Advertisement

A Generalized Format Preserving Encryption Framework Using MDS Matrices

  • Donghoon Chang
  • Mohona Ghosh
  • Arpan Jati
  • Abhishek KumarEmail author
  • Somitra Kumar Sanadhya
Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

The construction SPF, presented in Inscrypt-2016, was the first known substitution permutation network (SPN)–based format preserving encryption (FPE) algorithm. In this work, we present a new family of SPN-based FPE algorithms “eSPF” that significantly improves the performance and flexibility of SPF. The eSPF uses a MDS matrix instead of the binary matrix used in SPF. The optimal diffusion of MDS matrix leads to an efficient and secure design. However, this change leads to violations in the message format. To mitigate this, we propose a discarding algorithm to drop the symbols that are not the elements of the format thus preserving it. In this work, we propose the general framework of eSPF and then show how our construction can be adapted under different use cases. We provide detailed analysis of eSPF for four popular concrete instantiations—digits , alphabets, case-insensitive alphanumeric, and case-sensitive alphanumeric. We provide security and performance analysis for all these use cases. We also compare our construction with existing FPE algorithms like FFX and SPF and show that the proposed design is approx ten times faster than FFX for most of the practical applications.

Keywords

Format-preserving encryption MDS matrix Cryptanalysis Substitution-permutation network 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Department of Science & Technology, Government of India, for supporting this work under the India-Israel bilateral research project. We are also immensely grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

Funding information

This research is supported by Indo-Israel project of Department of Science & Technology (DST), India.

Supplementary material

41635_2019_65_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (134 kb)
(PDF 133 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Bellare M, Hoang VT, Tessaro S (2016) Message-recovery attacks on Feistel-based format preserving encryption. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2016/794. http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/794
  2. 2.
    Bellare M, Ristenpart T, Rogaway P, Stegers T, Rijmen V, Safavi-Naini R (2009) Format-preserving encryption. In: Jacobson MJ Jr (ed) Selected areas in cryptography, 16th annual international workshop, SAC 2009, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, August 13–14, 2009, Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5867. Springer, pp 295–312Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biham E, Keller N (1999) Cryptanalysis of reduced variants of Rijndael (unpublished manuscript)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biham E, Shamir A (1990) Differential cryptanalysis of DES-like cryptosystems. In: Menezes A, Vanstone SA (eds) Advances in cryptology - CRYPTO ’90, 10th annual international cryptology conference, Santa Barbara, California, USA, August 11–15, 1990, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 537. Springer, pp 2–21Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biham E, Biryukov A, Shamir A (1999) Cryptanalysis of Skipjack reduced to 31 rounds using impossible differentials. In: Stern J (ed) Advances in cryptology - EUROCRYPT ’99, international conference on the theory and application of cryptographic techniques, Prague, Czech Republic, May 2–6, 1999, Proceeding, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1592. Springer, pp 12–23Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biryukov A, Wagner D (2000) Advanced slide attacks. In: Preneel B (ed) Advances in cryptology - EUROCRYPT 2000, international conference on the theory and application of cryptographic techniques, Bruges, Belgium, May 14–18, 2000, Proceeding, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1807. Springer, pp 589–606Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Black J, Rogaway P (2002) Ciphers with arbitrary finite domains. In: Preneel B (ed) Topics in cryptology - CT-RSA 2002, The Cryptographer’S Track at the RSA conference, 2002, San Jose, CA, USA, February 18–22, 2002, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2271. Springer, pp 114–130Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brier E, Peyrin T, Stern J BPS: a format-preserving encryption proposal, NIST (available at http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/BCM/documents/proposedmodes/bps/bps-spec.pdf)
  9. 9.
    Brightwell M, Smith H (1997) Using datatype-preserving encryption to enhance data warehouse security, pp 141–149 (Available at http://csrc.nist.gov/niccs/1997)
  10. 10.
    Chang D, Ghosh M, Gupta KC, Jati A, Kumar A, Moon D, Ray IG, Sanadhya SK (2016) SPF: a new family of efficient format-preserving encryption algorithms. In: Chen K, Lin D, Yung M (eds) Information security and cryptology - 12th international conference, Inscrypt 2016, Beijing, China, November 4–6, 2016, Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10143. Springer, pp 64–83Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang D, Ghosh M, Jati A, Kumar A, Sanadhya SK (2017) espf: a family of format-preserving encryption algorithms using MDS matrices. In: Ali SS, Danger J, Eisenbarth T (eds) Security, privacy, and applied cryptography engineering - 7th international conference, SPACE 2017, Goa, India, December 13–17, 2017, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10662. Springer, pp 133–150Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Conway polynomials for finite fields, howpublished = http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/~frank.luebeck/data/conwaypol/index.html?lang=en
  13. 13.
    Durak FB, Vaudenay S (2017) Breaking the FF3 format-preserving encryption standard over small domains. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/521. http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/521
  14. 14.
    Dworkin M (2016) Recommendation for block cipher modes of operation: methods for format-preserving encryption. NIST Spec Publ 800:38GGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dworkin M NIST Special Publication 800-38A: recommendation for block cipher modes of operation-methods and techniques (December, 2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Granboulan L, Levieil É, Piret G (2006) Pseudorandom permutation families over Abelian groups. In: Robshaw MJB (ed) Fast software encryption, 13th international workshop, FSE 2006, Graz, Austria, March 15–17, 2006, Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4047. Springer, pp 57–77Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoang VT, Morris B, Rogaway P (2012) An enciphering scheme based on a card shuffle. In: Safavi-Naini R, Canetti R (eds) Advances in cryptology - CRYPTO 2012 - 32nd annual cryptology conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 19–23, 2012. Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7417. Springer, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jean J, Nikolic I, Peyrin T (2014) Tweaks and keys for block ciphers: the TWEAKEY Framework. In: Advances in cryptology - ASIACRYPT 2014 - 20th international conference on the theory and application of cryptology and information security, Kaoshiung, Taiwan, R.O.C., December 7–11, 2014, Proceedings, Part II, pp 274–288Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee J, Koo B, Roh D, Kim W, Kwon D (2014) Format-preserving encryption algorithms using families of Tweakable Blockciphers. In: Lee J, Kim J (eds) Information security and cryptology - ICISC 2014 - 17th international conference, Seoul, Korea, December 3–5, 2014, Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8949. Springer, pp 132–159Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liskov M, Rivest RL, Wagner DA (2002) Tweakable block ciphers. In: Yung M (ed) Advances in cryptology - CRYPTO 2002, 22nd annual international cryptology conference, Santa Barbara, California, USA, August 18–22, 2002, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2442. Springer, pp 31–46Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matsui M (1993) Linear cryptoanalysis method for DES cipher. In: Helleseth T (ed) Advances in cryptology - EUROCRYPT ’93, workshop on the theory and application of of cryptographic techniques, Lofthus, Norway, May 23–27, 1993, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 765. Springer, pp 386–397Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morris B, Rogaway P, Stegers T (2009) How to encipher messages on a small domain. In: Halevi S (ed) Advances in cryptology - CRYPTO 2009, 29th annual international cryptology conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 16–20, 2009. Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5677. Springer, pp 286–302Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mouha N, Wang Q, Gu D, Preneel B (2011) Differential and linear cryptanalysis using mixed-integer linear programming. In: Wu C, Yung M, Lin D (eds) Information security and cryptology - 7th international conference, Inscrypt 2011, Beijing, China, November 30–December 3, 2011. Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7537. Springer, pp 57– 76Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ristenpart T, Yilek S (2013) The mix-and-cut shuffle: small-domain encryption secure against N queries. In: Canetti R, Garay JA (eds) Advances in cryptology - CRYPTO 2013 - 33rd annual cryptology conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 18–22, 2013. Proceedings, Part I, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8042. Springer, pp 392–409Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rogaway P Evaluation of some blockcipher modes of operation. http://www.cryptrec.go.jp/estimation/techrep_id2012_2.pdf
  26. 26.
    Schroeppel R, Orman H (1998) The hasty pudding cipher. AES candidate submitted to NIST, p M1Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sheets J, Wagner KR Visa format preserving encryption (VFPE). (NIST submission(2011))Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indraprastha Institute of Information TechnologyDelhiIndia
  2. 2.Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for WomenDelhiIndia
  3. 3.Indian Institute of TechnologyRoparIndia

Personalised recommendations