Certified computer-aided cryptography: efficient provably secure machine code from high-level implementations

We present a computer-aided framework for proving concrete security bounds for cryptographic machine code implementations. The front-end of the framework is an interactive verification tool that extends the EasyCrypt framework to reason about relational properties of C-like programs extended with idealised probabilistic operations in the style of code-based security proofs. The framework also incorporates an extension of the CompCert certified compiler to support trusted libraries providing complex arithmetic calculations or instantiating idealized components such as sampling operations. This certified compiler allows us to carry to executable code the security guarantees established at the high-level, and is also instrumented to detect when compilation may interfere with side-channel countermeasures deployed in source code. We demonstrate the applicability of the framework by applying it to the RSA-OAEP encryption scheme, as standard- ized in PKCS#1 v2.1. The outcome is a rigorous analysis of the advantage of an adversary to break the security of as- sembly implementations of the algorithms specified by the standard. The example also provides two contributions of independent interest: it bridges the gap between computer-assisted security proofs and real-world cryptographic implementations as described by standards such as PKCS,and demonstrates the use of the CompCert certified compiler in the context of cryptographic software development.ONR -Office of Naval Research(N000141210914

Another Look at Automated Theorem-Proving. II

I continue the discussion initiated in part I of whether or not computer-assisted proofs are a promising approach to preventing errors in reductionist security arguments. I examine some recent papers that describe automated security proofs for hashed ElGamal encryption, Boneh-Franklin identity-based encryption, and OAEP

Cryptology in the Crowd

Uhell skjer: Kanskje mistet du nøkkelen til huset, eller hadde PIN-koden til innbruddsalarmen skrevet på en dårlig plassert post-it lapp. Og kanskje endte de slik opp i hendene på feil person, som nå kan påføre livet ditt all slags ugagn: Sikkerhetssystemer gir ingen garantier når nøkler blir stjålet og PIN-koder lekket. Likevel burde naboen din, hvis nøkkel-og-PIN-kode rutiner er heller vanntette, kunne føle seg trygg i vissheten om at selv om du ikke evner å sikre huset ditt mot innbrudd, så forblir deres hjem trygt. Det er tilsvarende for kryptologi, som også lener seg på at nøkkelmateriale hemmeligholdes for å kunne garantere sikkerhet: Intuitivt forventer man at kjennskap til ett systems hemmelige nøkkel ikke burde være til hjelp for å bryte inn i andre, urelaterte systemer. Men det har vist seg overraskende vanskelig å sette denne intuisjonen på formell grunn, og flere konkurrerende sikkerhetsmodeller av varierende styrke har oppstått. Det blir dermed naturlig å spørre seg: Hvilken formalisme er den riktige når man skal modellere realistiske scenarioer med mange brukere og mulige lekkasjer? Eller: hvordan bygger man kryptografi i en folkemengde? Artikkel I begir seg ut på reisen mot et svar ved å sammenligne forskjellige flerbrukervarianter av sikkerhetsmodellen IND-CCA, med og uten evnen til å motta hemmelige nøkler tilhørende andre brukere. Vi finner et delvis svar ved å vise at uten denne evnen, så er noen modeller faktisk å foretrekke over andre. Med denne evnen, derimot, forblir situasjonen uavklart. Artikkel II tar et sidesteg til et sett relaterte sikkerhetsmodeller hvor, heller enn å angripe én enkelt bruker (ut fra en mengde av mulige ofre), angriperen ønsker å bryte kryptografien til så mange brukere som mulig på én gang. Man ser for seg en uvanlig mektig motstander, for eksempel en statssponset aktør, som ikke har problemer med å bryte kryptografien til en enkelt bruker: Målet skifter dermed fra å garantere trygghet for alle brukerne, til å gjøre masseovervåking så vanskelig som mulig, slik at det store flertall av brukere kan forbli sikret. Artikkel III fortsetter der Artikkel I slapp ved å sammenligne og systematisere de samme IND-CCA sikkerhetsmodellene med en større mengde med sikkerhetsmodeller, med det til felles at de alle modellerer det samme (eller lignende) scenarioet. Disse modellene, som går under navnene SOA (Selective Opening Attacks; utvalgte åpningsangrep) og NCE (Non-Committing Encryption; ikke-bindende kryptering), er ofte vesentlig sterkere enn modellene studert i Artikkel I. Med et system på plass er vi i stand til å identifisere en rekke hull i litteraturen; og dog vi tetter noen, etterlater vi mange som åpne problemer.Accidents happen: you may misplace the key to your home, or maybe the PIN to your home security system was written on an ill-placed post-it note. And so they end up in the hands of a bad actor, who is then granted the power to wreak all kinds of havoc in your life: the security of your home grants no guarantees when keys are stolen and PINs are leaked. Nonetheless your neighbour, whose key-and-pin routines leave comparatively little to be desired, should feel safe that just because you can’t keep your house safe from intruders, their home remains secured. It is likewise with cryptography, whose security also relies on the secrecy of key material: intuitively, the ability to recover the secret keys of other users should not help an adversary break into an uncompromised system. Yet formalizing this intuition has turned out tricky, with several competing notions of security of varying strength. This begs the question: when modelling a real-world scenario with many users, some of which may be compromised, which formalization is the right one? Or: how do we build cryptology in a crowd? Paper I embarks on the quest to answer the above questions by studying how various notions of multi-user IND-CCA compare to each other, with and without the ability to adaptively compromise users. We partly answer the question by showing that, without compromise, some notions of security really are preferable over others. Still, the situation is left largely open when compromise is accounted for. Paper II takes a detour to a related set of security notions in which, rather than attacking a single user, an adversary seeks to break the security of many. One imagines an unusually powerful adversary, for example a state-sponsored actor, for whom brute-forcing a single system is not a problem. Our goal then shifts from securing every user to making mass surveillance as difficult as possible, so that the vast majority of uncompromised users can remain secure. Paper III picks up where Paper I left off by comparing and systemizing the same security notions with a wider array of security notions that aim to capture the same (or similar) scenarios. These notions appear under the names of Selective Opening Attacks (SOA) and Non-Committing Encryption (NCE), and are typically significantly stronger than the notions of IND-CCA studied in Paper I. With a system in place, we identify and highlight a number of gaps, some of which we close, and many of which are posed as open problems.Doktorgradsavhandlin

