Tamper and Leakage Resilience in the Split-State Model

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7417)

Abstract

It is notoriously difficult to create hardware that is immune from side channel and tampering attacks. A lot of recent literature, therefore, has instead considered algorithmic defenses from such attacks. In this paper, we show how to algorithmically secure any cryptographic functionality from continual split-state leakage and tampering attacks. A split-state attack on cryptographic hardware is one that targets separate parts of the hardware separately. Our construction does not require the hardware to have access to randomness. In contrast, prior work on protecting from continual combined leakage and tampering [23] required true randomness for each update. Our construction is in the common reference string (CRS) model; the CRS must be hard-wired into the device. We note that prior negative results show that it is impossible to algorithmically secure a cryptographic functionality against a combination of arbitrary continual leakage and tampering attacks without true randomness; therefore restricting our attention to the split-state model is justified. Our construction is simple and modular, and relies on a new construction, in the CRS model, of non-malleable codes with respect to split-state tampering functions, which may be of independent interest.

Keywords

Encryption Scheme Signature Scheme Secret State Pseudorandom Generator Common Reference String 
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.
Download to read the full conference paper text

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawal, D., Archambeault, B., Rao, J.R., Rohatgi, P.: The EM Side-Channel(s). In: Kaliski Jr., B.S., Koç, Ç.K., Paar, C. (eds.) CHES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2523, pp. 29–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akavia, A., Goldwasser, S., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Simultaneous Hardcore Bits and Cryptography against Memory Attacks. In: Reingold, O. (ed.) TCC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5444, pp. 474–495. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alwen, J., Dodis, Y., Wichs, D.: Leakage-Resilient Public-Key Cryptography in the Bounded-Retrieval Model. In: Halevi, S. (ed.) CRYPTO 2009. LNCS, vol. 5677, pp. 36–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biham, E., Shamir, A.: Differential Fault Analysis of Secret Key Cryptosystems. In: Kaliski Jr., B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 513–525. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brakerski, Z., Kalai, Y.T., Katz, J., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Overcoming the hole in the bucket: Public-key cryptography resilient to continual memory leakage. In: FOCS, pp. 501–510. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi, S.G., Kiayias, A., Malkin, T.: BiTR: Built-in Tamper Resilience. In: Lee, D.H., Wang, X. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 7073, pp. 740–758. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Santis, A., Di Crescenzo, G., Ostrovsky, R., Persiano, G., Sahai, A.: Robust Non-interactive Zero Knowledge. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 566–598. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dodis, Y., Haralambiev, K., López-Alt, A., Wichs, D.: Cryptography against continuous memory attacks. In: FOCS, pp. 511–520 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dodis, Y., Lewko, A.B., Waters, B., Wichs, D.: Storing secrets on continually leaky devices. In: FOCS, pp. 688–697 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dodis, Y., Pietrzak, K.: Leakage-Resilient Pseudorandom Functions and Side-Channel Attacks on Feistel Networks. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 21–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dolev, D., Dwork, C., Naor, M.: Nonmalleable cryptography. SIAM J. Comput. 30(2), 391–437 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dziembowski, S., Pietrzak, K.: Leakage-resilient cryptography. In: FOCS, pp. 293–302. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dziembowski, S., Pietrzak, K., Wichs, D.: Non-malleable codes. In: ICS, pp. 434–452 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faust, S., Pietrzak, K., Venturi, D.: Tamper-Proof Circuits: How to Trade Leakage for Tamper-Resilience. In: Aceto, L., Henzinger, M., Sgall, J. (eds.) ICALP 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6755, pp. 391–402. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faust, S., Rabin, T., Reyzin, L., Tromer, E., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Protecting Circuits from Leakage: the Computationally-Bounded and Noisy Cases. In: Gilbert, H. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6110, pp. 135–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gennaro, R., Lysyanskaya, A., Malkin, T., Micali, S., Rabin, T.: Algorithmic Tamper-Proof (ATP) Security: Theoretical Foundations for Security against Hardware Tampering. In: Naor, M. (ed.) TCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2951, pp. 258–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldwasser, S., Rothblum, G.N.: Securing Computation against Continuous Leakage. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 59–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Halderman, J.A., Schoen, S.D., Heninger, N., Clarkson, W., Paul, W., Calandrino, J.A., Feldman, A.J., Appelbaum, J., Felten, E.W.: Lest we remember: Cold boot attacks on encryption keys. In: USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 45–60 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Halevi, S., Lin, H.: After-the-Fact Leakage in Public-Key Encryption. In: Ishai, Y. (ed.) TCC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6597, pp. 107–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ishai, Y., Prabhakaran, M., Sahai, A., Wagner, D.: Private Circuits II: Keeping Secrets in Tamperable Circuits. In: Vaudenay, S. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4004, pp. 308–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ishai, Y., Sahai, A.,Wagner, D.: Private Circuits: Securing Hardware against Probing Attacks. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 463–481. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Juma, A., Vahlis, Y.: Protecting Cryptographic Keys against Continual Leakage. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 41–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kalai, Y.T., Kanukurthi, B., Sahai, A.: Cryptography with Tamperable and Leaky Memory. In: Rogaway, P. (ed.) CRYPTO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6841, pp. 373–390. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Katz, J., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Signature Schemes with Bounded Leakage Resilience. In: Matsui, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5912, pp. 703–720. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kocher, P.C.: Timing Attacks on Implementations of Diffie-Hellman, RSA, DSS, and Other Systems. In: Koblitz, N. (ed.) CRYPTO 1996. LNCS, vol. 1109, pp. 104–113. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lewko, A.B., Lewko, M., Waters, B.: How to leak on key updates. In: STOC, pp. 725–734. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lewko, A., Rouselakis, Y., Waters, B.: Achieving Leakage Resilience through Dual System Encryption. In: Ishai, Y. (ed.) TCC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6597, pp. 70–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu, F.-H., Lysyanskaya, A.: Algorithmic Tamper-Proof Security under Probing Attacks. In: Garay, J.A., De Prisco, R. (eds.) SCN 2010. LNCS, vol. 6280, pp. 106–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Micali, S., Reyzin, L.: Physically Observable Cryptography (Extended Abstract). In: Naor, M. (ed.) TCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2951, pp. 278–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Naor, M., Segev, G.: Public-Key Cryptosystems Resilient to Key Leakage. In: Halevi, S. (ed.) CRYPTO 2009. LNCS, vol. 5677, pp. 18–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pietrzak, K.: A Leakage-Resilient Mode of Operation. In: Joux, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5479, pp. 462–482. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sahai, A.: Non-malleable non-interactive zero knowledge and adaptive chosenciphertext security. In: FOCS, pp. 543–553. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2012 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations