Evaluation of P2P and cloud computing as platform for exhaustive key search on block ciphers

  • JunWeon Yoon
  • TaeYoung Hong
  • JangWon Choi
  • ChanYeol Park
  • KiBong Kim
  • HeonChang Yu
Article
  • 17 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special issue on Convergence P2P Cloud Computing

Abstract

Over the years, parallel computing models have been proposed to solve large-scale application problems. P2P and cloud computing are well-known distributed computing models and have the advantage of running and implementing the parallel computing. Applying the advantages of both models can enhance the benefits of parallel computing. In this paper, we analyze the efficiency of key search algorithm by combining P2P and cloud computing. For our experiment, we apply the key search algorithm in the field of cryptography. The length of the key, which is stable criterion of cryptographic algorithm, is judged according to the amount of exhaustive key search. And the key space required for the whole investigation is easy to divide and is very appropriate for parallel calculation of P2P environment. In addition, cloud computing can provide the fitting environment to meet the various user requirements using virtualization technology. We conduct the following two performance experiments with P2P and cloud computing. First, we propose the method to guarantee the performance in P2P environment based on virtualization. Next, we simulate the performance of the suggested encryption method in the aforementioned system environment. Results reveal effectiveness and validity of the proposed system environment, which can also provide both scalability and flexibility.

Keywords

P2P computing Cloud computing Virtualization Block cipher DES 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI). (Project No. K-18-L01-C02): Construction and Operation of National Supercomputer).

References

  1. 1.
    Meng J, Raghunathan A, Chakradhar ST, Byna S (2010) Exploiting the forgiving nature of applications for scalable parallel execution. IPDPS:1–12Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Godza G, Cristea V (2002) Comparative study of cow and smp computer configurations. PARELEC:205–210Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shirts M, Pande VS (2000) Screen savers of the world unite!. Science 290(5498):1903–1904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rho S, Chang H, Kim S, Lee YS (2015) An efficient peer-to-peer and distributed scheduling for cloud and grid computing. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 8(5):863–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nakamoto S (2008) Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system online under http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2017
  6. 6.
    Crosby M, Nachiappan, Pattanayak P, Verma S, Kalyanaraman V (2015) Blockchain technology: beyond bitcoin. Applied Innovation 2:6–10Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Der Meulen, R (2015) Gartner says 6.4 billion connected “Things” will be in use in 2016, up 30 percent from 2015. Press Release. Online under: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3165317. Accessed 17 May 2017
  8. 8.
    Ricci L, Iosup A, Prodan R (2016) Large scale distributed cooperative environments on clouds and P2P. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 9(6):1126–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibrahim AS, Hamlyn-Harris J, Grundy J (2016) Emerging security challenges of cloud virtual infrastructure arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.09059Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sheikhalishahi M, Wallace RM, Grandinetti L, Vazquez-Poletti JL, Guerriero F (2016) A multi-dimensional job scheduling. Futur Gener Comput Syst 54:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang W et al (2015) RECTANGLE: a bit-slice lightweight block cipher suitable for multiple platforms. SCIENCE CHINA Inf Sci 58(12):1–15Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jain MM, Mr AA (2014) Implementation of hybrid cryptography algorithm. IJCEM 1(3):126–142Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nadeem A, Javed MY (2005) A performance comparison of data encryption algorithms. In Information and communication technologies. ICICT. First international conference 84–89.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICT.2005.1598556
  14. 14.
    Burnett S, Paine S (2001) RSA Security's official guide to cryptography. McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stinson DR (2002) CRYPTOGRAPHY theory and practice, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRCGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mao W (2004) Mordern Crpytography. Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kai H (1993) Advanced computer architecture: parallelism, scalability, programmability. McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Caronni G, Robshaw M (1997) How exhausting is exhaustive search? RSA Laboratories CryptoBytes 2(3):1–6Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keller S, Smid M (1998) Modes of Operation Validation System (MOVS): Requirements and Procedures, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, National Institute Standard Technology, NIST-SP-800-17Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dworkin M (2001) Recommendation for block cipher modes of operation. methods and techniques, National Institute Standard Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, NIST-SP-800-38A. Available at http://www.csrc.nist.gov/encryption/tkmodes.html
  21. 21.
    Quisquater JJ, Standaert F (2005) Exhaustive key search of the DES: update and refinements. Special-purpose Hardware for Attacking Cryptographic Systems. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kocher PC (1999) Breaking DES, RSA Laboratories. Cryptobytes 5(2). Available at https://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/pubs/cryptobytes. Accessed 19 May 2017
  23. 23.
    Dongarra JJ, Meuer HW, Strohmaier E (1996) Top500 supercomputer sites. URL http://www.top500.org/ (updated every 6 months)
  24. 24.
    Yoon JW et al (2015) Stable HPC cluster management scheme through performance evaluation. Computer Science and its Applications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg:1017–1023Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sadooghi I, Martin JH, Li T, Brandstatter L, Maheshwari K, de Lacerda Ruivo TP, Garzoglio G, Timm S, Zhao Y, Raicu I (2017) Understanding the performance and potential of cloud computing for scientific applications. IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing 5(2):358–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gropp W, Lusk E, Skjellum A (1999) Using MPI: portable parallel programming with the message-passing interface 1, MIT pressGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gropp W, Lusk E, Skjellum A (1999) Using MPI: portable parallel programming with the message-passing interface (2nd edition), Scientific and Engineering Computation Series, MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whaley RC (2011) ATLAS (Automatically Tuned Linear Algebra Software). Encyclopedia of Parallel Computing. 95–101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09766-4_85
  29. 29.
    Dunlop D, Varrette S, Bouvry P (2008) on the use of a genetic algorithm in high performance computer benchmark tuning. Performance evaluation of computer and telecommunication systems, 2008. SPECTS 2008. International Symposium on. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tomic D, Gjenero L, Imamagic E (2013) Semidefinite optimization of high performance linpack on is abella cluster. Proceedings of the 35th International Convention MIPROGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen CW, Tsai YR, Wang SJ (2012) Cost-saving key agreement via secret sharing in two-party communication systems. Journal of Convergence 3(4):29–36Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shnha A, Lobiyal DK (2013) Performance evaluation of data aggregation for cluster-based wireless sensor network. Human-Centric Computing and Information Sciences 3(13):1–17Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jeong K (2014) Security analysis of block cipher piccolo suitable for wireless sensor networks. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 7(4):636–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee S, Kim D, Yi J, Ro WW (2012) An efficient block cipher implementation on many-core graphics processing units. Journal of Information Processing Systems 8(1):159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gong Y-J et al (2015) Distributed evolutionary algorithms and their models: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Appl Soft Comput 34:286–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Celesti A et al (2016) Exploring container virtualization in IoT clouds. Smart Computing (SMARTCOMP), 2016 I.E. International Conference:1–6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • JunWeon Yoon
    • 1
    • 2
  • TaeYoung Hong
    • 1
  • JangWon Choi
    • 1
  • ChanYeol Park
    • 1
  • KiBong Kim
    • 3
  • HeonChang Yu
    • 2
  1. 1.Supercomputing Center, KISTIDaejeonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringKorea UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Computer InformationDaejeon Health Institute of TechnologyDaejeonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations