Hacker 2/HACKER2.mdf/cud/cud560.txt

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 43KB | 918 lines

Computer underground Digest    Wed  Aug 11 1993   Volume 5 : Issue 60
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([e-mail])
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Copie Editor: Etaoin Shrdlu, Senior

CONTENTS, #5.60 (Aug 11 1993)
File 1--CuD #5.59 Glitch & Some Belated Thanks from CuD to "helpers"
File 2--Computers, Freedom & Privacy, '94 -- Conference INFO
File 3--Congressional Fellowships for PhD/s-telecommunications
File 4--$50,000 Fine for "Software Theft" (Canadian News)
File 5--SKIPJACK Review  (Encryption Background and Assessment)

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically from [e-mail]. The
editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax [phone])
or U.S. mail at:  Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115.

Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on the PC-EXEC BBS at [phone]; and on: Rune Stone BBS (IIRG
WHQ) [phone] NUP:Conspiracy; RIPCO BBS [phone]
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted
nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE:   from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893;
          In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: [phone]

ANONYMOUS FTP SITES:
  UNITED STATES:  ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud
                  etext.archive.umich.edu (141.211.164.18)  in /pub/CuD/cud
                  halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud
                  aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud
  AUSTRALIA:      ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD.
  EUROPE:         nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud. (Finland)
                  ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud (United Kingdom)

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.  CuD material may  be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission.  It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified.  Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication.  Articles are
preferred to short responses.  Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.

DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
            the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
            responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
            violate copyright protections.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 18:31:44 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--CuD #5.59 Glitch & Some Belated Thanks from CuD to "helpers"

By now, those who receive CuD from the mailing list are aware of a
major glitch that occurred in #5.59. The good news is that the glitch
was *NOT* our error (or even a human error). It was a software glitch
in the mailer, apparently resulting from an overload. It has hopefully
been corrected, but we will likely move to another distribution site
to accommodate the growing list.  We estimate that CuD currently has a
readership of about 80,000, only about 1.8 percent of whom are
on the mailing list, so the glitch did not affect most readers.
Nonetheless, we are embarrassed and regret any inconvenience it
caused.

We're also pleased with the CuD readers' response when they discovered
the glitch. Only one displayed the mildest of pique.  The rest ranged
from a matter of fact "oops" to floor-rolling funny lines. Proving, of
course, what we've suspected all along:  CuD readers are a bright,
gentle, and forgiving lot. The best line comes from Scott Best:

      Of course, if "glitch"'s keep happening, they soon become
      "snafu"'s. And snafus become bugs. And, finally, bugs will
      ulitimately become performance features.

And, while we're at it:

Gordon Meyer and I put out CuD, and--if we run a good issue--we
generally receive a few accolades. But, CuD is actually a collective
enterprise that depends heavily on readers for contributions and other
services. Without them, we couldn't continue.  Some belated thanks to
people who have been helpful over the past few months:

1.  Special enthusiastic gratitudinous thanks to the folks at Central
Michigan University who provided us with a site for mailing out CuDs.
Their patience and assistance have been invaluable in reducing mailing
time and the load on NIU's system.  There have been fewer bounces,
faster delivery, and (we hope) better service.

2. Thanks to Mike Stack, Mike Preis, and the other computer gurus at
NIU who have been helpful in redirecting mail, patient and calm
despite the habitually crashed mailer (prior to the mailserv switch)
and have remained low-key and supportive despite the strain we've
placed on the system. Thanks also to Neil Rickert, just on general
principle. Someday, the NIU administrators may find it in their hearts
to replace WYLBUR, an archaic operating system, but until then, these
guys--along with Phil Rider and others--nurse us along with humor and
invariable magic.

3. Thanks to everybody who sends in articles. We often hear that
somebody didn't send something--such as a news blurb or other
info--because they assumed somebody else would do it. WHEN IT DOUBT,
SEND!  It's better that we have multiple copies of something than
none--so, keep the articles and news blurbs coming. We're especially
in need of local or regional "computer crime" cases that we might not
see in the Chicago or New York papers.

4. Thanks to all the people who complimented us (as well as to those
who offered constructive criticism). And, thanks to those who felt
like flaming but hit the delete key instead.

5. Thanks to the BBS readers who lack Net access, but who nonetheless
send in their contributions via disk or call with information.
Sometimes we can't run it, but the information is crucial to keeping
us informed about the BBS world.

6. We're indebted to a number of individuals and groups who've been
supportive and helpful over the years. These include the LOD crowd,
PHRACK folk, Pat and Bruce at Mindvox (telnet mindvox.phantom.com),
John McMullen for allowing reprints of his piece, Joe Abernathy for
the same, Netta Gilboa of Gray Areas (one of the most promising new
'Zines to come along), Jack Ricard of Boardwatch (an essential 'Zine
for anybody interested in the BBS world), Dark Adept, Kim Clancy, Dr.
Ripco, and many, many others. And, of course, Chenko Kaninovich and
Maggie T. Katt.  These, and others we don't have space to name
(short-term memory loss notwithstanding) have been invaluable over the
years, and we're grateful.

7. Thanks to Bill Cook and the Secret Service, without whom there
would be no Cu-Digest.

There are others we've probably forgotten to acknowledge, so thanks to
all of them.  And, of course, thanks to Pat Townson, CuD's symbolic
progenitor.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 18:31:44 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--Computers, Freedom & Privacy, '94 -- Conference INFO

                   "Computers, Freedom & Privacy '94"
                   George B. Trubow, General Chair
                Timothy R. Rabel, Conference Coordinator

                        John Marshall Law School
                        315 South Plymouth Court
                           Chicago, IL 60604

    e-mail = [e-mail]                        voice = [phone]
                          fax = [phone]
   *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


              Conference Announcement and Call for Papers
                  Computers, Freedom, and Privacy 1994
                            23-26 March 1994

 Announcement

      The fourth annual conference, "Computers, Freedom, and Privacy,"
 will be held in Chicago, Il., March 23-26, 1994.  This conference
 will be jointly sponsored by the Association for Computing Machinery
 (ACM) and The John Marshall Law School.  George B. Trubow, professor
 of law and director of the Center for Informatics Law at The John
 Marshall Law School, is general chairman of the conference.

      The advance of computer and communications technologies holds
 great promise for individuals and society.  From conveniences for
 consumers and efficiencies in commerce to improved public health and
 safety and increased knowledge of and participation in government and
 community, these technologies are fundamentally transforming our
 environment and our lives.

      At the same time, these technologies present challenges to the
 idea of a free and open society.  Personal privacy is increasingly at
 risk from invasions by high-tech surveillance and monitoring; a
 myriad of personal information data bases expose private life to
 constant scrutiny; new forms of illegal activity may threaten the
 traditional barriers between citizen and state and present new tests
 of Constitutional protection; geographic boundaries of state and
 nation may be recast by information exchange that knows no boundaries
 as governments and economies are caught up in global data networks.

      Computers, Freedom, and Privacy '94 will present an assemblage
 of experts, advocates and interested parties from diverse
 perspectives and disciplines to consider the effects on freedom and
 privacy resulting from the rapid technological advances in computer
 and telecommunication science.  Participants come from fields of
 computer science, communications, law, business and commerce,
 research, government, education, the media, health, public advocacy
 and consumer affairs, and a variety of other backgrounds. A series of
 pre-conference tutorials will be offered on March 23, 1994, with the
 conference program beginning on Thursday, March 24, and running
 through Saturday, March 26, 1994.

      The Palmer House, a Hilton hotel located at the corner of State
 Street and Washington Ave. in Chicago's "loop," and only about a
 block from The John Marshall Law School buildings, will be the
 conference headquarters.  Room reservations should be made directly
 with the hotel, mentioning The John Marshall Law School or "CFP'94"
 to get the special conference rate of $99.00, plus tax.

                      The Palmer House Hilton
                17 E. Monroe., Chicago, Il., 60603
       Tel: [phone];  1-800-HILTONS;  Fax [phone]

 Call for Papers and Program Suggestions

      The emphasis at CFP'94 will be on examining the many potential
 uses of new technology and considering recommendations for dealing
 with them.  Specific suggestions to harness the new technologies so
 society can enjoy the benefits while avoiding negative implications
 are solicited.

      Proposals are requested from anyone working on a relevant paper,
 or who has an idea for a program presentation that will demonstrate
 new computer or communications technology and suggest what can be
 done with it.  Any proposal must:  state the title of the paper or
 program; describe the theme and content in a short paragraph; set out
 the credentials and experience of the author or suggested speakers;
 and should not exceed two pages.  If an already completed paper is
 being proposed for presentation, then a copy should be included with
 the proposal.

 Student Papers and Scholarships

      It is anticipated that announcement of a student writing
 competition for CFP'94 will be made soon, together with information
 regarding the availability of a limited number of student
 scholarships for the conference.

 Timetables

      Proposals for papers and programs are being accepted at this
 time.  It is intended that program committees will be finalized by
 August 1, 1993.  Proposals must be received by October 1, 1993.

 Communications

 Conference communications should be sent to:
                              CFP'94
                     The John Marshall Law School
                        315 S. Plymouth Ct.
                         Chicago, IL 60604

 (Voice: 312-987-1419; Fax: [phone]; E-mail: [e-mail])

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 18:29:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--Congressional Fellowships for PhD/s-telecommunications

CONGRESSIONAL FELLOWSHIPS for Ph.D. level scholars of any
discipline who have a demonstrated interest in telecommunications
and in public policy. Candidates must show promise of making a
significant contribution to the public's understanding of the
political process. Ten month program of practical experience on
Capitol Hill begins November 1994 and concludes August 1995.
Application deadline, DECEMBER 1, 1993. Information:  Director,
Congressional Fellowship Program, American Political Science
Association, 1527 New Hampshire Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036.
ph 202-483-2512.

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 10 Aug 93 16:34:27 CDT
From:         Mitch Pravatiner <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 4--$50,000 Fine for "Software Theft" (Canadian News)

The following story from the July 24 _Vancouver Sun_ business section
may be of interest, especially the final paragraph.

                   $50,000 FINE FOR SOFTWARE THEFT

TORONTO--The first corporation in Canada to be charged with software
theft has pleaded guilty and been fined $50,000.

Rexcan Circuits Inc., of Belleville, Ont., has also agreed to submit
to a software audit by the Canadian Alliance Against Software Theft, a
computer industry association.

Related charges against two senior Rexcan executives were dropped.

Rexcan, a circuit board manufacturer employing 200, is a subsidiary of
Kuriko Electrical Industry Co. Ltd of Japan.

Software theft occurs when a single computer disk is used to load
software into more than one computer.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1993 15:23:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail](Dorothy Denning)
Subject: File 5--SKIPJACK Review  (Encryption Background and Assessment)

                            SKIPJACK Review

                             Interim Report

                        The SKIPJACK Algorithm


           Ernest F. Brickell, Sandia National Laboratories
               Dorothy E. Denning, Georgetown University
            Stephen T. Kent, BBN Communications Corporation
                          David P. Maher, AT&T
                  Walter Tuchman, Amperif Corporation

                              July 28, 1993

                            (copyright 1993)


Executive Summary

The objective of the SKIPJACK review was to provide a mechanism whereby
persons outside the government could evaluate the strength of the
classified encryption algorithm used in the escrowed encryption devices
and publicly report their findings.  Because SKIPJACK is but one
component of a large, complex system, and because the security of
communications encrypted with SKIPJACK depends on the security of the
system as a whole, the review was extended to encompass other
components of the system.  The purpose of this Interim Report is to
report on our evaluation of the SKIPJACK algorithm.  A later Final
Report will address the broader system issues.

The results of our evaluation of the SKIPJACK algorithm are as
follows:

  1. Under an assumption that the cost of processing power is halved
     every eighteen months, it will be 36 years before the cost of
     breaking SKIPJACK by exhaustive search will be equal to the cost
     of breaking DES today.  Thus, there is no significant risk that
     SKIPJACK will be broken by exhaustive search in the next 30-40
     years.

  2. There is no significant risk that SKIPJACK can be broken through a
     shortcut method of attack.

  3. While the internal structure of SKIPJACK must be classified in
     order to protect law enforcement and national security objectives,
     the strength of SKIPJACK against a cryptanalytic attack does not
     depend on the secrecy of the algorithm.



1.  Background

On April 16, the President announced a new technology initiative aimed
at providing a high level of security for sensitive, unclassified
communications, while enabling lawfully authorized intercepts of
telecommunications by law enforcement officials for criminal
investigations.  The initiative includes several components:

    A classified encryption/decryption algorithm called "SKIPJACK."

    Tamper-resistant cryptographic devices (e.g., electronic chips),
    each of which contains SKIPJACK, classified control software, a
    device identification number, a family key used by law enforcement,
    and a device unique key that unlocks the session key used to
    encrypt a particular communication.

    A secure facility for generating device unique keys and programming
    the devices with the classified algorithms, identifiers, and keys.

    Two escrow agents that each hold a component of every device unique
    key.  When combined, those two components form the device unique
    key.

    A law enforcement access field (LEAF), which enables an authorized
    law enforcement official to recover the session key.  The LEAF is
    created by a device at the start of an encrypted communication and
    contains the session key encrypted under the device unique key
    together with the device identifier, all encrypted under the family
    key.

    LEAF decoders that allow an authorized law enforcement official to
    extract the device identifier and encrypted session key from an
    intercepted LEAF.  The identifier is then sent to the escrow
    agents, who return the components of the corresponding device
    unique key.  Once obtained, the components are used to reconstruct
    the device unique key, which is then used to decrypt the session
    key.

