My php script and my c# application will pass a hash string to each other that is 32 chars long, what is the best mode for this? I thought ECB but am unsure as it says if using more then 1 block dont use. How do I know how big the block is?
They will occasionally pass a large text file, which would be the best mode for encrypting this...CBC?
Any good useful reads welcome...
Thanks
One problem of ECB (among many other problems) is that it encrypts deterministically. That is each time you encrypt the same ID, you get the same ciphertext. Thus this mode does not prevent traffic analysis. An attacker may not be able to learn the IDs that are encrypted. However, he can still determine when and how frequently the same ID is sent.
CBC and OFB when used properly use a new random IV for each encryption thus encrypting the same ID differently each time. Since you also make sure that all IDs have the same length the result should ciphertexts where the attacker cannot distinguish repeating IDs from non-repeating ones.
ECB is the simplest mode and really not recommended (it's not quite as secure as other modes).
Personally I'd use CBC.
In Addition to Accipitridae's Answer. You would need to supply the IV to the decryption procedure. That will also be a overhead in case of CBC or OFB.
Related
I have a tcl/tk based tool, which uses network password for authentication. Issue is that, it is saving password in the logs/history. So objective is to encrypt the password.
I tried to use aes package. But at the very beginning aes::init asks for keydata and initialization vector (16 byte). So how to generate IV and keydata. Is is some Random number? I am a novice in encryption algorithms.
If you have the password in the logs/history, why not fix the bug of logging/storing it in the first place?
Otherwise there are distinct things you might want:
A password hashing scheme like PBKDF2, bcrypt, argon2 etc. to store a password in a safe way and compare some user input to it. This is typically the case when you need to implement some kind of authentication with passwords on the server side.
A password encryption and protection scheme like AES. You need a password to authenticate to some service automatically, and it requires some form of cleartext password.
You have some secret data and need to securly store it to in non cleartext form.
If you have case 1, don't use the aespackage, it is the wrong tool for the job. If you have case 2, the aes package might help you, but you just exchanged the problem of keeping the password secret with the other problem of keeping the key secret (not a huge win). So the only viable case where aes is an option might be 3.
Lets assume you need to store some secret data in a reversible way, e.g. case 3 from above.
AES has a few possible modes of operation, common ones you might see are ECB, CBC, OFB, GCM, CTR. The Tcllib package just supports ECB and CBC, and only CBC (which is the default) is really an option to use.
Visit Wikipedia for an example why you should never use ECB mode.
Now back to your actual question:
Initialization Vector (IV)
This is a random value you pick for each encryption, it is not secret, you can just publish it together with the encrypted data. Picking a random IV helps to make two encrypted blocks differ, even if you use the same key and cleartext.
Secret Key
This is also a random value, but you must keep it secret, as it can be used for encryption and decryption. You often have the same key for multiple encryptions.
Where to get good randomness?
If you are on Linux, BSD or other unixoid systems just read bytes from /dev/urandom or use a wrapper for getrandom(). Do NOT use Tcls expr {rand()} or similar pseudorandom number generators (PRNG). On Windows TWAPI and the CryptGenRandom function would be the best idea, but sadly there is no Tcl high level wrapper included.
Is that enough?
Depends. If you just want to hide a bit of plaintext from cursory looks, maybe. If you have attackers manipulating your data or actively trying to hack your system, less so. Plain AES-CBC has a lot of things you can do wrong, and even experts did wrong (read about SSL/TLS 1.0 problems with AES-CBC).
Final words: If you are a novice in encryption algorithms, be sure you understand what you want and need to protect, there are a lot of pitfalls.
If I read the Tcler's Wiki page on aes, I see that I encrypt by doing this:
package require aes
set plaintext "Some super-secret bytes!"
set key "abcd1234dcba4321"; # 16 bytes
set encrypted [aes::aes -dir encrypt -key $key $plaintext]
and I decrypt by doing:
# Assuming the code above was run...
set decrypted [aes::aes -dir decrypt -key $key $encrypted]
Note that the decrypted text has NUL (zero) bytes added on the end (8 of them in this example) because the encryption algorithm always works on blocks of 16 bytes, and if you're working with non-ASCII text then encoding convertto and encoding convertfrom might be necessary.
