Advertisement

Beyond Provable Security Verifiable IND-CCA Security of OAEP

  • Gilles Barthe
  • Benjamin Grégoire
  • Yassine Lakhnech
  • Santiago Zanella Béguelin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6558)

Abstract

OAEP is a widely used public-key encryption scheme based on trapdoor permutations. Its security proof has been scrutinized and amended repeatedly. Fifteen years after the introduction of OAEP, we present a machine-checked proof of its security against adaptive chosen-ciphertext attacks under the assumption that the underlying permutation is partial-domain one-way. The proof can be independently verified by running a small and trustworthy proof checker and fixes minor glitches that have subsisted in published proofs. We provide an overview of the proof, highlight the differences with earlier works, and explain in some detail a crucial step in the reduction: the elimination of indirect queries made by the adversary to random oracles via the decryption oracle. We also provide—within the limits of a conference paper—a broader perspective on independently verifiable security proofs.

Keywords

Random Oracle Proof Assistant Security Proof Provable Security Cryptology ePrint Archive 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Affeldt, R., Tanaka, M., Marti, N.: Formal proof of provable security by game-playing in a proof assistant. In: Susilo, W., Liu, J.K., Mu, Y. (eds.) ProvSec 2007. LNCS, vol. 4784, pp. 151–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Audebaud, P., Paulin-Mohring, C.: Proofs of randomized algorithms in Coq. Sci. Comput. Program. 74(8), 568–589 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Backes, M., Berg, M., Unruh, D.: A formal language for cryptographic pseudocode. In: Cervesato, I., Veith, H., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5330, pp. 353–376. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Backes, M., Dürmuth, M., Unruh, D.: OAEP is secure under key-dependent messages. In: Pieprzyk, J. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5350, pp. 506–523. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barthe, G., Daubignard, M., Kapron, B., Lakhnech, Y.: Computational indistinguishability logic. In: 17th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2010. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barthe, G., Grégoire, B., Zanella Béguelin, S.: Formal certification of code-based cryptographic proofs. In: 36th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2009, pp. 90–101. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barthe, G., Grégoire, B., Zanella Béguelin, S.: Programming language techniques for cryptographic proofs. In: Kaufmann, M., Paulson, L.C. (eds.) ITP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6172, pp. 115–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellare, M., Hofheinz, D., Kiltz, E.: Subtleties in the definition of IND-CCA: When and how should challenge-decryption be disallowed? Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2009/418 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Optimal asymmetric encryption. In: De Santis, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1994. LNCS, vol. 950, pp. 92–111. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: The security of triple encryption and a framework for code-based game-playing proofs. In: Vaudenay, S. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4004, pp. 409–426. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blanchet, B.: A computationally sound mechanized prover for security protocols. IEEE Trans. Dependable Sec. Comput. 5(4), 193–207 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blanchet, B., Jaggard, A.D., Scedrov, A., Tsay, J.-K.: Computationally sound mechanized proofs for basic and public-key Kerberos. In: 15th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2008, pp. 87–99. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boldyreva, A.: Strengthening security of RSA-OAEP. In: Fischlin, M. (ed.) CT-RSA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5473, pp. 399–413. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Courant, J., Daubignard, M., Ene, C., Lafourcade, P., Lakhnech, Y.: Towards automated proofs for asymmetric encryption schemes in the random oracle model. In: 15th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2008, pp. 371–380. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fujisaki, E., Okamoto, T., Pointcheval, D., Stern, J.: RSA-OAEP is secure under the RSA assumption. J. Cryptology 17(2), 81–104 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gonthier, G.: Formal Proof — The Four Colour Theorem. Notices of the AMS 55(11), 1382–1393 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goubault-Larrecq, J.: Towards producing formally checkable security proofs, automatically. In: 21st IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium, CSF 2008, pp. 224–238. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hales, T.: Formal Proof. Notices of the AMS 55(11), 1370–1380 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hales, T., Harrison, J., McLaughlin, S., Nipkow, T., Obua, S., Zumkeller, R.: A revision of the proof of the Kepler conjecture. Discrete and Computational Geometry 44(1), 1–34 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Halevi, S.: A plausible approach to computer-aided cryptographic proofs. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2005/181 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klein, G., Elphinstone, K., Heiser, G., Andronick, J., Cock, D., Derrin, P., Elkaduwe, D., Engelhardt, K., Kolanski, R., Norrish, M., Sewell, T., Tuch, H., Winwood, S.: seL4: formal verification of an OS kernel. In: 22nd ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP 2009, pp. 207–220. ACM Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klein, G., Nipkow, T.: A machine-checked model for a Java-like language, virtual machine and compiler. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 28(4), 619–695 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koblitz, N.: Another look at automated theorem-proving. J. Math. Cryptol. 1(4), 385–403 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leroy, X.: Formal certification of a compiler back-end, or: programming a compiler with a proof assistant. In: 33rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2006, pp. 42–54. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nowak, D.: A framework for game-based security proofs. In: Qing, S., Imai, H., Wang, G. (eds.) ICICS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4861, pp. 319–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paulson, L.C.: The inductive approach to verifying cryptographic protocols. J. of Comput. Secur. 6(1-2), 85–128 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pointcheval, D.: Provable security for public key schemes. In: Advanced Courses on Contemporary Cryptology, ch. D, pp. 133–189. Birkhäuser, Basel (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rabin, M.O.: Digitalized signatures and public-key functions as intractable as factorization. Technical report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA (1979)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rivest, R.L., Shamir, A., Adleman, L.: A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems. Commun. ACM 21(2), 120–126 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shoup, V.: OAEP reconsidered. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 239–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shoup, V.: Sequences of games: a tool for taming complexity in security proofs. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2004/332 (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    The Coq development team. The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual Version 8.2. Online (2009), http://coq.inria.fr
  33. 33.
    Zanella Béguelin, S., Grégoire, B., Barthe, G., Olmedo, F.: Formally certifying the security of digital signature schemes. In: 30th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, S&P 2009, pp. 237–250. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilles Barthe
    • 1
  • Benjamin Grégoire
    • 2
  • Yassine Lakhnech
    • 3
  • Santiago Zanella Béguelin
    • 1
  1. 1.IMDEA SoftwareSpain
  2. 2.INRIA Sophia Antipolis-MéditerranéeFrance
  3. 3.CNRSVerimag

Personalised recommendations