This report reviews the security provided by the first component,
namely the SKIPJACK algorithm.  The review was performed pursuant to
the President's direction that "respected experts from outside the
government will be offered access to the confidential details of the
algorithm to assess its capabilities and publicly report their
finding."  The Acting Director of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) sent letters of invitation to potential
reviewers.  The authors of this report accepted that invitation.

We attended an initial meeting at the Institute for Defense Analyses
Supercomputing Research Center (SRC) from June 21-23.  At that meeting,
the designer of SKIPJACK provided a complete, detailed description of
the algorithm, the rationale for each feature, and the history of the
design.  The head of the NSA evaluation team described the evaluation
process and its results.  Other NSA staff briefed us on the LEAF
structure and protocols for use, generation of device keys, protection
of the devices against reverse engineering, and NSA's history in the
design and evaluation of encryption methods contained in SKIPJACK.
Additional NSA and NIST staff were present at the meeting to answer our
questions and provide assistance.  All staff members were forthcoming
in providing us with requested information.

At the June meeting, we agreed to integrate our individual evaluations
into this joint report.  We also agreed to reconvene at SRC from July
19-21 for further discussions and to complete a draft of the report.
In the interim, we undertook independent tasks according to our
individual interests and availability.  Ernest Brickell specified a
suite of tests for evaluating SKIPJACK.  Dorothy Denning worked at NSA
on the refinement and execution of these and other tests that took into
account suggestions solicited from Professor Martin Hellman at Stanford
University.  NSA staff assisted with the programming and execution of
these tests.  Denning also analyzed the structure of SKIPJACK and its
susceptibility to differential cryptanalysis.  Stephen Kent visited NSA
to explore in more detail how SKIPJACK compared with NSA encryption
algorithms that he already knew and that were used to protect
classified data.  David Maher developed a risk assessment approach
while continuing his ongoing work on the use of the encryption chip in
the AT&T Telephone Security Device.  Walter Tuchman investigated the
anti-reverse engineering properties of the chips.

We investigated more than just SKIPJACK because the security of
communications encrypted with the escrowed encryption technology
depends on the security provided by all the components of the
initiative, including protection of the keys stored on the devices,
protection of the key components stored with the escrow agents, the
security provided by the LEAF and LEAF decoder, protection of keys
after they have been transmitted to law enforcement under court order,
and the resistance of the devices to reverse engineering.  In addition,
the success of the technology initiative depends on factors besides
security, for example, performance of the chips.  Because some
components of the escrowed encryption system, particularly the key
escrow system, are still under design, we decided to issue this Interim
Report on the security of the SKIPJACK algorithm and to defer our Final
Report until we could complete our evaluation of the system as a
whole.


2.  Overview of the SKIPJACK Algorithm

SKIPJACK is a 64-bit "electronic codebook" algorithm that transforms a
64-bit input block into a 64-bit output block.  The transformation is
parameterized by an 80-bit key, and involves performing 32 steps or
iterations of a complex, nonlinear function.  The algorithm can be used
in any one of the four operating modes defined in FIPS 81 for use with
the Data Encryption Standard (DES).

The SKIPJACK algorithm was developed by NSA and is classified SECRET.
It is representative of a family of encryption algorithms developed in
1980 as part of the NSA suite of "Type I" algorithms, suitable for
protecting all levels of classified data.  The specific algorithm,
SKIPJACK, is intended to be used with sensitive but unclassified
information.

The strength of any encryption algorithm depends on its ability to
withstand an attack aimed at determining either the key or the
unencrypted ("plaintext") communications.  There are basically two
types of attack, brute-force and shortcut.


3.  Susceptibility to Brute Force Attack by Exhaustive Search

In a brute-force attack (also called "exhaustive search"), the
adversary essentially tries all possible keys until one is found that
decrypts the intercepted communications into a known or meaningful
plaintext message.  The resources required to perform an exhaustive
search depend on the length of the keys, since the number of possible
keys is directly related to key length.  In particular, a key of length
N bits has 2^N possibilities.  SKIPJACK uses 80-bit keys, which means
there are 2^80 (approximately 10^24) or more than 1 trillion trillion
possible keys.

An implementation of  SKIPJACK optimized for a single processor on the
8-processor Cray YMP performs about 89,000 encryptions per second.  At
that rate, it would take more than 400 billion years to try all keys.
Assuming the use of all 8 processors and aggressive vectorization, the
time would be reduced to about a billion years.