You don't need to use aes::init directly unless you are doing large-scale streaming encryption. Your use case doesn't sound like it needs that sort of thing. (The key data is your “secret”, and the initialisation vector is something standardised that usually you don't need to set.)
I have some offline files that have to be password-protected. My strategy is as follows:
Cipher Algorithm: AES, 128-bit block, 256-bit key (PBKDF2-SHA-256
10000 iterations with a random salt stored plainly elsewhere)
Whole file is divided into pages with page size 1024 bytes
For a complete page, CBC is used
For an incomplete page,
Use CBC with cipher text stealing if it has at least one block
Use CTR if it has less one block
With this setup, we can keep the same file size
IV or nonce will be based on the salt and deterministic. Since this is not for network communication, I reckon we don't need to concern about replay attacks?
Question: Will this kind of mixing lower the security? Would we better off just use CTR throughout the whole file?
You're better off just using CTR for the entire file. Otherwise, you're adding a lot of extra work, in supporting multiple modes (CBC, CTR, and CTS) and determining which mode to use. It's not clear there's any value in doing so, since CTR is perfectly fine for encrypting a large amount of data.
Are you planning on reusing the same IV for each page? You should expand a bit on what you mean by a page, but I'd recommend unique IV's for each page. Are these pages addressable somehow? You might want to look into some of the new disk encryption modes for an idea on generating unique IV's
You also really need to MAC your data. In CTR for example, if someone flips a bit of the ciphertext, it'll flip the bit when you decrypt, and you'll never know it was tampered with. You can use HMAC or if you want to simplify your entire scheme, use AES GCM mode, which combines CTR for encryption and GMAC for integrity
There are a few things you need to know about CTR mode. After you know them all you could happily apply a stream cipher in your situation:
never ever reuse a data key with the same nonce;
above, not even in time;
be aware that CTR mode really shows the size of the encrypted data; always encrypting full blocks can hide this somewhat (in general a 1024 byte block takes as much as a single bit block if the file system boundaries are honored);
CTR mode in itself does not provide authentication (for completion, as this was already discussed);
If you don't keep to the first two rules, an attacker will immediately see the place of the edit and the attacker will be able to retrieve data directly related to the plain text.
On a possitive node:
you can happily use the offset (in, e.g., blocks) in the file to be part of the nonce;
it is very easy to seek in files, buffer ciphertext and create multi-threaded code around CTR.
And in general:
it pays off to use a data specific key specific sets of files, in such a way that if a key is compromised or changed that you don't have to re-encrypt everything;
think very well about how your keys are used, stored, backed up etc. Key management is the hardest part;
Right now, this is what I am doing:
1. SHA-1 a password like "pass123", use the first 32 characters of the hexadecimal decoding for the key
2. Encrypt with AES-256 with just whatever the default parameters are
^Is that secure enough?
I need my application to encrypt data with a password, and securely. There are too many different things that come up when I google this and some things that I don't understand about it too. I am asking this as a general question, not any specific coding language (though I'm planning on using this with Java and with iOS).
So now that I am trying to do this more properly, please follow what I have in mind:
Input is a password such as "pass123" and the data is
what I want to encrypt such as "The bank account is 038414838 and the pin is 5931"
Use PBKDF2 to derive a key from the password. Parameters:
1000 iterations
length of 256bits
Salt - this one confuses me because I am not sure where to get the salt from, do I just make one up? As in, all my encryptions would always use the salt "F" for example (since apparently salts are 8bits which is just one character)
Now I take this key, and do I hash it?? Should I use something like SHA-256? Is that secure? And what is HMAC? Should I use that?
Note: Do I need to perform both steps 2 and 3 or is just one or the other okay?
Okay now I have the 256-bit key to do the encryption with. So I perform the encryption using AES, but here's yet another confusing part (the parameters).
