Advertisement

XPX: Generalized Tweakable Even-Mansour with Improved Security Guarantees

  • Bart Mennink
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9814)

Abstract

We present \(\mathrm {XPX}\), a tweakable blockcipher based on a single permutation \(P\). On input of a tweak \((t_{11},t_{12},t_{21},t_{22})\in \mathcal {T}\) and a message m, it outputs ciphertext \(c=P(m\oplus \varDelta _1)\oplus \varDelta _2\), where \(\varDelta _1=t_{11}k\oplus t_{12}P(k)\) and \(\varDelta _2=t_{21}k\oplus t_{22}P(k)\). Here, the tweak space \(\mathcal {T}\) is required to satisfy a certain set of trivial conditions (such as \((0,0,0,0)\not \in \mathcal {T}\)). We prove that \(\mathrm {XPX}\) with any such tweak space is a strong tweakable pseudorandom permutation. Next, we consider the security of \(\mathrm {XPX}\) under related-key attacks, where the adversary can freely select a key-deriving function upon every evaluation. We prove that \(\mathrm {XPX}\) achieves various levels of related-key security, depending on the set of key-deriving functions and the properties of \(\mathcal {T}\). For instance, if \(t_{12}, t_{22}\ne 0\) and \((t_{21}, t_{22})\ne (0,1)\) for all tweaks, \(\mathrm {XPX}\) is XOR-related-key secure. \(\mathrm {XPX}\) generalizes Even-Mansour (\(\mathrm {EM}\)), but also Rogaway’s \(\mathrm {XEX}\) based on \(\mathrm {EM}\), and various other tweakable blockciphers. As such, \(\mathrm {XPX}\) finds a wide range of applications. We show how our results on \(\mathrm {XPX}\) directly imply related-key security of the authenticated encryption schemes Prøst-\(\mathrm {COPA}\) and \(\mathrm {Minalpher}\), and how a straightforward adjustment to the MAC function \(\mathrm {Chaskey}\) and to keyed Sponges makes them provably related-key secure.

Keywords

XPX XEX Even-Mansour Tweakable blockcipher Related-key security Prøst COPA Minalpher Chaskey Keyed sponges 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Research Council KU Leuven: GOA TENSE (GOA/11/007), and in part by COST Action “Cryptography for Secure Digital Interaction.” Bart Mennink is a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO). The author would like to thank the DTU Compute team and the anonymous reviewers of CRYPTO 2016 for their comments and suggestions.

