Automated Verification of Block Cipher Modes of Operation, an Improved Method

  • Martin Gagné
  • Pascal Lafourcade
  • Yassine Lakhnech
  • Reihaneh Safavi-Naini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6888)

Abstract

In this paper, we improve on a previous result by Gagné et al. [9] for automatically proving the semantic security of symmetric modes of operation for block ciphers. We present a richer assertion language that uses more flexible invariants, and a more complete set of rules for establishing the invariants. In addition, all our invariants are given a meaningful semantic definition, whereas some invariants of the previous result relied on more ad hoc definitions. Our method can be used to verify the semantic security of all the encryption modes that could be proven secure in [9], in addition to other modes, such as Propagating Cipher-Block Chaining (PCBC).

Keywords

Block Cipher Message Authentication Code Random Oracle Model Symmetric Encryption Encryption Mode 
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.
    Barthe, G., Daubignard, M., Kapron, B., Lakhnech, Y.: Computational indistinguishability logic. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2010, pp. 375–386. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barthe, G., Grégoire, B., Lakhnech, Y., Béguelin, S.Z.: Beyond Provable Security Verifiable IND-CCA Security of OAEP. In: Kiayias, A. (ed.) CT-RSA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6558, pp. 180–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellare, M., Desai, A., Jokipii, E., Rogaway, P.: A concrete security treatment of symmetric encryption. In: Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, p. 394 (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chakraborty, D., Nandi, M.: An improved security bound for HCTR, pp. 289–302 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chakraborty, D., Sarkar, P.: A New Mode of Encryption Providing a Tweakable Strong Pseudo-Random Permutation. In: Robshaw, M.J.B. (ed.) FSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4047, pp. 293–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chakraborty, D., Sarkar, P.: HCH: A new tweakable enciphering scheme using the hash-counter-hash approach. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 54(4), 1683–1699 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Courant, J., Daubignard, M., Ene, C., Lafourcade, P., Lahknech, Y.: Towards automated proofs for asymmetric encryption schemes in the random oracle model. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2008), Alexandria, USA (October 2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gagné, M., Lafourcade, P., Lakhnech, Y., Safavi-Naini, R.: Automated verification of block cipher modes of operation, an improved method. Technical Report TR-2011-9, Laboratoire Verimag, Université Joseph Fourier, France, 21 pages (April 2011), http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~gagne/TechRep2011_09.pdf
  9. 9.
    Gagné, M., Lafourcade, P., Lakhnech, Y., Safavi-Naini, R.: Automated Security Proof for Symmetric Encryption Modes. In: Datta, A. (ed.) ASIAN 2009. LNCS, vol. 5913, pp. 39–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halevi, S.: EME*: Extending EME to Handle Arbitrary-Length Messages with Associated Data. In: Canteaut, A., Viswanathan, K. (eds.) INDOCRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3348, pp. 315–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halevi, S.: Invertible Universal Hashing and the Tet Encryption Mode. In: Menezes, A. (ed.) CRYPTO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4622, pp. 412–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halevi, S., Rogaway, P.: A Tweakable Enciphering Mode. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 482–499. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halevi, S., Rogaway, P.: A Parallelizable Enciphering Mode. In: Okamoto, T. (ed.) CT-RSA 2004. LNCS, vol. 2964, pp. 292–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iwata, T., Kurosawa, K.: OMAC: One-Key CBC MAC. In: Johansson, T. (ed.) FSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2887, pp. 129–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iwata, T., Kurosawa, K.: On the Security of a New Variant of OMAC. In: Lim, J.-I., Lee, D.-H. (eds.) ICISC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2971, pp. 67–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iwata, T., Kurosawa, K.: Stronger Security Bounds for OMAC, TMAC, and XCBC. In: Johansson, T., Maitra, S. (eds.) INDOCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2904, pp. 402–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jutla, C.S.: Encryption Modes with Almost Free Message Integrity. In: Pfitzmann, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2045, pp. 529–544. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kurosawa, K., Iwata, T.: TMAC: Two-key CBC MAC. In: Joye, M. (ed.) CT-RSA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2612, pp. 33–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liskov, M., Rivest, R.L., Wagner, D.: Tweakable Block Ciphers. In: Yung, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2442, pp. 31–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGrew, D.A., Fluhrer, S.R.: The security of the extended codebook (XCB) mode of operation (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rogaway, P.: Efficient Instantiations of Tweakable Blockciphers and Refinements to Modes OCB and PMAC. In: Lee, P.J. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3329, pp. 16–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang, P., Feng, D., Wu, W.: On the Security of Tweakable Modes of Operation: TBC and TAE. In: Zhou, J., López, J., Deng, R.H., Bao, F. (eds.) ISC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3650, pp. 274–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Gagné
    • 1
  • Pascal Lafourcade
    • 1
  • Yassine Lakhnech
    • 1
  • Reihaneh Safavi-Naini
    • 2
  1. 1.Université Grenoble 1, CNRSVerimagFrance
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations