Description
Authentication protocols, run between a prover and a verifier, allow the verifier to check the legitimacy of the prover. A legitimate prover should always authenticate (the correctness requirement), while illegitimate parties (adversaries) should not authenticate (the soundness or impersonation resistance requirement). Secure authentication protocols thwart most Man-in-the-Middle (MIM) attacks, such as replays, but they do not prevent relay attacks , where a coalition of two adversaries, a leech and a ghost , forwards messages between an honest verifier and an honest, far-away prover so as to let the illegitimate ghost authenticate.<br/> Distance-bounding protocols strengthen the security of authentication so as to prevent pure relaying, by enabling the verifier to upper-bound his distance to the prover. This is done by adding a number of time-critical challenge-response rounds, where bits are exchanged over a fast channel; the verifier measures the challenge-response roundtrip and compares it to a time-based proximity bound. There are four attacks such protocols should prevent: mafia fraud, where a MIM adversary tries to authenticate in the presence of a far-away (honest) prover, without purely relaying messages (the clock prevents this); terrorist fraud, where the prover is dishonest and helps the MIM adversary authenticate insofar as this help does not give the adversary any advantage for future (unaided) authentication; distance fraud, where a far-away prover wants to prove he is within the verifier's proximity; and (lazy-round) impersonation security, requiring a degree of impersonation security even for the exchanges that are not timed. Constructing distance-bounding protocols is a highly non-trivial task, since often providing security against one requirement creates a vulnerability with respect to a different requirement. I propose to describe how to construct distance-bounding protocols which are probably secure and also guarantee the prover's privacy.
Prochains exposés
-
Wagner’s Algorithm Provably Runs in Subexponential Time for SIS^∞
Orateur : Johanna Loyer - Inria Saclay
At CRYPTO 2015, Kirchner and Fouque claimed that a carefully tuned variant of the Blum-Kalai-Wasserman (BKW) algorithm (JACM 2003) should solve the Learning with Errors problem (LWE) in slightly subexponential time for modulus q = poly(n) and narrow error distribution, when given enough LWE samples. Taking a modular view, one may regard BKW as a combination of Wagner’s algorithm (CRYPTO 2002), run[…]-
Cryptography
-
-
CryptoVerif: a computationally-sound security protocol verifier
Orateur : Bruno Blanchet - Inria
CryptoVerif is a security protocol verifier sound in the computational model of cryptography. It produces proofs by sequences of games, like those done manually by cryptographers. It has an automatic proof strategy and can also be guided by the user. It provides a generic method for specifying security assumptions on many cryptographic primitives, and can prove secrecy, authentication, and[…]-
Cryptography
-
-
Structured-Seed Local Pseudorandom Generators and their Applications
Orateur : Nikolas Melissaris - IRIF
We introduce structured‑seed local pseudorandom generators (SSL-PRGs), pseudorandom generators whose seed is drawn from an efficiently sampleable, structured distribution rather than uniformly. This seemingly modest relaxation turns out to capture many known applications of local PRGs, yet it can be realized from a broader family of hardness assumptions. Our main technical contribution is a[…]-
Cryptography
-
-
Post-Quantum Public-Key Pseudorandom Correlation Functions for OT
Orateur : Mahshid Riahinia - ENS, CNRS
Public-Key Pseudorandom Correlation Functions (PK-PCF) are an exciting recent primitive introduced to enable fast secure computation. Despite significant advances in the group-based setting, success in the post-quantum regime has been much more limited. In this talk, I will introduce an efficient lattice-based PK-PCF for the string OT correlation. At the heart of our result lie several technical[…] -
Predicting Module-Lattice Reduction
Orateur : Paola de Perthuis - CWI
Is module-lattice reduction better than unstructured lattice reduction? This question was highlighted as `Q8' in the Kyber NIST standardization submission (Avanzi et al., 2021), as potentially affecting the concrete security of Kyber and other module-lattice-based schemes. Foundational works on module-lattice reduction (Lee, Pellet-Mary, Stehlé, and Wallet, ASIACRYPT 2019; Mukherjee and Stephens[…]-
Cryptography
-