We present a methodology to facilitate the design and analysis of secure cryptographic protocols. We advocate the general approach, and a new avenue for research, of restricting protocol designs to well-defined practices, instead of ever increasing the complexity of protocol security analysis mechanisms to deal with every newly discovered attack and the endless variations in protocol construction. In particular, we propose a novel notion of a fail-stop protocol, which automatically halts in response to any active attack that interferes with protocol execution, thus reducing protocol security analysis to that of passive attacks only. We suggest types of protocols that are fail-stop, outline some proof techniques for them, and use examples to illustrate how the notion of a fail-stop protocol can make protocol design easier and can provide a more solid basis for some available protocol analysis methods.
We present a methodology to facilitate the design and analysis of secure cryptographic protocols. We advocate the general approach, and a new avenue for research, of restricting protocol designs to well-defined practices, instead of ever increasing the complexity of protocol security analysis mechanisms to deal with every newly discovered attack and the endless variations in protocol construction. In particular, we propose a novel notion of a fail-stop protocol, which automatically halts in response to any active attack that interferes with protocol execution, thus reducing protocol security analysis to that of passive attacks only. We suggest types of protocols that are fail-stop, outline some proof techniques for them, and use examples to illustrate how the notion of a fail-stop protocol can make protocol design easier and can provide a more solid basis for some available protocol analysis methods.
In the analysis of many cryptographie protocole, it is useful to distinguish two classes of attacks: passive attacks in which an adversary eavesdrops on messages sent between honest users and active attacks (i.e, “man-in-the-middle” attacks) in which—in addition to eavesdropping—the adversary inserts, deletes, or arbitrarily modifies messages sent from one user to another. Passive attacks are well characterized (the adversary's choices are inherently limited) and techniques for achieving security against passive attacks are relatively well understood. Indeed, cryptographers have long focused on methods for countering passive eavesdropping attacks, and much work in the 1970's and 1980's has dealt with formalizing notions of security and providing provably-secure solutions for this setting. On the other hand, active attacks are not well characterized and precise modeling has been difficult. Few techniques exist for dealing with active attacks, and designing practical protocols secure against such attacks remains a challenge.
This dissertation considers active attacks in a variety of settings and provides new, provably-secure protocols preventing such attacks. Proofs of security are in the standard cryptographie model and rely on well-known cryptographie assumptions. The protocols presented here are efficient and practical, and may find application in real-world systems.
In this work, we investigate the security of interactive computations. The main emphasis is on the mathematical methodology that is needed to formalise and analyse various security properties. Differently from many classical treatments of secure multi-party computations, we always quantify security in exact terms. Although working with concrete time bounds and success probabilities is technically more demanding, it also has several advantages. As all security guarantees are quantitative, we can always compare different protocol designs. Moreover, these security guarantees also have a clear economical interpretation and it is possible to compare cryptographic and non-cryptographic solutions. The latter is extremely important in practice, since cryptographic techniques are just one possibility to achieve practical security. Also, working with exact bounds makes reasoning errors more apparent, as security proofs are less abstract and it is easier to locate false claims. The choice of topics covered in this thesis was guided by two principles. Firstly, we wanted to give a coherent overview of the secure multi-party computation that is based on exact quantification of security guarantees. Secondly, we focused on topics that emerged from the author's own research. In that sense, the thesis generalises many methodological discoveries made by the author. As surprising as it may seem, security definitions and proofs mostly utilise principles of hypothesis testing and analysis of stochastic algorithms. Thus, we start our treatment with hypothesis testing and its generalisations. In particular, we show how to quantify various security properties, using security games as tools. Next, we review basic proof techniques and explain how to structure complex proofs so they become easily verifiable. In a nutshell, we describe how to represent a proof as a game tree, where each edge corresponds to an elementary proof step. As a result, one can first verify the overall structure of a proof by looking at the syntactic changes in the game tree and only then verify all individual proof steps corresponding to the edges. The remaining part of the thesis is dedicated to various aspects of protocol design. Firstly, we discuss how to formalise various security goals, such as input-privacy, output-consistency and complete security, and how to choose a security goal that is appropriate for a specific setting. Secondly, we also explore alternatives to exact security. More precisely, we analyse connections between exact and asymptotic security models and rigorously formalise a notion of subjective security. Thirdly, we study in which conditions protocols preserve their security guarantees and how to safely combine several protocols. Although composability results are common knowledge, we look at them from a slightly different angle. Namely, it is irrational to design universally composable protocols at any cost; instead, we should design computationally efficient protocols with minimal usage restrictions. Thus, we propose a three-stage design procedure that leads to modular security proofs and minimises usage restrictions.