A more speculative attack using a future, hypothetical, massively
parallel machine with 100,000 RISC processors, each of which was
capable of 100,000 encryptions per second, would still take about 4
million years.  The cost of such a machine might be on the order of $50
million.  In an even more speculative attack, a special purpose machine
might be built using 1.2 billion $1 chips with a 1 GHz clock.  If the
algorithm could be pipelined so that one encryption step were performed
per clock cycle, then the $1.2 billion machine could exhaust the key
space in 1 year.

Another way of looking at the problem is by comparing a brute force
attack on SKIPJACK with one on DES, which uses 56-bit keys.  Given that
no one has demonstrated a capability for breaking DES, DES offers a
reasonable benchmark.  Since SKIPJACK keys are 24 bits longer than DES
keys, there are 2^24 times more possibilities.  Assuming that the cost
of processing power is halved every eighteen months, then it will not
be for another 24 * 1.5 = 36 years before the cost of breaking
SKIPJACK is equal to the cost of breaking DES today.  Given the lack of
demonstrated capability for breaking DES, and the expectation that the
situation will continue for at least several more years, one can
reasonably expect that SKIPJACK will not be broken within the next
30-40 years.

Conclusion 1:   Under an assumption that the cost of processing power
is halved every eighteen months, it will be 36 years before the cost of
breaking SKIPJACK by exhaustive search will be equal to the cost of
breaking DES today.  Thus, there is no significant risk that SKIPJACK
will be broken by exhaustive search in the next 30-40 years.

4.  Susceptibility to Shortcut Attacks

In a shortcut attack, the adversary exploits some property of the
encryption algorithm that enables the key or plaintext to be determined
in much less time than by exhaustive search.  For example, the RSA
public-key encryption method is attacked by factoring a public value
that is the product of two secret primes into its primes.

Most shortcut attacks use probabilistic or statistical methods that
exploit a structural weakness, unintentional or intentional (i.e., a
"trapdoor"), in the encryption algorithm.  In order to determine
whether such attacks are possible, it is necessary to thoroughly
examine the structure of the algorithm and its statistical properties.
In the time available for this review, it was not feasible to conduct
an evaluation on the scale that NSA has conducted or that has been
conducted on the DES.  Such review would require many man-years of
effort over a considerable time interval.  Instead, we concentrated on
reviewing NSA's design and evaluation process.  In addition, we
conducted several of our own tests.

4.1  NSA's Design and Evaluation Process

SKIPJACK was designed using building blocks and techniques that date
back more than forty years.  Many of the techniques are related to work
that was evaluated by some of the world's most accomplished and famous
experts in combinatorics and abstract algebra.  SKIPJACK's more
immediate heritage dates to around 1980, and its initial design to
1987.

SKIPJACK was designed to be evaluatable, and the design and evaluation
approach was the same used with algorithms that protect the country's
most sensitive classified information.  The specific structures
included in SKIPJACK have a long evaluation history, and the
cryptographic properties of those structures had many prior years of
intense study before the formal process began in 1987.  Thus, an
arsenal of tools and data was available.  This arsenal was used by
dozens of adversarial evaluators whose job was to break SKIPJACK.  Many
spent at least a full year working on the algorithm.  Besides highly
experienced evaluators, SKIPJACK was subjected to cryptanalysis by less
experienced evaluators who were untainted by past approaches.  All
known methods of attacks were explored, including differential
cryptanalysis.  The goal was a design that did not allow a shortcut
attack.

The design underwent a sequence of iterations based on feedback from
the evaluation process.  These iterations eliminated properties which,
even though they might not allow successful attack, were related to
properties that could be indicative of vulnerabilities.  The head of
the NSA evaluation team confidently concluded "I believe that SKIPJACK
can only be broken by brute force   there is no better way."

In summary, SKIPJACK is based on some of NSA's best technology.
Considerable care went into its design and evaluation in accordance
with the care given to algorithms that protect classified data.

4.2  Independent Analysis and Testing

Our own analysis and testing increased our confidence in the strength
of SKIPJACK and its resistance to attack.

4.2.1  Randomness and Correlation Tests

A strong encryption algorithm will behave like a random function of the
key and plaintext so that it is impossible to determine any of the key
bits or plaintext bits from the ciphertext bits (except by exhaustive
search).  We ran two sets of tests aimed at determining whether
SKIPJACK is a good pseudo random number generator.  These tests were
run on a Cray YMP at NSA.  The results showed that SKIPJACK behaves
like a random function and that ciphertext bits are not correlated with
either key bits or plaintext bits.  Appendix A gives more details.

