Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Lecture notes in computer science

Combined Security Analysis of the One- and Three-Pass Unified Model Key Agreement Protocols

Sanjit Chatterjee, Alfred Menezes, Berkant Ustaoğlu

Published Jan 1, 2010• 3 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-3-642-17401-8_5

Related papers

On the security of an efficient two-pass key agreement protocol

Yuh‐Min Tseng

Computer Standards & Interfaces•Dec 10, 2003•5 citations

Key establishment --- security models, protocols and usage

Berkant Ustaoğlu

Key establishment is the process whereby two or more parties derive a shared \nsecret, typically used for subsequent confidential communication. However, \nidentifying the exact security requirements for key establishment protocols is \na non-trivial task. This thesis compares, extends and merges existing security \ndefinitions and models for key establishment protocols. \n \nThe primary focus is on two-party key agreement schemes in the public-key \nsetting. On one hand new protocols are proposed and analyzed in the existing \nCanetti-Krawzcyk model. On the other hand the thesis develops a security model \nand novel definition that capture the essential security attributes of the \nstandardized Unified Model key agreement protocol. These analyses lead to the \ndevelopment of a new security model and related definitions that combine and \nextend the Canetti-Krawzcyk pre- and post- specified peer models in terms of \nprovided security assurances. \n \nThe thesis also provides a complete analysis of a one-pass key establishment \nscheme. There are security goals that no one-pass key establishment scheme can \nachieve, and hence the two-pass security models and definitions need to be \nadapted for one-pass protocols. The analysis provided here includes \nthe description of the required modification to the underlying security model. \nFinally, a complete security argument meeting these altered conditions is \npresented as evidence supporting the security of the one-pass scheme. \n \nLastly, validation and reusing short lived key pairs are related to \nefficiency, which is a major objective in practice. The thesis considers the \nformal implication of omitting validation steps and reusing short lived key \npairs. The conclusions reached support the generally accepted cryptographic \nconventions that incoming messages should not be blindly trusted and extra \ncare should be taken when key pairs are reused.

•Jul 30, 2008•3 citations

Security Analysis and Applications of Standard Key Agreement Protocols

Soohyun Oh, Jin Kwak, Seungwoo Lee +1 more

Lecture notes in computer science•Jan 1, 2003•7 citations

Key agreement protocols and their security analysis

Simon Blake-Wilson⋆⋆, Don B. Johnson, Alfred Menezes

Lecture notes in computer science•Jan 1, 1997•601 citations

Obtaining a secure and efficient key agreement protocol from (H)MQV and NAXOS.

Berkant Ustaoğlu

LaMacchia, Lauter and Mityagin recently presented a strong security definition for authenticated key agreement strengthening the well-known Canetti-Krawczyk definition. They also described a protocol, called NAXOS, that enjoys a simple security proof in the new model. Compared to MQV and HMQV, NAXOS is less efficient and cannot be readily modified to obtain a one-pass protocol. On the other hand MQV does not have a security proof, and the HMQV security proof is extremely complicated. This paper proposes a new authenticated key agreement protocol, called CMQV (‘Combined’ MQV), which incorporates design principles from MQV, HMQV and NAXOS. The new protocol achieves the efficiency of HMQV and admits a natural one-pass variant. Moreover, we present a simple and intuitive proof that CMQV is secure in the LaMacchia-Lauter-Mityagin model.

•Jan 1, 2007•1 citation

Vulnerability of two multiple-key agreement protocols

Mohammad Sabzinejad Farash, Majid Bayat, Mahmoud Ahmadian‐Attari

Computers & Electrical Engineering•Mar 1, 2011•25 citations
Key establishment is the process whereby two or more parties derive a shared \nsecret, typically used for subsequent confidential communication. However, \nidentifying the exact security requirements for key establishment protocols is \na non-trivial task. This thesis compares, extends and merges existing security \ndefinitions and models for key establishment protocols. \n \nThe primary focus is on two-party key agreement schemes in the public-key \nsetting. On one hand new protocols are proposed and analyzed in the existing \nCanetti-Krawzcyk model. On the other hand the thesis develops a security model \nand novel definition that capture the essential security attributes of the \nstandardized Unified Model key agreement protocol. These analyses lead to the \ndevelopment of a new security model and related definitions that combine and \nextend the Canetti-Krawzcyk pre- and post- specified peer models in terms of \nprovided security assurances. \n \nThe thesis also provides a complete analysis of a one-pass key establishment \nscheme. There are security goals that no one-pass key establishment scheme can \nachieve, and hence the two-pass security models and definitions need to be \nadapted for one-pass protocols. The analysis provided here includes \nthe description of the required modification to the underlying security model. \nFinally, a complete security argument meeting these altered conditions is \npresented as evidence supporting the security of the one-pass scheme. \n \nLastly, validation and reusing short lived key pairs are related to \nefficiency, which is a major objective in practice. The thesis considers the \nformal implication of omitting validation steps and reusing short lived key \npairs. The conclusions reached support the generally accepted cryptographic \nconventions that incoming messages should not be blindly trusted and extra \ncare should be taken when key pairs are reused.
LaMacchia, Lauter and Mityagin recently presented a strong security definition for authenticated key agreement strengthening the well-known Canetti-Krawczyk definition. They also described a protocol, called NAXOS, that enjoys a simple security proof in the new model. Compared to MQV and HMQV, NAXOS is less efficient and cannot be readily modified to obtain a one-pass protocol. On the other hand MQV does not have a security proof, and the HMQV security proof is extremely complicated. This paper proposes a new authenticated key agreement protocol, called CMQV (‘Combined’ MQV), which incorporates design principles from MQV, HMQV and NAXOS. The new protocol achieves the efficiency of HMQV and admits a natural one-pass variant. Moreover, we present a simple and intuitive proof that CMQV is secure in the LaMacchia-Lauter-Mityagin model.