In this thesis we are interested in practical cryptographic protocols that give strong security guarantees.This means that the protocols must remain secure in arbitrary contexts and against adversaries who adaptively attack these protocols during their execution, that they must have realistic prerequisites (setup assumptions, required resources), and that they be efficient enough to be used in a practical setting.The former can be achieved by designing the protocols in a security composition framework, however simultaneously making them practical is challenging.The goal of this thesis is to simplify the design of adaptively secure and practical protocols.To that effect, we first design two protocols that satisfy the above properties, and thereby uncover design principles that make it easier to achieve the goal.These protocols, and many other adaptively secure protocols in the literature, assume the existence of perfectly erasable memory.This is not always available in practice: we therefore also study imperfectly erasable memory and how it can be improved.Finally, we have noticed that there were problems with the existing composition frameworks in which we designed our protocols: we have extended the basic IITM framework to provide a sound and unambiguous framework for future protocol design.
Key exchange protocols, first introduced by Diffie and Hellman in 1976, are one of the most widely-deployed cryptographic protocols. They allow two parties, that have never interacted before, to establish shared secrets. These shared cryptographic keys may subsequently be used to establish a secure communication channel. Use cases include the classic client-server setting that is for example at play when browsing the internet, but also chats via end-to-end-encrypted instant messaging applications. Security-wise, we generally demand of key exchange protocols to achieve key secrecy and authentication. While, informally, authentication ensures that the communicating parties have confidence in the identity of their peers, key secrecy ensures that any shared cryptographic key that is established via the key exchange protocol is only known to the participants in the protocol and can be used securely in cryptographic protocols, i.e., is sufficiently random. In 1993, Bellare and Rogaway gave a first formalization of key exchange protocol security that captures these properties with respect to powerful adversaries with full control over the network. Their model constitutes the basis of the many subsequent treatments of authenticated key exchange security, including the models presented in this thesis. The common methodological approach underlying all of these formalizations is the provable security paradigm, which has become a standard tool in assessing the security of cryptographic protocols and primitives. So-called security models specify the expected security guarantees of the scheme in question with regards to a well-defined class of adversaries. Proofs that validate these security claims do so by reducing the security of the overall scheme to the security of the underlying cryptographic primitives and hardness assumptions. However, advances in computational power and more sophisticated cryptanalytic capabilities often render exactly these components insecure. Especially the advent of quantum computers will have a devastating effect on much of today's public key cryptography. This is especially true for key exchange protocols since they rely crucially on public-key algorithms. In this thesis, our focus in future-proofing key exchange protocols is two-fold. First, we focus on extending security models for key exchange protocols to capture the (un)expected break of cryptographic primitives and hardness assumptions. The aim is to gain assurances with respect to future adversaries and to investigate the effects of primitive failures on key exchange protocols. More specifically, we explore how key exchange protocols can be safely transitioned to new, post-quantum secure algorithms with hybrid techniques. Hybrids combine classical and post-quantum algorithms such that the overall key agreement scheme remains secure as long as one of the two base schemes remains secure. For this, we introduce security notions for key encapsulation mechanisms that account for adversaries with varying levels of quantum capabilities and present three new constructions for hybrid key encapsulation mechanisms. Our hybrid designs are practice-inspired and for example capture draft proposals for hybrid modes in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol, which is one of the most widely-deployed cryptographic protocols that enables key agreement. Furthermore, our notion of breakdown resilience for key exchange protocols allows to gauge the security of past session keys in the event of a failure of a cryptographic component in the key exchange. We exercise our model on variants of the post-quantum secure key exchange protocol NewHope by Alkim et al. Thereby, we confirm the