4.2.2  Differential Cryptanalysis

Differential cryptanalysis is a powerful method of attack that exploits
structural properties in an encryption algorithm.  The method involves
analyzing the structure of the algorithm in order to determine the
effect of particular differences in plaintext pairs on the differences
of their corresponding ciphertext pairs, where the differences are
represented by the exclusive-or of the pair.  If it is possible to
exploit these differential effects in order to determine a key in less
time than with exhaustive search, an encryption algorithm is said to be
susceptible to differential cryptanalysis.  However, an actual attack
using differential cryptanalysis may require substantially more chosen
plaintext than can be practically acquired.

We examined the internal structure of SKIPJACK to determine its
susceptibility to differential cryptanalysis.  We concluded it was not
possible to perform an attack based on differential cryptanalysis in
less time than with exhaustive search.

4.2.3  Weak Key Test

Some algorithms have "weak keys" that might permit a shortcut
solution.  DES has a few weak keys, which follow from a pattern of
symmetry in the algorithm.  We saw no pattern of symmetry in the
SKIPJACK algorithm which could lead to weak keys.  We also
experimentally tested the all "0" key (all 80 bits are "0") and the all
"1" key to see if they were weak and found they were not.

4.2.4  Symmetry Under Complementation Test

The DES satisfies the property that for a given plaintext-ciphertext
pair and associated key, encryption of the one's complement of the
plaintext with the one's complement of the key yields the one's
complement of the ciphertext.  This "complementation property" shortens
an attack by exhaustive search by a factor of two since half the keys
can be tested by computing complements in lieu of performing a more
costly encryption.  We tested SKIPJACK for this property and found that
it did not hold.

4.2.5  Comparison with Classified Algorithms

We compared the structure of SKIPJACK to that of NSA Type I algorithms
used in current and near-future devices designed to protect classified
data.  This analysis was conducted with the close assistance of the
cryptographer who developed SKIPJACK and included an in-depth
discussion of design rationale for all of the algorithms involved.
Based on this comparative, structural analysis of SKIPJACK against
these other algorithms, and a detailed discussion of the similarities
and differences between these algorithms, our confidence in the basic
soundness of SKIPJACK was further increased.

Conclusion 2:  There is no significant risk that SKIPJACK can be broken
through a shortcut method of attack.


5.   Secrecy of the Algorithm

The SKIPJACK algorithm is sensitive for several reasons.  Disclosure of
the algorithm would permit the construction of devices that fail to
properly implement the LEAF, while still interoperating with legitimate
SKIPJACK devices.  Such devices would provide high quality
cryptographic security without preserving the law enforcement access
capability that distinguishes this cryptographic initiative.
Additionally, the SKIPJACK algorithm is classified SECRET   NOT
RELEASABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS.  This classification reflects the high
quality of the algorithm, i.e., it incorporates design techniques that
are representative of algorithms used to protect classified
information.  Disclosure of the algorithm would permit analysis that
could result in discovery of these classified design techniques, and
this would be detrimental to national security.

However, while full exposure of the internal details of SKIPJACK would
jeopardize law enforcement and national security objectives, it would
not jeopardize the security of encrypted communications.  This is
because a shortcut attack is not feasible even with full knowledge of
the algorithm.  Indeed, our analysis of the susceptibility of SKIPJACK
to a brute force or shortcut attack was based on the assumption that
the algorithm was known.

Conclusion 3:  While the internal structure of SKIPJACK must be
classified in order to protect law enforcement and national security
objectives, the strength of SKIPJACK against a cryptanalytic attack
does not depend on the secrecy of the algorithm.

++++++++++++++++++++++
Appendix in LaTeX
++++++++++++++++++++++
%documentstyle%article%
%textheight 8.25in
%topmargin -.25in
%textwidth 6.5in
%oddsidemargin 0in
%begin%document%
%parskip .25in
%large
%raggedright
%setcounter%page%%8%
%centerline%%bf Appendix A%

%%bf A.1 Cycle Structure Tests%

The first set of tests examined the cycle structure of SKIPJACK.  Fix
a set of keys, $%cal K$, a plaintext, $m$, and a function $h%; : %;
%%cal M% %longrightarrow %%cal K%$, where $%%cal M%$ is the set of all
64 bit messages.  Let $f %; : %; %%cal K% %longrightarrow %%cal K%$ be
defined as $f(k) = h ( SJ(k,m))$ (where $SJ(k,m)$ denotes the SKIPJACK
encryption of plaintext $m$ with key $k$).  Let $N = |%cal K|$.  The
expected cycle length of $f$ is $%sqrt%%pi N /8%$.  We chose sets of
$%cal K$ with $N %; = %; 2^%10%, 2^%16%, 2^%24%, 2^%32%,
2^%40%, 2^%48%, 2^%56%$.  For all of these $N$, the mean of the cycle
lengths computed across all experiments was close to an expected
relative error of
$(1/%sqrt%j%$ for $j$ experiments) of the expected cycle length.
We did not do this test with larger sets of keys because of the time
constraints.

%begin%center%
%begin%tabular%%lrrrrr%
$N$ & %# of exps & Mean cycle len & Expec cycle len &
Rel Err & Expec rel err %%
%hline
$2^%10%$ & 5000 & 20.4 & 20.1 & .019 & .014 %%
$2^%16%$ & 3000 & 164.7 & 160.4 & .027 & .018 %%
$2^%24%$ & 2000 & 2576.6 & 2566.8 & .004 & .022 %%
$2^%32%$ & 2000 & 40343.2 & 41068.6 & .018 & .022 %%
$2^%40%$ & 1000 & 646604.9 & 657097.6 & .016 & .032 %%
$2^%48%$ & 10 & 8,980,043 & 10,513,561 & .145 & .316 %%
$2^%56%$ & 1 & 28,767,197 & 168,216,976 & .829 & 1 %%
%end%tabular%
%end%center%

%%bf A.2 Statistical Randomness and Correlation Tests%

The second set of tests examined whether there were any correlations
between the input and output of SKIPJACK, or between a key and the
output.  We also looked for nonrandomness in functions of the form
$SJ(k,m) %oplus SJ(k,m %oplus h)$ and functions of the form $SJ(k,m) %oplus
SJ(k %oplus h , m)$ for all $h$ of Hamming weight 1 and 2 and for some
randomly chosen $h$.  All results were consistent with these functions
behaving like random functions.

Given a set of $N$ numbers of $k$-bits each, a chi-square test will
test the hypothesis that this set of numbers was drawn (with
replacement) from a uniform distribution on all of the $2^k$, $k$-bit
numbers.  We ran the tests using a 99%% confidence level.  A truly
random function would pass the test approximately 99%% of the time.
The test is not appropriate when $N/2^k$ is too small, say $%leq 5$.
Since it was infeasible to run the test for $k = 64$, we would pick 8
bit positions, and generate a set of $N= 10,000$ numbers, and run the
test on the $N$ numbers restricted to those 8 bit positions (thus
$k=8$).  In some of the tests, we selected the 8 bits from the output
of the function we were testing, and in others, we selected 4 bits
from the input and 4 from the output.

Some of the tests were run on both the encryption and decryption
functions of SKIPJACK.  The notation $SJ^%-1%(k,m)$ will be used to
denote the decryption function of SKIPJACK with key $k$ on message
$m$.

%%bf Test 1: Randomness test on output.  % In a single test: Fix $k$,
fix mask of 8 output bits, select 10,000 random messages, run
chi-square on the 10,000 outputs restricted to the mask of 8 output
bits.  Repeat this single test for 200 different values of $k$ and 50
different masks, for a total of 10,000 chi-square tests.  We found
that .87%% of the tests failed the 99%% confidence level chi-square
test.  This is within a reasonable experimental error of the expected
value of 1%%.  On the decryption function, there were only .64%% of
the tests that failed.  This was on a much smaller test set.

%begin%center%
%begin%tabular%%|c|c|c|c|c|%
%hline
%# $k$  & %# masks &  function, $f(m)$ & mask & %% failed %%
%hline
200 & 50 & $SJ(k,m)$ & 8 of $f(m)$ & .87 %%
%hline
25 & 50 & $SJ^%-1%(k,m)$ & 8 of $f(m)$ & .64 %%
%hline
%end%tabular%
%end%center%

%%bf Test 2: Correlation test between messages and output.%
Single test:  Fix $k$, fix mask of 4 message bits and 4 output bits,
select 10,000 random messages, run chi-square.

%begin%center%
%begin%tabular%%|c|c|c|c|c|%
%hline
%# $k$  & %# masks &  function, $f(m)$ & mask & %% failed %%
%hline
200 & 1000  & $SJ(k,m)$ & 4 of $m$, 4 of $f(m)$ & 1.06 %%
%hline
25 & 1000 & $SJ^%-1%(k,m)$ & 4 of $m$, 4 of $f(m)$ & 1.01 %%
%hline
%end%tabular%
%end%center%

%%bf Test 3: Randomness test on the xor of outputs, given a fixed xor of
inputs.  %
Single test: Fix $k$, fix mask of 8 output bits, select 10,000 random
messages.
Let $%cal H$ be the union of all 64 bit words of Hamming
weight 1 (64 of these), all 64 bit words of Hamming weight 2 (2016 of
these), and some randomly chosen 64 bit words (920 of these).
Repeat this single test for all $h %in %cal H$, 50 different masks,
and  4 different values
of $k$.

