We develop an approach to deriving concrete engineering advice for cryptographic protocols from provable-security-style proofs of security. The approach is illustrated with a simple, yet useful protocol. Our main result provides the first published proof of an exact probabilistic relationship betwe en a high-level protocol and multiple cryptographic primitives. This exact relationship enables us to rigorously derive concrete recommendations on the bitlengths of cryptographic keys and on how often principals should rekey. As an additional benefit of our approach, the process of developing our theorem and proof lead us to identify and implement an improvement in our example protocol.
We develop an approach to deriving concrete engineering advice for cryptographic protocols from provable-security-style proofs of security. The approach is illustrated with a simple, yet useful protocol. Our main result provides the first published proof of an exact probabilistic relationship betwe en a high-level protocol and multiple cryptographic primitives. This exact relationship enables us to rigorously derive concrete recommendations on the bitlengths of cryptographic keys and on how often principals should rekey. As an additional benefit of our approach, the process of developing our theorem and proof lead us to identify and implement an improvement in our example protocol.
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.
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.
In general, it is difficult to verify security of cryptographic protocols.Indeed, flaws of designs and security proofs of some protocols were found after they had been presented.In deductive verification using formal methods, protocols and security properties are described in formal languages, and correctness of designs and security proofs are deduced by inference rules.While a number of formal frameworks and verification tools have been developed and applied to classical protocols, few formal methods have been applied to security proofs of quantum protocols.The contributions of this thesis consist of the following three results.First, we developed a software tool to verify bisimilarity of configurations (pairs of processes and quantum states) of qCCS, a quantum process calculus presented by Feng et al.Bisimilar configurations behave indistinguishably from the outside.We designed a formal framework for the verifier, which we call nondeterministic qCCS, on the basis of qCCS by Feng et al.While the transition system of qCCS is both nondeterministic and probabilistic, we presented a nondeterministic and non-probabilistic transition system for configurations, extending the definition of them.This allows the verifier to verify bisimilarity efficiently.Next, we designed the verifier to handle security parameters and quantum states symbolically.A purpose is to apply it to quantum cryptographic protocols, where the dimensions of quantum states depend on security parameters.When the verifier checks bisimulation relation of configurations, it uses user-defined equations on the symbolic representations to check the quantum states that the outsider can access are always equal.Besides, the verifier is sound with respect to qCCS, that is, when it runs with two configurations as input and returns true, a symbol representing success of the verification, the configurations are in bisimulation relation in the qCCS's definition.Second, we defined a notion of approximate bisimulation relation on configurations of nondeterministic qCCS, and extended the verifier to check the approximate bisimilarity.Approximately bisimilar configurations reveal quantum states with close trace distance to the outsider after transitions.This property is useful in security proofs of quantum key distribution protocols.We then proved the approximate bisimulation relation is closed under application of evaluation contexts of processes.Third, we formally verified Shor and Preskill's security proof of BB84 quantum key distribution protocol.They first considered another protocol (the EDP-based protocol) and proved the security of BB84 and the EDP-based protocol is equivalent.They next proved the latter is secure.For the first step of their proof, we formalized the two protocols as configurations and formally verified that they are bisimilar.For the second step, we defined a completely secure protocol (EDPideal) and formally verified that the configurations of it and the EDP-based protocol are approximately bisimilar.This is the first work where a security proof of a quantum cryptographic protocol is mechanically verified using a software tool.
Given the critical role of medical information in medical cryptographic processes, it is essential to have rigorous security validation to prevent any vulnerabilities in the authentication process that could lead to unauthorized access and access to clinical information and allow unauthorized treatment decisions to be made.This study introduces a formal security-proof framework to assess the security of authentication, confidentiality, integrity, anonymity and security of session-keys in connected healthcare settings.The proposed protocol uses finite field operations, cryptographic hashes, key derivation functions, random nonces, timestamps and medical professionals and patients.Adversarial games, mutual-authentication proofs, session-key indistinguishability and resistance to replay, impersonation, man-in-the-middle and privileged-insider attacks are discussed in the context of security.The formal reasoning approach has a negligible adversarial advantage, given the computational assumptions.Comparative evaluation shows the overhead of the authentication process is lower, but the protection of the medical devices is still high, even when considering the limited resources of medical devices.The framework provides a mathematically sound basis for designing reliable, private and effective healthcare communication systems in a heterogeneous clinical network and infrastructure.