Certified computer-aided cryptography: efficient provably secure machine code from high-level implementations

We present a computer-aided framework for proving concrete security bounds for cryptographic machine code implementations. The front-end of the framework is an interactive verification tool that extends the EasyCrypt framework to reason about relational properties of C-like programs extended with idealised probabilistic operations in the style of code-based security proofs. The framework also incorporates an extension of the CompCert certified compiler to support trusted libraries providing complex arithmetic calculations or instantiating idealised components such as sampling operations. This certified compiler allows us to carry to executable code the security guarantees established at the high-level, and is also instrumented to detect when compilation may interfere with side-channel countermeasures deployed in source code. We demonstrate the applicability of the framework with the RSA-OAEP encryption scheme, as standardized in PKCS#1 v2.1. The outcome is a rigorous analysis of the advantage of an adversary to break the security of assembly implementations of the algorithms specified by the standard. The example also provides two contributions of independent interest: it is the first application of computer-aided cryptographic tools to real-world security, and the first application of CompCert to cryptographic software

Tightly Secure Ring-LWE Based Key Encapsulation with Short Ciphertexts

We provide a tight security proof for an IND-CCA Ring-LWE based Key Encapsulation Mechanism that is derived from a generic construction of Dent (IMA Cryptography and Coding, 2003). Such a tight reduction is not known for the generic construction. The resulting scheme has shorter ciphertexts than can be achieved with other generic constructions of Dent or by using the well-known Fujisaki-Okamoto constructions (PKC 1999, Crypto 1999). Our tight security proof is obtained by reducing to the security of the underlying Ring-LWE problem, avoiding an intermediate reduction to a CPA-secure encryption scheme. The proof technique maybe of interest for other schemes based on LWE and Ring-LWE

Statistical Properties of Short RSA Distribution and Their Cryptographic Applications

International audienceIn this paper, we study some computational security assump-tions involve in two cryptographic applications related to the RSA cryp-tosystem. To this end, we use exponential sums to bound the statistical distances between these distributions and the uniform distribution. We are interesting studying the k least (or most) significant bits of x e mod N , where N is a RSA modulus when x is restricted to a small part of [0, N). First of all, we provide the first rigorous evidence that the cryptographic pseudo-random generator proposed by Micali and Schnorr is based on firm foundations. This proof is missing in the original paper and do not cover the parameters chosen by the authors. Consequently, we extend the proof to get a new result closer to the parameters using a recent work of Wooley on exponential sums and we show some limitations of our technique. Finally, we look at the semantic security of the RSA padding scheme called PKCS#1 v1.5 which is still used a lot in practice. We show that parts of the ciphertexts are indistinguisable from uniform bitstrings

Machine-Checked Proofs of Privacy for Electronic Voting Protocols

International audienceWe provide the first machine-checked proof of privacy-related properties (including ballot privacy) for an electronic voting protocol in the computational model. We target the popular Helios family of voting protocols, for which we identify appropriate levels of abstractions to allow the simplification and convenient reuse of proof steps across many variations of the voting scheme. The resulting framework enables machine-checked security proofs for several hundred variants of Helios and should serve as a stepping stone for the analysis of further variations of the scheme. In addition, we highlight some of the lessons learned regarding the gap between pen-and-paper and machine-checked proofs, and report on the experience with formalizing the security of protocols at this scale

Instantiating Random Oracles via UCEs

This paper provides a (standard-model) notion of security for (keyed) hash functions, called UCE, that we show enables instantiation of random oracles (ROs) in a fairly broad and systematic way. Goals and schemes we consider include deterministic PKE, message-locked encryption, hardcore functions, point-function obfuscation, OAEP, encryption secure for key-dependent messages, encryption secure under related-key attack, proofs of storage and adaptively-secure garbled circuits with short tokens. We can take existing, natural and efficient ROM schemes and show that the instantiated scheme resulting from replacing the RO with a UCE function is secure in the standard model. In several cases this results in the first standard-model schemes for these goals. The definition of UCE-security itself asks that outputs of the function look random given some ``leakage,\u27\u27 even if the adversary knows the key, as long as the leakage is appropriately restricted