%begin%center%
%begin%tabular%%|c|c|c|c|c|c|%
%hline
%# $k$  & %# masks  & %# $h$ &  function, $f(m)$ & mask & %% failed %%
%hline
4 & 50 & 3000 & $SJ(k,m) %oplus SJ(k,m %oplus h)$ & 8 of $f(m)$ & .99 %%
%hline
%end%tabular%
%end%center%


%%bf Test 4: Correlation test between message xors and output xors.  %
Single test: Fix $k$, fix mask of 4 bits of $h$ and 4 bits of output,
select 10,000 random $(m,h)$ pairs.

%begin%center%
%begin%tabular%%|c|c|c|c|c|%
%hline
%# $k$  & %# masks &  function, $f(m,h)$ & mask & %% failed %%
%hline
200 & 1000 & $SJ(k,m) %oplus SJ(k,m %oplus h)$ & 4 of $h$, 4 of $f(m,h)$
& .99 %%
%hline
25 & 1000 & $SJ^%-1%(k,m)  %oplus SJ^%-1%(k,m %oplus h)$ & 4 of $h$, 4 of
$f(m,h)$ & 1.02 %%
%hline
%end%tabular%
%end%center%

%%bf Test 5: Correlation test between messages and output xors.%
Single test: Fix $k$, fix mask of 4 bits of $m$ and 4 bits of output
xor, select 10,000 random messages.  Let $%cal H$ be the union of all
64 bit words of Hamming weight 1 (64 of these), some of the 64 bit
words of Hamming weight 2 (100 of these), and some randomly chosen 64
bit words (100 of these).

%begin%center%
%begin%tabular%%|c|c|c|c|c|c|%
%hline
%# $k$  & %# masks & %# $h$&  function, $f(m)$ & mask & %% failed %%
%hline
2 & 1000 & 264 & $SJ(k,m) %oplus SJ(k,m %oplus h)$ & 4 of $m$, 4 of $f(m)$
& .99 %%
%hline
%end%tabular%
%end%center%

%%bf Test 6: Correlation test between keys and output.%
Single test:  Fix $m$, fix mask of 4 key bits and 4 output bits,
select 10,000 random keys.

%begin%center%
%begin%tabular%%|c|c|c|c|c|%
%hline
%# $m$ & %# masks &  function, $f(k)$ & mask & %% failed %%
%hline
200 & 1000  & $SJ(k,m)$ & 4 of $k$, 4 of $f(k)$ & 1.00 %%
%hline
25 & 1000 & $SJ^%-1%(k,m)$ & 4 of $k$, 4 of $f(k)$ & 1.02 %%
%hline
%end%tabular%
%end%center%

%%bf Test 7: Randomness test on the xor of outputs, given a fixed xor of
keys.  %
Single test: Fix $m$, fix mask of 8 output bits, select 10,000 random
keys.
Let $%cal H$ be the union of all 80 bit words of Hamming
weight 1 (80 of these), all 80 bit words of Hamming weight 2 (3160 of
these), and some randomly chosen 80 bit words (760 of these).
Repeat this single test for all $h %in %cal H$, 50 different masks,
and  2 different values
of $m$.

%begin%center%
%begin%tabular%%|c|c|c|c|c|c|%
%hline
%# $m$ & %# masks  & %# $h$ &  function, $f(k)$ & mask & %% failed %%
%hline
2 & 50 & 4000 & $SJ(k,m) %oplus SJ(k%oplus h,m )$ & 8 of $f(k)$ & .99 %%
%hline
%end%tabular%
%end%center%


%%bf Test 8: Correlation test between key xors and output xors.  %
Single test: Fix $m$, fix mask of 4 bits of $h$ and 4 bits of output,
select 10,000 random $(k,h)$ pairs.

%begin%center%
%begin%tabular%%|c|c|c|c|c|%
%hline
%# $m$ & %# masks &  function, $f(k,h)$ & mask & %% failed %%
%hline
200 & 1000 & $SJ(k,m) %oplus SJ(k%oplus h,m )$ & 4 of $h$, 4 of $f(k,h)$
& 1.02 %%
%hline
25 & 1000 & $SJ^%-1%(k,m) %oplus SJ^%-1%(k%oplus h,m )$ & 4 of $h$, 4
of $f(k,h)$ & 1.1 %%
%hline
%end%tabular%
%end%center%
%end%document%

------------------------------

End of Computer Underground Digest #5.60
************************************


Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253