Reply by karl malbrain December 7, 20042004-12-07
"Clay Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:aAktd.38809$Dm2.10619@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> > Karl, Bryan et. al., > > The guys at Stanford, were able to break the RSA code via a timing attack > over a network within two hours. And that is for a case of using 1000
digit
> numbers. >
Their attack used a timing difference of 10^7 cpu cycles over a local area network. Professor Bernstein's attack uses a timing difference of 1 cpu cycle. karl m
Reply by Clay Turner December 7, 20042004-12-07
"Karl Malbrain" <karl_m@acm.org> wrote in message
news:1102269765.683817.172220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Bryan Olson wrote: > > Bryan Olson wrote: > > > > > > > > Tim Wescott wrote: > > > > [...] This means that if the > > > > variance in your network turn-around time is v, and if the > difference > > > > between message times is t_d, you need to collect somewhere on > the > > order > > > > of N = v / t_d^2 of each type of message if you want to discern > a > > > > difference. > > > > > > I think you mean N = (v / t_d)^2. > > > > Oops, my mistake. The variance is already in seconds^2. > > On a wide area network I estimate the variance is going to run 10^12. > With a DS3 connection of 45mbs that's about 50 years to gather enough > trial encryptions. > > karl m >
Karl, Bryan et. al., The guys at Stanford, were able to break the RSA code via a timing attack over a network within two hours. And that is for a case of using 1000 digit numbers. Clay S. Turner
Reply by Wim Ton December 7, 20042004-12-07
"karl malbrain" <karl_m@acm.org> wrote in message
news:31jqstF396i8vU1@individual.net...
> > "Clay Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:KCKsd.104218$IQ.17698@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > > Hello Randy, > > > > The RSA algo has a similar vunerability and the standard work around was > to > > make the encryption/decryption process a constant time one. > > Do you have any details on this? A web url, for example? > > Thanks, karl m >
Google for "Quisquater" and "RSA". This professor from Belgium has published a lot about timing attacks. Wim
Reply by karl malbrain December 6, 20042004-12-06
"Clay Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:vH3td.36626$Dm2.1889@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> > "karl malbrain" <karl_m@acm.org> wrote in message > news:31jqstF396i8vU1@individual.net... > > > > "Clay Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:KCKsd.104218$IQ.17698@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > > > > Hello Randy, > > > > > > The RSA algo has a similar vunerability and the standard work around
was
> > to > > > make the encryption/decryption process a constant time one. > > > > Do you have any details on this? A web url, for example? > > > > Thanks, karl m > > Hello Karl, > > I think you will find the following paper more than useful. > > http://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/papers/ssl-timing.pdf
Yes, thanks. I'd been stuck in section 5 and hadn't read section 6 yet. karl m
Reply by Clay Turner December 6, 20042004-12-06
"karl malbrain" <karl_m@acm.org> wrote in message
news:31jqstF396i8vU1@individual.net...
> > "Clay Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:KCKsd.104218$IQ.17698@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > > Hello Randy, > > > > The RSA algo has a similar vunerability and the standard work around was > to > > make the encryption/decryption process a constant time one. > > Do you have any details on this? A web url, for example? > > Thanks, karl m
Hello Karl, I think you will find the following paper more than useful. http://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/papers/ssl-timing.pdf Clay S. Turner
Reply by karl malbrain December 6, 20042004-12-06
"Clay Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:KCKsd.104218$IQ.17698@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

> Hello Randy, > > The RSA algo has a similar vunerability and the standard work around was
to
> make the encryption/decryption process a constant time one.
Do you have any details on this? A web url, for example? Thanks, karl m
Reply by karl malbrain December 6, 20042004-12-06
"Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:biYsd.29447$zx1.4950@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Karl Malbrain wrote: > > Over a wide area network the variance is likely 10^12. > > Standing by itself and with no unit, that's not meaningful. Tim > had it right (sorry about my previous confusion):
The unit is cpu cycles squared, estimated.
> The key parameters in this case are the deterministic difference in > turn-around time due to message content and the variance in turn- > around time from the network. > > We can compress this to a single parameter: the signal to noise ratio. > The signal is the expected time difference caused by the key/message > values, and the noise is the standard deviation in the network turn- > around time. Both are in seconds, so the ratio is a unit-less constant.
Professor Bernstein's attack on the Athlon accumulates a 1 cpu-cycle timing difference between trial encryptions -- estimated at a 1 cpu-cycle squared variance.
> In this case, working with noise/signal is a little more convenient > than signal/noise. We expect the signal to become larger than the noise > when the number of messages exceeds the square of the single-message > noise/signal.
> > With a message > > length of 1K bits and a DS3 transfer rate of 45 mbs, that's 45K > > encryptions/second which makes for 50+ years. > > Do you know the optical circuit data rate? karl m > > Those numbers don't really tell us anything. If the standard deviation > in the time is 1000 times as large than the key-dependent effect, then > we expect to need on the order of a million messages.
Right. My point was that over a DS3 line with a timing variance of 10^12 there's not much worry of a remote wide-area-network timing attack. karl m
Reply by Bryan Olson December 6, 20042004-12-06
Karl Malbrain wrote:
 > Over a wide area network the variance is likely 10^12.

Standing by itself and with no unit, that's not meaningful.  Tim
had it right (sorry about my previous confusion):

     The key parameters in this case are the deterministic difference in
     turn-around time due to message content and the variance in turn-
     around time from the network.

We can compress this to a single parameter: the signal to noise ratio.
The signal is the expected time difference caused by the key/message
values, and the noise is the standard deviation in the network turn-
around time.  Both are in seconds, so the ratio is a unit-less constant.

In this case, working with noise/signal is a little more convenient
than signal/noise.  We expect the signal to become larger than the noise
when the number of messages exceeds the square of the single-message
noise/signal.

 > With a message
 > length of 1K bits and a DS3 transfer rate of 45 mbs, that's 45K
 > encryptions/second which makes for 50+ years.
 > Do you know the optical circuit data rate?  karl m

Those numbers don't really tell us anything.  If the standard deviation
in the time is 1000 times as large than the key-dependent effect, then
we expect to need on the order of a million messages.


-- 
--Bryan
Reply by Clay Turner December 5, 20042004-12-05
"Randy Yates" <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:653hpr4e.fsf@ieee.org...
> Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> writes: > > [...] > > I suspect that N may be quite large, and the attack could easily be > > defeated by wrapping your cryptographic algorithm by a process that > > schedules the outgoing message so the reply always takes the same > > amount of time to be sent, no matter how long the actual cryptography > > took. > > Damn, Tim! Why spoil a perfectly good theoretical discussion with > a practical suggestion like that? > --
Hello Randy, The RSA algo has a similar vunerability and the standard work around was to make the encryption/decryption process a constant time one. Clay
Reply by Karl Malbrain December 5, 20042004-12-05
Bryan Olson wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote: > > > > > Tim Wescott wrote: > > > [...] This means that if the > > > variance in your network turn-around time is v, and if the
difference
> > > between message times is t_d, you need to collect somewhere on
the
> order > > > of N = v / t_d^2 of each type of message if you want to discern
a
> > > difference. > > > > I think you mean N = (v / t_d)^2. > > Oops, my mistake. The variance is already in seconds^2.
On a wide area network I estimate the variance is going to run 10^12. With a DS3 connection of 45mbs that's about 50 years to gather enough trial encryptions. karl m