References

  1. 1.
    Albrecht, M.R., Farshim, P., Paterson, K.G., Watson, G.J.: On cipher-dependent related-key attacks in the ideal-cipher model. In: Joux, A. (ed.) FSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6733, pp. 128–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andreeva, E., Bogdanov, A., Dodis, Y., Mennink, B., Steinberger, J.P.: On the indifferentiability of key-alternating ciphers. In: Canetti, R., Garay, J.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8042, pp. 531–550. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andreeva, E., Bogdanov, A., Luykx, A., Mennink, B., Tischhauser, E., Yasuda, K.: Parallelizable and authenticated online ciphers. In: Sako, K., Sarkar, P. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8269, pp. 424–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andreeva, E., Bogdanov, A., Mennink, B.: Towards understanding the known-key security of block ciphers. In: Moriai, S. (ed.) FSE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8424, pp. 348–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andreeva, E., Daemen, J., Mennink, B., Van Assche, G.: Security of keyed sponge constructions using a modular proof approach. In: Leander, G. (ed.) FSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9054, pp. 364–384. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bellare, M., Kohno, T.: A theoretical treatment of related-key attacks: RKA-PRPs, RKA-PRFs. In: Biham, E. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2656, pp. 491–506. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bertoni, G., Daemen, J., Peeters, M., Van Assche, G.: On the security of the keyed sponge construction. In: Symmetric Key Encryption Workshop (SKEW 2011) (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bertoni, G., Daemen, J., Peeters, M., Van Assche, G.: Permutation-based encryption, authentication and authenticated encryption. In: Directions in Authenticated Ciphers (DIAC 2012) (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bogdanov, A., Knudsen, L.R., Leander, G., Standaert, F.-X., Steinberger, J., Tischhauser, E.: Key-alternating ciphers in a provable setting: encryption using a small number of public permutations. In: Pointcheval, D., Johansson, T. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7237, pp. 45–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    CAESAR: Competition for Authenticated Encryption: Security, Applicability, and Robustness, May 2015. http://competitions.cr.yp.to/caesar.html
  11. 11.
    Chakraborty, D., Sarkar, P.: A general construction of tweakable block ciphers and different modes of operations. In: Lipmaa, H., Yung, M., Lin, D. (eds.) Inscrypt 2006. LNCS, vol. 4318, pp. 88–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang, D., Dworkin, M., Hong, S., Kelsey, J., Nandi, M.: A keyed sponge construction with pseudorandomness in the standard model. In: NIST’s 3rd SHA-3 Candidate Conference 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen, S., Lampe, R., Lee, J., Seurin, Y., Steinberger, J.: Minimizing the two-round Even-Mansour cipher. In: Garay, J.A., Gennaro, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8616, pp. 39–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen, S., Steinberger, J.: Tight security bounds for key-alternating ciphers. In: Nguyen, P.Q., Oswald, E. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8441, pp. 327–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cogliati, B., Lampe, R., Seurin, Y.: Tweaking Even-Mansour ciphers. In: Gennaro, R., Robshaw, M. (eds.) CRYPTO 2015, Part I. LNCS, vol. 9215, pp. 493–517. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cogliati, B., Seurin, Y.: Beyond-birthday-bound security for tweakable Even-Mansour ciphers with linear tweak and key mixing. In: Iwata, T., Cheon, J.H. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9453, pp. 134–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cogliati, B., Seurin, Y.: On the provable security of the iterated Even-Mansour cipher against related-key and chosen-key attacks. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9056, pp. 584–613. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cogliati, B., Seurin, Y.: Strengthening the known-key security notion for block ciphers. In: FSE 2016. LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg (2016, to appear)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dai, Y., Lee, J., Mennink, B., Steinberger, J.: The security of multiple encryption in the ideal cipher model. In: Garay, J.A., Gennaro, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8616, pp. 20–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Datta, N., Nandi, M.: ELmD v1.0, submission to CAESAR competition (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dobraunig, C., Eichlseder, M., Mendel, F.: Related-key forgeries for Prøst-OTR. In: Leander, G. (ed.) FSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9054, pp. 282–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dunkelman, O., Keller, N., Shamir, A.: Minimalism in cryptography: the Even-Mansour scheme revisited. In: Pointcheval, D., Johansson, T. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7237, pp. 336–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Even, S., Mansour, Y.: A construction of a cipher from a single pseudorandom permutation. In: Matsumoto, T., Imai, H., Rivest, R.L. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 1991. LNCS, vol. 739, pp. 201–224. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Even, S., Mansour, Y.: A construction of a cipher from a single pseudorandom permutation. J. Cryptol. 10(3), 151–162 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farshim, P., Procter, G.: The related-key security of iterated Even-Mansour ciphers. In: Leander, G. (ed.) FSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9054, pp. 342–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gaži, P., Pietrzak, K., Tessaro, S.: The exact PRF security of truncation: tight bounds for keyed sponges and truncated CBC. In: Gennaro, R., Robshaw, M. (eds.) CRYPTO 2015 Part I. LNCS, vol. 9215, pp. 368–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Granger, R., Jovanovic, P., Mennink, B., Neves, S.: Improved masking for tweakable blockciphers with applications to authenticated encryption. In: Fischlin, M., Coron, J.-S. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9665, pp. 263–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Karpman, P.: From distinguishers to key recovery: improved related-key attacks on Even-Mansour. In: López, J., Mitchell, C.J. (eds.) ISC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9290, pp. 177–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kavun, E., Lauridsen, M., Leander, G., Rechberger, C., Schwabe, P., Yalçın, T.: Prøst v1, submission to CAESAR competition (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lampe, R., Patarin, J., Seurin, Y.: An asymptotically tight security analysis of the iterated even-mansour cipher. In: Wang, X., Sako, K. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7658, pp. 278–295. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lampe, R., Seurin, Y.: How to construct an ideal cipher from a small set of public permutations. In: Sako, K., Sarkar, P. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8269, pp. 444–463. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lampe, R., Seurin, Y.: Tweakable blockciphers with asymptotically optimal security. In: Moriai, S. (ed.) FSE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8424, pp. 133–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Landecker, W., Shrimpton, T., Terashima, R.S.: Tweakable blockciphers with beyond birthday-bound security. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7417, pp. 14–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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
  35. 35.
    Mennink, B.: Optimally secure tweakable blockciphers. In: Leander, G. (ed.) FSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9054, pp. 428–448. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mennink, B.: Optimally secure tweakable blockciphers. Cryptology ePrint Archive, report 2015/363, full version of [35] (2015)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mennink, B.: XPX: Generalized tweakable Even-Mansour with improved security guarantees. Cryptology ePrint Archive, report 2015/476, full version of this paper (2015)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mennink, B., Preneel, B.: On the XOR of multiple random permutations. In: Malkin, T., Kolesnikov, V., Lewko, A.B., Polychronakis, M. (eds.) ACNS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9092, pp. 619–634. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mennink, B., Reyhanitabar, R., Vizár, D.: Security of full-state keyed sponge and duplex: applications to authenticated encryption. In: Iwata, T., Cheon, J.H. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9453, pp. 465–489. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Minematsu, K.: Improved security analysis of XEX and LRW modes. In: Biham, E., Youssef, A.M. (eds.) SAC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4356, pp. 96–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Minematsu, K.: Beyond-birthday-bound security based on tweakable block cipher. In: Dunkelman, O. (ed.) FSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5665, pp. 308–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mouha, N.: Chaskey: a MAC algorithm for microcontrollers - status update and proposal of Chaskey-12. Cryptology ePrint Archive, report 2015/1182 (2015)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mouha, N., Mennink, B., Van Herrewege, A., Watanabe, D., Preneel, B., Verbauwhede, I.: Chaskey: an efficient MAC algorithm for 32-bit microcontrollers. In: Joux, A., Youssef, A. (eds.) SAC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8781, pp. 306–323. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Naito, Y., Yasuda, K.: New bounds for keyed sponges with extendable output: Independence between capacity and message length. In: FSE 2016. LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg (2016, to appear)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nyberg, K., Knudsen, L.R.: Provable security against differential cryptanalysis. In: Brickell, E.F. (ed.) CRYPTO 1992. LNCS, vol. 740, pp. 566–574. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Patarin, A.: A proof of security in \(O(2^{n})\) for the Xor of two randompermutations. In: Safavi-Naini, R. (ed.) ICITS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5155, pp. 232–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Procter, G.: A note on the CLRW2 tweakable block cipher construction. Cryptology ePrint Archive, report 2014/111 (2014)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    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
  49. 49.
    Sasaki, Y., Todo, Y., Aoki, K., Naito, Y., Sugawara, T., Murakami, Y., Matsui, M., Hirose, S.: Minalpher v1, submission to CAESAR competition (2014)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Steinberger, J.: Improved security bounds for key-alternating ciphers via Hellinger distance. Cryptology ePrint Archive, report 2012/481 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringESAT/COSIC, KU Leuven and iMindsLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations