Improved Meet-in-the-Middle Attacks on Round-Reduced Crypton-256

The meet-in-the-middle (MITM) attack has prove to be efficient in analyzing the AES block cipher. Its efficiency has been increasing with the introduction of various techniques such as differential enumeration, key-dependent sieve, super-box etc. The recent MITM attack given by Li and Jin has successfully mounted to 10-round AES-256. Crypton is an AES-like block cipher. In this paper, we apply the MITM method to the cryptanalysis of Crypton-256. Following Li and Jin\u27s idea, we give the first 6-round distinguisher for Crypton. Based on the distinguisher as well as the properties of Crypton\u27s simple key schedule, we successfully launch MITM attacks on Crypton-256 reduced to 9 and 10 rounds. For 9-round Crypton-256, our MITM attack can recover the 256-bit key with a time complexity $2^{173.05}$, a memory complexity $2^{241.17}$. For the 10-round version, we give two MITM attacks. The basic attack requires a time complexity $2^{240.01}$ and memory complexity $2^{241.59}$. The time/memory complexity of the advanced MITM attack on 10-round Crypton is $2^{245.05}/2^{209.59}$. Our MITM attacks share the same data complexity $2^{113}$ and their error rates are negligible

(Pseudo) Preimage Attack on Round-Reduced Grøstl Hash Function and Others (Extended Version)

The Grøstl hash function is one of the 5 final round candidates of the SHA-3 competition hosted by NIST. In this paper, we study the preimage resistance of the Grøstl hash function. We propose pseudo preimage attacks on Grøstl hash function for both 256-bit and 512-bit versions, i.e. we need to choose the initial value in order to invert the hash function. Pseudo preimage attack on 5(out of 10)-round Grøstl-256 has a complexity of $(2^{244.85},2^{230.13})$ (in time and memory) and pseudo preimage attack on 8(out of 14)-round Grøstl-512 has a complexity of $(2^{507.32},2^{507.00})$. To the best of our knowledge, our attacks are the first (pseudo) preimage attacks on round-reduced Grøstl hash function, including its compression function and output transformation. These results are obtained by a variant of meet-in-the-middle preimage attack framework by Aoki and Sasaki. We also improve the time complexities of the preimage attacks against 5-round Whirlpool and 7-round AES hashes by Sasaki in FSE~2011

Applying Grover's algorithm to AES: quantum resource estimates

We present quantum circuits to implement an exhaustive key search for the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) and analyze the quantum resources required to carry out such an attack. We consider the overall circuit size, the number of qubits, and the circuit depth as measures for the cost of the presented quantum algorithms. Throughout, we focus on Clifford$+T$ gates as the underlying fault-tolerant logical quantum gate set. In particular, for all three variants of AES (key size 128, 192, and 256 bit) that are standardized in FIPS-PUB 197, we establish precise bounds for the number of qubits and the number of elementary logical quantum gates that are needed to implement Grover's quantum algorithm to extract the key from a small number of AES plaintext-ciphertext pairs.Comment: 13 pages, 3 figures, 5 tables; to appear in: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQCrypto 2016

The (related-key) impossible boomerang attack and its application to the AES block cipher

The Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) is a 128-bit block cipher with a user key of 128, 192 or 256 bits, released by NIST in 2001 as the next-generation data encryption standard for use in the USA. It was adopted as an ISO international standard in 2005. Impossible differential cryptanalysis and the boomerang attack are powerful variants of differential cryptanalysis for analysing the security of a block cipher. In this paper, building on the notions of impossible differential cryptanalysis and the boomerang attack, we propose a new cryptanalytic technique, which we call the impossible boomerang attack, and then describe an extension of this attack which applies in a related-key attack scenario. Finally, we apply the impossible boomerang attack to break 6-round AES with 128 key bits and 7-round AES with 192/256 key bits, and using two related keys we apply the related-key impossible boomerang attack to break 8-round AES with 192 key bits and 9-round AES with 256 key bits. In the two-key related-key attack scenario, our results, which were the first to achieve this amount of attacked rounds, match the best currently known results for AES with 192/256 key bits in terms of the numbers of attacked rounds. The (related-key) impossible boomerang attack is a general cryptanalytic technique, and can potentially be used to cryptanalyse other block ciphers

Estimating the cost of generic quantum pre-image attacks on SHA-2 and SHA-3

We investigate the cost of Grover's quantum search algorithm when used in the context of pre-image attacks on the SHA-2 and SHA-3 families of hash functions. Our cost model assumes that the attack is run on a surface code based fault-tolerant quantum computer. Our estimates rely on a time-area metric that costs the number of logical qubits times the depth of the circuit in units of surface code cycles. As a surface code cycle involves a significant classical processing stage, our cost estimates allow for crude, but direct, comparisons of classical and quantum algorithms. We exhibit a circuit for a pre-image attack on SHA-256 that is approximately $2^{153.8}$ surface code cycles deep and requires approximately $2^{12.6}$ logical qubits. This yields an overall cost of $2^{166.4}$ logical-qubit-cycles. Likewise we exhibit a SHA3-256 circuit that is approximately $2^{146.5}$ surface code cycles deep and requires approximately $2^{20}$ logical qubits for a total cost of, again, $2^{166.5}$ logical-qubit-cycles. Both attacks require on the order of $2^{128}$ queries in a quantum black-box model, hence our results suggest that executing these attacks may be as much as $275$ billion times more expensive than one would expect from the simple query analysis.Comment: Same as the published version to appear in the Selected Areas of Cryptography (SAC) 2016. Comments are welcome