International Journal of Applied Cryptography

Comparing the pre- and post-specified peer models for key agreement

Alfred Menezes, Berkant Ustaoğlu

Published Jan 1, 2009• 14 citations

Abstract

In the pre-specified peer model for key agreement, it is assumed that a party knows the identifier of its intended communicating peer when it commences a protocol run. On the other hand, a party in the post-specified peer model for key agreement does not know the identifier of its communicating peer at the outset, but learns the identifier during the protocol run. In this article, we compare the security assurances provided by the Canetti-Krawczyk security definitions for key agreement in the pre- and post-specified peer models. We give examples of protocols that are secure in one model, but insecure in the other. We also enhance the Canetti-Krawczyk security models and definitions to encompass a class of protocols that are executable and secure in both the pre- and post-specified peer models.

DOI: 10.1504/ijact.2009.023472

Related papers

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, 20083 citations

Comparing the Pre- and Post-specified Peer Models for Key Agreement

Alfred Menezes, Berkant Ustaoğlu

Lecture notes in computer scienceAug 12, 200837 citations

Certificateless Key Agreement Protocols under Strong Models

Denise Goya, Dionathan Nakamura, Routo Terada

Two new authenticated key agreement protocols in the certificateless setting are presented in this paper. Both are proved secure in the extended Canetti-Krawczyk model, under the BDH assumption. The first one is more efficient than the Lippold et al.'s (LBG) protocol, and is proved secure in the same security model. The second protocol is proved secure under the Swanson et al.'s security model, a weaker model. As far as we know, our second proposed protocol is the first one proved secure in the Swanson et al.'s security model. If no pre-computations are done, the first protocol is about 26% faster than LBG, and the second protocol is about 49% faster than LBG, and about 31% faster than the first one. If pre-computations of some operations are done, our two protocols remain faster.

IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics Communications and Computer SciencesJan 1, 20166 citations

Formal Proof of Relative Strengths of Security between ECK2007 Model and other Proof Models for Key Agreement Protocols.

Jinyue Xia, Jiandong Wang, Liming Fang +2 more

In 2005, Choo, Boyd & Hitchcock compared four well-known indistinguishability-based proof models for key agreement protocols, which contains the Bellare & Rogaway (1993, 1995) model, the Bellare , Pointcheval & Rogaway 2000 model and the Canetti & Krawczyk (2001) model. After that, researchers from Microsoft presented a stronger security model, called Extended Canetti-Krawczyk model (2007). In this paper, we will point out the differences between the new proof model and the four previous models, and analyze the relative strengths of security of these models. To support the implication or non-implication relation between these models, we will provide proof or counter-example.

Jan 1, 20084 citations

Rethinking Definitions of Security for Session Key Agreement.

Wesley George, Charles Rackoff

We consider session key agreement (SKA) protocols operating in a public key infrastructure, with pre-specified peers, that take no session ID as input, and output only a session key. Despite much work on SKA, we argue that there is no good definition of security for this (very natural) protocol syntax. The difficulty is that in this setting the adversary may not be able to tell which processes share a key, and thus which session keys may be revealed without trivializing the security condition. We consider security against adversaries that control all network traffic, can register arbitrary public keys, and can retrieve session keys. We do not attempt to mitigate damage from hardware failures, such as session-state compromise, as we aim to improve our understanding of this simpler setting. We give two natural but substantially different game based definitions of security and prove that they are equivalent. Such proofs are rare for SKA. The bulk of this proof consists of showing that, for secure protocols, only compatible processes can be made to share a key. This property is very natural but surprisingly subtle. For comparison, we give a version of our definition in which processes output session IDs and we give strong theorems relating these two

Jan 1, 20131 citation

Security in Key Agreement: Two-Party Certificateless Schemes

Colleen Marie Swanson

The main goal of cryptography is to enable secure communication over a public channel; often a secret shared among the communicating parties is used to achieve this. The process by which these parties agree on such a shared secret is called key agreement. In this thesis, we focus on two-party key agreement protocols in the public-key setting and study the various methods used to establish and validate public keys. We pay particular attention to certificateless key agreement schemes and attempt to formalize a relevant notion of security. To that end, we give a possible extension of the existing extended Canetti-Krawzcyk security model applicable to the certificateless setting. We observe that none of the certificateless protocols we have seen in the literature are secure in this model; it is an open question whether such schemes exist. We analyze several published certificateless key agreement protocols, demonstrating the existence of key compromise impersonation attacks and even a man-in-the-middle attack in one case, contrary to the claims of the authors. We also briefly describe weaknesses exhibited by these protocols in the context of our suggested security model.

Dec 22, 200848 citations