 Security Protocols Encryption provides virtual trusted channels  Security protocols  How to establish, maintain and use these channels  Authentication protocols  How to establish channel in the first place –Negotiate parameters of channel –Ensure that channel is still trusted  Other types of protocols  Using trusted channels for specific purposes –Electronic commerce (e-cash, e-auctions, …) –Electronic voting –Electronic contract signing, … ED This lecture

11 Authentication Protocols  Challenge-response  Verify somebody is at the other end of channel  Key generation  Establish channel  Key distribution  Bind channel ends with requesters  Key translation  Use indirect channels These aspects can be combined

12 Some Notation We abstract from the cryptographic algorithms used  Encryption: {m} k  In particular shared-key encryption  Public-key encryption sometimes written {{m}} k  Authentication: [m] k  In particular for MACs  Digital signatures sometimes written [[m]] k  Usually includes both message and digest  Decryption/verification not modeled explicitly

13 Our Heros  Generic principals  A (Alice)  B (Bob)  C (Charlie), …  Servers  S (Sam)  … specialized names  Trusted-Third Party – TTP  Certification Authority –CA  Key Distribution Center – KDC  …  Attacker  I (intruder)  Also known as  E (Eve – eavesdropper, enemy)  M (Mallory – malicious)  Trudy, ….

14 Challenge-Response Protocols  Given trusted channel  A checks if B is there  Sends challenge to B  Waits for response  Get B to use the channel  By decrypting the challenge  By encrypting the response  … or both  Used to  Test a newly established channel  Verify a previously used channel  Usually part of bigger protocols  Also called authentication test A’s view AB “Hi, it’s me!” “I’m here too!”

15 Guarantying Freshness  Reusing challenges is dangerous  Waste subsequent transmissions  Replay of favorable messages  If channel used to transmit keys  and a previous key k was compromised,  then I can force A to reuse k  Response should be fresh  Nonces  Timestamps  Sequence numbers  Fresh key (with care!)

16 Nonces Random sequence of bits  Typically bit long  Generated fresh by originator as challenge  Unpredictable  Checked in response  Not checked by recipient  Impractical to memorize them  Never reused  But may contribute to keys  E.g. by hashing AB nAnA {n A } k AB AB nAnA AB {n A -1} k AB Challenge-response exchanges using nonces

17 Timestamps Current time in local computer  E.g. in milliseconds  Checkable by recipient  Element of predictability  Recipient must keep most recent timestamps to avoid replay  Requires common time reference  Allow for clock skew  Use secure synchronized clocks  Supports for service time-out AB tAtA {t A } k AB AB tAtA AB {t A -1} k AB Challenge-response exchanges using timestamps

18 Sequence Numbers  Originator maintains counter  Incremented by 1 after each challenge  Must be bound with data that identifies channel  Recipient memorizes most recent value  Rejects values that are too old  Similar to timestamp but  Local to originator or even channel  Cannot be used for timeout AB cAcA {c A } k AB AB cAcA AB {c A -1} k AB Challenge-response exchanges using counters

19 Keys  Initiator generates key k  Sends it encrypted  Recipient responds using k  Other mechanisms needed to guaranty freshness to recipient  Often done through third-party  Achieves key distribution at the same time AB {k} k AB {“Hi!”} k AB Challenge-response exchanges using keys {k} k AS {k} k BS S

20 More on Keys  Long-term keys  Exist before the protocol begins  Do not change across protocol executions  Session keys (or short-term keys)  Generated as part of the protocol  Validity guaranteed till protocol is completed  Could be released when protocol terminates  Could be cryptographically weak  Session (or run)  Protocol execution from start to finish

21 Authentication Assurance to be talking with the expected principal  Challenge-response is a fundamental mechanism  Ensure freshness  If channel is trusted, authenticates recipient to initiator  Mutual authentication  Both party believe they are talking to each other  Done through double challenge-response  Typically 3 messages AB {A,n A } k B {n A,n B } k A {n B } k B Needham-Schroeder public-key protocol (fragment)

22 Key Generation Protocols … A wants to establish channel with B  Shared-key infrastructure  Principals shares a key with a KDC  Public-key infrastructure  Principals have published encryption keys  Diffie-Hellman  Principals know group and generator

