Slide attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea of the slide attack was originally published by Edna Grossman and Bryant Tuckerman in an IBM Technical Report in 1977. It is a form of cryptanalysis designed to deal with the prevailing idea that even weak ciphers can become very strong by increasing the number of rounds, which can ward off a differential attack. Grossman and Tuckerman demonstrated the attack on a weak block cipher named New Data Seal (NDS). A summary of the report, including a description of the NDS block cipher and the attack, is given in Cipher Systems (Beker & Piper, 1982). Bruce Schneier first suggested the term slide attack to David Wagner and Alex Biryukov, who used it in their 1999 paper.

The slide attack works in such a way as to make the number of rounds in a cipher irrelevant. Rather than looking at the data-randomizing aspects of the block cipher the slide attack works by analyzing the key schedule and exploiting weaknesses in it to break the cipher. The most common one is the keys repeating in a cyclic manner.

The only requirements for a slide attack to work on a cipher is that it can be broken down into multiple rounds of an identical F function. This probably means that it has a cyclic key schedule. The F function must be vulnerable to a known-plaintext attack. The slide attack is closely related to the related-key attack.

[edit] The actual attack

First, to introduce some notation. In this section assume the cipher takes n bit blocks and has a key-schedule using as keys of any length.

The slide attack works by breaking the cipher up into identical permutation functions, F. This F function may consist of more than one round of the cipher; it is defined by the key-schedule. For example, if a cipher uses an alternating key schedule where it switches between a K₁ and K₂ for each round, the F function would consist of two rounds. Each of the K_i will appear at least once in F.

The next step is to collect 2^{n / 2} plaintext-ciphertext pairs. Depending on the characteristics of the cipher fewer may suffice, but by the birthday paradox no more than 2^{n / 2} should be needed. These pairs, which denoted as (P,C) are then used to find a slid pair which denoted (P₀,C₀)(P₁,C₁). A slid pair has the property that P₀ = F(P₁) and that C₀ = F(C₁). Once a slid pair is identified, the cipher is broken because of the vulnerability to known-plaintext attacks. The key can easily be extracted from this pairing. The slid pair can be thought to be what happens to a message after one application of the function F. It is ’slid’ over one encryption round and this is where the attack gets its name.

The process of finding a slid pair is somewhat different for each cipher but follows the same basic scheme. One uses the fact that it is relatively easy to extract the key from just one iteration of F. Choose any pair of plaintext-ciphertext pairs, (P₀,C₀)(P₁,C₁) and check to see what the keys corresponding to P₀ = F(P₁) and C₀ = F(C₁) are. If these keys match, this is a slid pair; otherwise move on to the next pair.

With 2^{n / 2} plaintext-ciphertext pairs one slid pair is expected, along with a small number of false-positives depending on the structure of the cipher. The false positives can be eliminated by using the keys on a different message-ciphertext pair to see if the encryption is correct. The probability that the wrong key will correctly encipher two or more messages is very low for a good cipher.

Sometimes the structure of the cipher greatly reduces the number of plaintext-ciphertext pairs needed, and thus also a large amount of the work. The clearest of these examples is the Feistel cipher using just one key. The reason for this is given a P = (L₀,R₀) the search is for a . This reduces the possible paired messages from 2ⁿ down to 2^{n / 2} (since half the message is fixed) and so at most 2^{n / 4} plaintext-ciphertext pairs are needed in order to find a slid-pair.

[edit] References

• Analysis of a Feistel-like cipher weakened by having no rotating key. E.K.Grossman and B.Tuckerman. IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Report RC 6375, 1977.
• Cipher Systems: The Protection of Communications. Henry Beker and Fred Piper. Northwood Books: London, 1982. (contains a summary of the paper by Grossman and Tuckerman).
• Slide Attacks Alex Biryukov and David Wagner. FSE'99
• Advanced Slide Attacks Alex Biryukov and David Wagner. EUROCRYPT 2000.
• Slide Attacks with a Known-Plaintext Cryptanalysis S. Furuya
• New Types of Cryptanalytic Attacks Using Related Keys Eli Biham
• Related-Key and Slide Attacks: Analysis, Connections and Improvements M. Ciet, G. Piret, J. Quisquater

Block ciphers v • d • e
Algorithms: 3-Way | AES | Akelarre | Anubis | ARIA | BaseKing | Blowfish | C2 | Camellia | CAST-128 | CAST-256 | CIKS-1 | CIPHERUNICORN-A | CIPHERUNICORN-E | CMEA | Cobra | COCONUT98 | Crab | CRYPTON | CS-Cipher | DEAL | DES | DES-X | DFC | E2 | FEAL | FROG | G-DES | GOST | Grand Cru | Hasty Pudding Cipher | Hierocrypt | ICE | IDEA | IDEA NXT | Iraqi | Intel Cascade Cipher | KASUMI | KHAZAD | Khufu and Khafre | KN-Cipher | Libelle | LOKI89/91 | LOKI97 | Lucifer | M6 | MacGuffin | Madryga | MAGENTA | MARS | Mercy | MESH | MISTY1 | MMB | MULTI2 | NewDES | NOEKEON | NUSH | Q | RC2 | RC5 | RC6 | REDOC | Red Pike | S-1 | SAFER | SC2000 | SEED | Serpent | SHACAL | SHARK | Skipjack | SMS4 | Square | TEA | Triple DES | Twofish | UES | Xenon | xmx | XTEA | Zodiac
Design: Feistel network | Key schedule | Product cipher | S-box | SPN Attacks: Brute force | Linear / Differential / Integral cryptanalysis | Mod n | Related-key | Slide | XSL
Standardization: AES process | CRYPTREC | NESSIE Misc: Avalanche effect | Block size | IV | Key size | Modes of operation | Piling-up lemma | Weak key
Cryptography v • d • e
History of cryptography | Cryptanalysis | Cryptography portal | Topics in cryptography
Symmetric-key algorithm | Block cipher | Stream cipher | Public-key cryptography | Cryptographic hash function | Message authentication code | Random numbers