Advertisement

Cryptanalysis of Tweaked Versions of SMASH and Reparation

  • Pierre-Alain Fouque
  • Jacques Stern
  • Sébastien Zimmer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5381)

Abstract

In this paper, we study the security of permutation based hash functions, i.e. blockcipher based hash functions with fixed keys. SMASH is such a hash function proposed by Knudsen in 2005 and broken the same year by Pramstaller et al. Here we show that the two tweaked versions, proposed soon after by Knudsen to thwart the attack, can also be attacked in collision in time \({\mathcal O}(n2^{n/3})\). This time complexity can be reduced to \({\mathcal O}(2^{2\sqrt{n}})\) for the first tweak version, which means an attack against SMASH-256 in c·232 for a small constant c. Then, we show that an efficient generalization of SMASH, using two permutations instead of one, can be proved secure against collision in the ideal-cipher model in Ω(2 n/4) queries to the permutations. In order to analyze the tightness of our proof, we devise a non-trivial attack in \({\mathcal O}(2^{3n/8})\) queries. Finally, we also prove that our construction is preimage resistant in Ω(2 n/2) queries, which the best security level that can be reached for 2-permutation based hash functions, as proved in [12].

Keywords

Hash Function Block Cipher Security Model Query Complexity Compression Function 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Bellare, M., Krovetz, T., Rogaway, P.: Luby-rackoff backwards: Increasing security by making block ciphers non-invertible. In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1403, pp. 266–280. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bertoni, G., Daemen, J., Peeters, M., Van Assche, G.: Radiogatùn, a belt-and-mill hash function. In: ECRYPT Hash Workshop (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertoni, G., Daemen, J., Peeters, M., Van Assche, G.: On the indifferentiability of the sponge construction. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 181–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Black, J.A., Cochran, M., Shrimpton, T.: On the impossibility of highly-efficient blockcipher-based hash functions. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3494, pp. 526–541. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Black, J.A., Rogaway, P., Shrimpton, T.: Black-box analysis of the block-cipher-based hash-function constructions from PGV. In: Yung, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2442, pp. 320–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Knudsen, L.R.: SMASH - A cryptographic hash function. In: Gilbert, H., Handschuh, H. (eds.) FSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3557, pp. 228–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knudsen, L.R., Rijmen, V.: Known-key distinguishers for some block ciphers. In: Kurosawa, K. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4833, pp. 315–324. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lai, X., Massey, J.L.: Hash functions based on block ciphers. In: Rueppel, R.A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1992. LNCS, vol. 658, pp. 55–70. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lamberger, M., Pramstaller, N., Rechberger, C., Rijmen, V.: Second preimages for SMASH. In: Abe, M. (ed.) CT-RSA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4377, pp. 101–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pramstaller, N., Rechberger, C., Rijmen, V.: Breaking a new hash function design strategy called SMASH. In: Preneel, B., Tavares, S. (eds.) SAC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3897, pp. 233–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Preneel, B., Govaerts, R., Vandewalle, J.: Hash functions based on block ciphers: A synthetic approach. In: Stinson, D.R. (ed.) CRYPTO 1993. LNCS, vol. 773, pp. 368–378. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rogaway, P., Steinberger, J.P.: Security/Efficiency tradeoffs for permutation-based hashing. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 220–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thomsen, S.S.: Cryptographic Hash Functions. PhD thesis, Technical University of Denmark (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wagner, D.: A generalized birthday problem. In: Yung, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2442, p. 288. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre-Alain Fouque
    • 1
  • Jacques Stern
    • 1
  • Sébastien Zimmer
    • 1
  1. 1.CNRS-École normale supérieure-INRIAParisFrance

Personalised recommendations