As far as i know CRC32 is an error-detecting code.
I did not use it before but i recieve some task to use CRC32 to encrypt some text.
Is it possible to use CRC32 to encrypt ?
As noted, a CRC is linear and easily reversible, which is precisely what you don't want for secure encryption.
However it is possible to encode data with a CRC, if there were some reason to do so. You can, for example, take four bytes of data, compute the CRC-32 of that data, and transmit the CRC-32 instead of the data. Repeat for the next four bytes. That CRC-32 can easily be inverted to get the original four bytes.
I have no idea why that might be useful, but it can be done.
i recieve some task to use CRC32 to encrypt some text.
As already commented, crc32 is checksum, not even cryptographic hash. That means it lacks important features to be used in cryptography
Lets assume (wrongly) you could use crc32 as a hash function.
In theory (long shot) you could build a stream cipher e. g. chain-hashing a key. You could encrypt data with it. Just I am pretty sure the solution would be not secure enough. (even now I am an amateur and I am quite confident I see several attack vectors on such a cipher, crc32 is simply too linear)
Related
Assuming a have some plain text and the corresponding encrypted data, is it possible to find the key in faster than brute force time? If so, how do I do this?
To clarify: I have plaintext p and encrypted data d. They can be strings or a byte array, or whatever you prefer. I just want to know if it is possible to obtain the key from this data.
See Attacks on the RC4 stream cipher. RC4 provides effective security when used carefully and properly, but it's not that hard to make a mistake either.
I have a string of 10-15 characters and I want to encrypt that string. The problem is I want to get a shortest encrypted string as possible. I will also want to decrypt that string back to its original string.
Which encryption algorithm fits best to this situation?
AES uses a 16-byte block size; it is admirably suited to your needs if your limit of 10-15 characters is firm. The PKCS#11 (IIRC) padding scheme would add 6-1 bytes to the data and generate an output of exactly 16 bytes. You don't really need to use an encryption mode (such as CBC) since you're only encrypting one block. There is an issue of how you'd be handling the keys - there is always an issue of how you handle encryption keys.
If you must go with shorter data lengths for shorter strings, then you probably need to consider AES in CTR mode. This uses the key and a counter to generate a byte stream which is XOR'd with the bytes of the string. It would leave your encrypted string at the same length as the input plaintext string.
You'll be hard pressed to find a general purpose compression algorithm that reliably reduces the length of such short strings, so compressing before encrypting is barely an option.
If it's just one short string, you could use a one-time pad which is mathematically perfect secrecy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad
Just be sure you don't use the key more than one time.
If the main goal is shortening, I would look for a compression library that allows a fixed dictionary built on a corpus of common strings.
Personally I do not have experience with that, but I bet LZMA can do that.
What is the minimum number of bits needed to represent a single character of encrypted text.
eg, if I wanted to encrypt the letter 'a', how many bits would I require. (assume there are many singly encrypted characters using the same key.)
Am I right in thinking that it would be the size of the key. eg 256 bits?
Though the question is somewhat fuzzy, first of all it would depend on whether you use a stream cipher or a block cipher.
For the stream cipher, you would get the same number of bits out that you put in - so the binary logarithm of your input alphabet size would make sense. The block cipher requires input blocks of a fixed size, so you might pad your 'a' with zeroes and encrypt that, effectively having the block size as a minimum, like you already proposed.
I'm afraid all the answers you've had so far are quite wrong! It seems I can't reply to them, but do ask if you need more information on why they are wrong. Here is the correct answer:
About 80 bits.
You need a few bits for the "nonce" (sometimes called the IV). When you encrypt, you combine key, plaintext and nonce to produce the ciphertext, and you must never use the same nonce twice. So how big the nonce needs to be depends on how often you plan on using the same key; if you won't be using the key more than 256 times, you can use an 8 bit nonce. Note that it's only the encrypting side that needs to ensure it doesn't use a nonce twice; the decrypting side only needs to care if it cares about preventing replay attacks.
You need 8 bits for the payload, since that's how many bits of plaintext you have.
Finally, you need about 64 bits for the authentication tag. At this length, an attacker has to try on average 2^63 bogus messages minimum before they get one accepted by the remote end. Do not think that you can do without the authentication tag; this is essential for the security of the whole mode.
Put these together using AES in a chaining mode such as EAX or GCM, and you get 80 bits of ciphertext.
The key size isn't a consideration.
You can have the same number of bits as the plaintext if you use a one-time pad.
This is hard to answer. You should definitely first read up on some fundamentals. You can 'encrypt' an 'a' with a single bit (Huffman encoding-style), and of course you could use more bits too. A number like 256 bits without any context is meaningless.
Here's something to get you started:
Information Theory -- esp. check out Shannon's seminal paper
One Time Pad -- infamous secure, but impractical, encryption scheme
Huffman encoding -- not encryption, but demonstrates the above point
First off, I would like to ask if any of you know of an encryption algorithm that uses a key to encrypt the data, but no key to decrypt the data. This seems highly unlikely, if not impossible to me, so sorry if it's a stupid question.
My final question is, say you have access to the plain text data before it is encrypted, the key used to encrypt the plain text data, and the resulting encrypted data, would figuring out which algorithm used to encrypt the data be feasible?
First off, I would like to ask
if any of you know of an encryption
algorithm that uses a key to encrypt
the data, but no key to decrypt the
data.
No. There are algorithms that use a different key to decrypt than to encrypt, but a keyless method would rely on secrecy of the algorithm, generally regarded as a poor idea.
My final question is, say you have
access to the plain text data before
it is encrypted, the key used to
encrypt the plain text data, and the
resulting encrypted data, would
figuring out which algorithm used to
encrypt the data be feasible?
Most likely yes, especially given the key. A good crypto algorithm relies on the secrecy of the key, and the key alone. See kerckhoff's principle.
Also if a common algorithm is used it would be a simple matter of trial and error, and besides cryptotext often is accompanied by metadata which tells you algorithm details.
edit: as per comments, you may be thinking of digital signature (which requires a secret only on the sender side), a hash algorithm (which requires no key but isn't encryption), or a zero-knowledge proof (which can prove knowledge of a secret without revealing it).
Abstractly, we can think of the encryption system this way:
-------------------
plaintext ---> | algorithm & key | ---> ciphertext
-------------------
The system must guarantee the following:
decrypt(encrypt(plaintext, algorithm, key), algorithm, key) = plaintext
First off, I would like to ask
if any of you know of an encryption
algorithm that uses a key to encrypt
the data, but no key to decrypt the
data.
Yes, in such a system the key is redundant; all the "secrecy" lies in the algorithm.
My final question
is, say you have access to the plain
text data before it is encrypted, the
key used to encrypt the plain text
data, and the resulting encrypted
data, would figuring out which
algorithm used to encrypt the data be
feasible?
In practice, you'll probably have a small space of algorithms, so a simple brute-force search is feasible. However, there may be more than one algorithm that fits the given information. Consider the following example:
We define the following encryption and decryption operations, where plaintext, ciphertext, algorithm, and key are real numbers (assume algorithm is nonzero):
encrypt(plaintext, algorithm, key) = algorithm x (plaintext + key) = ciphertext
decrypt(ciphertext, algorithm, key) = ciphertext/algorithm - key = plaintext
Now, suppose that plaintext + key = 0. We have ciphertext = 0 for any choice of algorithm. Hence, we cannot deduce the algorithm used.
First off, I would like to ask if any of you know of an encryption algorithm that uses a key to encrypt the data, but no key to decrypt the data.
What are you getting at? It's trivial to come up with a pair of functions that fits the letter of the specification, but without knowing the intent it's hard to give a more helpful answer.
say you have access to the plain text data before it is encrypted, the key used to encrypt the plain text data, and the resulting encrypted data, would figuring out which algorithm used to encrypt the data be feasible?
If the algorithm is any good the output will be indistinguishable from random noise, so there is no analytic solution to this. As a practical matter, there are only so many trusted algorithms in wide use. Trying each one in turn would be quick, but would be complicated by the fact that an implementation has some freedom with regard to things like byte order (little-endian vs big-endian), key derivation (if you had a pass-phrase instead of the actual cryptographic key itself), encryption modes and padding.
As frankodwyer points out, this situation is not part of usual threat models. This would work in your favor, as it makes it more likely that the algorithm is a well-known one.
The best you could do without a known key in the decoder would be to add a bit of obscurity. For example, if the first step of the decode algorythm is to strip out everything except for every tenth character, then your encode key may be used to seed some random garbage for nine out of every ten characters. Thus, with different keys you could achieve different encoded results which would be decoded to the same message, with no key necessary for the decoder.
However, this does not add much real security and should not be solely relied on to protect crucial data. I'm just thinking of a case where it would be possible to do so yes I suppose it could - if you were just trying to prove a point or add one more level of security.
I don't believe that there is such an algorithm that would use a key to encrypt, but not to decrypt. (Silly answers like a 26 character Caesar cipher aside...)
To your second question, yes; it just depends on how much time you're willing to spend on it. In theoretical cryptography it is assumed that the algorithm can always be determined. Whether that be through theft of the algorithm or a physical machine, or as in your case having a plain text and cipher text pair.
Is it recommended that I use an initialization vector to encrypt/decrypt my data? Will it make things more secure? Is it one of those things that need to be evaluated on a case by case basis?
To put this into actual context, the Win32 Cryptography function, CryptSetKeyParam allows for the setting of an initialization vector on a key prior to encrypting/decrypting. Other API's also allow for this.
What is generally recommended and why?
An IV is essential when the same key might ever be used to encrypt more than one message.
The reason is because, under most encryption modes, two messages encrypted with the same key can be analyzed together. In a simple stream cipher, for instance, XORing two ciphertexts encrypted with the same key results in the XOR of the two messages, from which the plaintext can be easily extracted using traditional cryptanalysis techniques.
A weak IV is part of what made WEP breakable.
An IV basically mixes some unique, non-secret data into the key to prevent the same key ever being used twice.
In most cases you should use IV. Since IV is generated randomly each time, if you encrypt same data twice, encrypted messages are going to be different and it will be impossible for the observer to say if this two messages are the same.
Take a good look at a picture (see below) of CBC mode. You'll quickly realize that an attacker knowing the IV is like the attacker knowing a previous block of ciphertext (and yes they already know plenty of that).
Here's what I say: most of the "problems" with IV=0 are general problems with block encryption modes when you don't ensure data integrity. You really must ensure integrity.
Here's what I do: use a strong checksum (cryptographic hash or HMAC) and prepend it to your plaintext before encrypting. There's your known first block of ciphertext: it's the IV of the same thing without the checksum, and you need the checksum for a million other reasons.
Finally: any analogy between CBC and stream ciphers is not terribly insightful IMHO.
Just look at the picture of CBC mode, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Here's a picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_modes_of_operation
link text
If the same key is used multiple times for multiple different secrets patterns could emerge in the encrypted results. The IV, that should be pseudo random and used only once with each key, is there to obfuscate the result. You should never use the same IV with the same key twice, that would defeat the purpose of it.
To not have to bother keeping track of the IV the simplest thing is to prepend, or append it, to the resulting encrypted secret. That way you don't have to think much about it. You will then always know that the first or last N bits is the IV.
When decrypting the secret you just split out the IV, and then use it together with the key to decrypt the secret.
I found the writeup of HTTP Digest Auth (RFC 2617) very helpful in understanding the use and need for IVs / nonces.
Is it one of those things that need to be evaluated on a case by case
basis?
Yes, it is. Always read up on the cipher you are using and how it expects its inputs to look. Some ciphers don't use IVs but do require salts to be secure. IVs can be of different lengths. The mode of the cipher can change what the IV is used for (if it is used at all) and, as a result, what properties it needs to be secure (random, unique, incremental?).
It is generally recommended because most people are used to using AES-256 or similar block ciphers in a mode called 'Cipher Block Chaining'. That's a good, sensible default go-to for a lot of engineering uses and it needs you to have an appropriate (non-repeating) IV. In that instance, it's not optional.
The IV allows for plaintext to be encrypted such that the encrypted text is harder to decrypt for an attacker. Each bit of IV you use will double the possibilities of encrypted text from a given plain text.
For example, let's encrypt 'hello world' using an IV one character long. The IV is randomly selected to be 'x'. The text that is then encrypted is then 'xhello world', which yeilds, say, 'asdfghjkl'. If we encrypt it again, first generate a new IV--say we get 'b' this time--and encrypt like normal (thus encrypting 'bhello world'). This time we get 'qwertyuio'.
The point is that the attacker doesn't know what the IV is and therefore must compute every possible IV for a given plain text to find the matching cipher text. In this way, the IV acts like a password salt. Most commonly, an IV is used with a chaining cipher (either a stream or block cipher). In a chaining block cipher, the result of each block of plain text is fed to the cipher algorithm to find the cipher text for the next block. In this way, each block is chained together.
So, if you have a random IV used to encrypt the plain text, how do you decrypt it? Simple. Pass the IV (in plain text) along with your encrypted text. Using our fist example above, the final cipher text would be 'xasdfghjkl' (IV + cipher text).
Yes you should use an IV, but be sure to choose it properly. Use a good random number source to make it. Don't ever use the same IV twice. And never use a constant IV.
The Wikipedia article on initialization vectors provides a general overview.