intuition that, in order to guard against adversaries that only have access to quantum computing power in the (more distant) future, it is sufficient to use classically-secure authentication mechanisms alongside post-quantum key agreement to achieve authenticated key exchange. As with any mathematical statement, theorems in the provable security paradigm are only as valid as the underlying assumptions. A careful consideration of any newly made assumption is thus essential to ensure the meaningfulness of the statement itself and make the assumption a viable tool for future analyses. Thus, secondly, we systematically classify the PRF-ODH assumption, a complexity-theoretic hardness assumption that has been used in key exchange security analyses of such prominent protocols as TLS, Signal, and Wireguard. In particular, we give a unified, parametrized definition of the assumption encompassing different variants that are present in the literature. We relate the resulting parametrized notions in terms of their strength and show where these assumptions fit in the collection of well-understood related hardness assumptions. We finally sketch our result on the impossibility of instantiating this assumption in the standard model, thereby disposing of the uncertainty in the community whether PRF-ODH is in fact a standard model assumption, i.e., removes the usage of some idealized assumptions in key exchange protocol proofs.
Security protocols, such as TLS, SSH, IEEE~802.11, and DNSSEC, have become crucial tools in modern society to protect people, data, and infrastructure. They are used throughout virtually all electronic devices to achieve a wide range of different security goals, such as confidentiality, authentication, and integrity. As the long history of attacks on security protocols illustrates, it is indispensable to perform a formal security analysis of such protocols. A central tool in cryptography for taming the complexity of the design and the analysis of modern protocols is modularity, provided by security models for universal composability. Such models allow for designing and analyzing small parts of a protocol in isolation and then reusing these security results in the context of the overall protocol. This is not just easier than analyzing the whole protocol as a monolithic block but also reduces the overall effort required in building and analyzing multiple different protocols based on the same underlying components, such as cryptographic primitives. Ideally, a model for universal composability should support a protocol designer in easily creating full, precise, and detailed specifications as well as sound security proofs of various protocols for various types of adversarial models, instead of being an additional obstacle one has to overcome during a security analysis. In particular, such a model should be sound, flexible/expressive, and easy to use. Unfortunately, despite the wide spread use of models for universal composability, existing models and frameworks are still unsatisfying in these respects as none combines all of these requirements simultaneously. In this thesis we therefore develop a model for universal composability, called the iUC framework, which combines soundness, usability, and flexibility in a so far unmatched way, and hence constitutes a solid framework for designing and analyzing essentially any protocol and application in a modular, universally composable, and sound manner. We use our model in a case study to analyze multiple different key exchange protocols precisely as they are deployed in practice. This illustrates the combination of both flexibility and usability of our model. This case study is also an important independent contribution as this is the first faithful security analysis of these unmodified protocols in a universal composability setting.
We present a general framework for constructing and analyzing authentication protocols in realistic models of communication networks. This framework provides a sound formalization for the authentication problem and suggests simple and attractive design principles for general authentication and key exchange protocols. The key element in our approach is a modular treatment of the authentication problem in cryptographic protocols; this applies to the definition of security, to the design of the protocols, and to their analysis. In particular, following this modular approach, we show how to systematically transform solutions that work in a model of idealized authenticated communications into solutions that are secure in the realistic setting of communication channels controlled by an active adversary. Using these principles we construct and prove the security of simple and practical authentication and key-exchange protocols. In particular, we provide a security analysis of some well-known key exchange protocols (e.g. authenticated Diffie-Hellman key exchange), and of some of the techniques underlying the design of several authentication protocols that are currently being