23 … with Shared-Key Infrastructure  Each principal has a shared key with KDC S  Ask S to create channel  Create new key k  Distribute k to A and B using k AS and k BS  Examples  Needham-Schroeder shared-key protocol  Otway-Rees, Yahalom, Woo-Lam, … S A B CD … k AS k BS k CS k DS …

24 Needham-Shroeder Shared Key  S creates k AB  1 challenge-response authenticates S to A  2 challenge-response authenticate A and B ASB A,B,n A {n A,B,k AB,{k AB,A} k BS } k AS {k AB,A} k BS {n B } k AB {n B -1} k AB

25 … with Public-Key Infrastructure  Each principal has a certified public key available to others  A and B use k B and k A to communicate securely  Examples  Bilateral key exchange protocol  … CA A B CD … Public data k A, k B, k C, k D

26 Bilateral Key Exchange Protocol  h is a hash function  Certificates could be included  Includes 2 challenge-response exchanges AB A,{n A,B} k B {h(n A ),n B,B,k} k A {h(n B )} k Public data k A, k B

27 … with Diffie-Hellman  Diffie Hellman alone cannot guarantee authentication  Minimum infrastructure required  Public key infrastructure for signatures  Examples  Station-to-station protocol  Found as option in many big protocols  IPSEC, ISAKMP, …

28 Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange Public data p, g A B Choose random a 1  a  p-1 send g a mod p Receive g b mod p (g b ) a = g ab mod p k = h(g ab ) Receive g a mod p Choose random b 1  b  p-1 Send g b mod p (g a ) b = g ab mod p k = h(g ab ) g a mod p g b mod p  A and B produce a shared secret out of nothing  However, no authentication  A has no way to be sure 2 nd message is from B  B has no way to be sure 1 st message is from A

29 Station-to-Station Protocol  This is an authenticated Diffie-Hellman  k’ A and k’ B are public signature keys  Certificates could also be included  g a and g b used for challenge-response  Achieves mutual authentication AB gaga g a,{[g a,g b ] k’ B } k {[g a,g b ] k’ A } k Public data p, g k’ A, k’ B k = g ab

30 Key Distribution Protocols  A and B possess public keys  Registered with certification authority  Certificates not available  Request signed certificates from CA  Examples  Needham-Schroeder public-key protocol  S acts as key database and CA  A and B use nonces for mutual authentication  …

31 Needham-Shroeder Public Key ASB A,B [B,k B ] k’ S {A,n A } k B B,A [A,k A ] k’ S {n A,n B } k A {n B } k B Public data k A, k B

32 Key Translation Protocols  A wants to send message to B … but no server is around to create keys  A exploits existing channels with a trusted third party S  A send m to S encrypted with k AS  S forwards m to B encrypted with k BS  Timestamps or other mechanisms used for authentication  S must be trusted to manipulate them correctly  Examples  Wide-Mouthed Frog protocol

33 Wide-Mouthed Frog Protocol  A generates the key k AB  S provides trusted timestamping  With t A, A authenticates to S  With t S, S authenticates to B  A authenticates to B indirectly  No authentication in the reverse direction ASB A,{t A,B,k AB } k AS {t S,A,k AB } k BS

34 Subprotocols Useful to add structure to protocols  Deterministic choice of continuation  Protocol behaves differently on different inputs  Protocols responds to optional requests  Non-deterministic continuation  Protocol flips a coin  Protocol can request optional behavior  Repeated parts  Repetitive behavior after initial phase  E.g. Neuman-Stubblebine, Kerberos, …

35 Neuman-Subblebine – Initial Part  {A,k AB,t B } k BS is A’s ticket to access B’s service  n A and n B mutually authenticate A and B ASB A,n A B,{A,n A,t B } k BS,n B {B,n A,k AB,t B } k AS,{A,k AB,t B } k BS,n B {A,k AB,t B } k BS,{n B } k AB

36 Neuman-Stubbl. – Repeated Part  A uses ticket to access B’s service  … until it expires  n’ A and n’ B reauthenticate A and B AB {A,k AB,t B } k BS,n’ A n’ B,{n’ A } k AB {n’ B } k AB