I'm not really sure what are the different "modes" to use, apparently there's like CBC and EBC and a bunch of others
I also am not sure about the "Initialization Vector," do I just make one up and always use that one?
And then what about other options, what is PKCS7Padding?
For your initial points:
Using hexadecimals clearly splits the key size in half. Basically, you are using AES-128 security wise. Not that that is bad, but you might also go for AES-128 and use 16 bytes.
SHA-1 is relatively safe for key derivation, but it shouldn't be used directly because of the existence/creation of rainbow tables. For this you need a function like PBKDF2 which uses an iteration count and salt.
As for the solution:
You should not encrypt PIN's if that can be avoided. Please make sure your passwords are safe enough, allow pass phrases.
Create a random number per password and save the salt (16 bytes) with the output of PBKDF2. The salt does not have to be secret, although you might want to include a system secret to add some extra security. The salt and password are hashed, so they may have any length to be compatible with PBKDF2.
No, you just save the secret generated by the PBKDF2, let the PBKDF2 generate more data when required.
Never use ECB (not EBC). Use CBC as minimum. Note that CBC encryption does not provide integrity checking (somebody might change the cipher text and you might never know it) or authenticity. For that, you might want to add an additional MAC, HMAC or use an encryption mode such as GCM. PKCS7Padding (identical to PKCS5Padding in most occurences) is a simple method of adding bogus data to get N * [blocksize] bytes, required by block wise encryption.
Don't forget to prepend a (random) IV to your cipher text in case you reuse your encryption keys. An IV is similar to a salt, but should be exactly [blocksize] bytes (16 for AES).
There are many articles and quotes on the web saying that a 'salt' must be kept secret. Even the Wikipedia entry on Salt:
For best security, the salt value is
kept secret, separate from the
password database. This provides an
advantage when a database is stolen,
but the salt is not. To determine a
password from a stolen hash, an
attacker cannot simply try common
passwords (such as English language
words or names). Rather, they must
calculate the hashes of random
characters (at least for the portion
of the input they know is the salt),
which is much slower.
Since I happen to know for a fact that encryption Salt (or Initialization Vectors) are OK to be stored on clear text along with the encrypted text, I want to ask why is this misconception perpetuated ?
My opinion is that the origin of the problem is a common confusion between the encryption salt (the block cipher's initialization vector) and the hashing 'salt'. In storing hashed passwords is a common practice to add a nonce, or a 'salt', and is (marginally) true that this 'salt' is better kept secret. Which in turn makes it not a salt at all, but a key, similar to the much clearly named secret in HMAC. If you look at the article Storing Passwords - done right! which is linked from the Wikipedia 'Salt' entry you'll see that is talking about this kind of 'salt', the password hash. I happen to disagree with most of these schemes because I believe that a password storage scheme should also allow for HTTP Digest authentication, in which case the only possible storage is the HA1 digest of the username:realm:password, see Storing password in tables and Digest authentication.
If you have an opinion on this issue, please post here as a response.
Do you think that the salt for block cipher encryption should be hidden? Explain why and how.
Do you agree that the blanket statement 'salts should be hidden' originates from salted hashing and does not apply to encryption?
Sould we include stream ciphers in discussion (RC4)?
If you are talking about IV in block cipher, it definitely should be in clear. Most people make their cipher weaker by using secret IV.
IV should be random, different for each encryption. It's very difficult to manage a random IV so some people simply use a fixed IV, defeating the purpose of IV.
I used to work with a database with password encrypted using secret fixed IV. The same password is always encrypted to the same ciphertext. This is very prone to rainbow table attack.
Do you think that the salt for block
cipher encryption should be hidden?
Explain why and how
No it shouldn't. The strength of a block cipher relies on the key. IMO you should not increase the strength of your encryption by adding extra secrets. If the cipher and key are not strong enough then you need to change the cipher or key length, not start keeping other bits of data secret. Security is hard enough so keep it simple.
Like LFSR Consulting says:
There are people that are much smarter
than you and I that have spent more
time thinking about this topic than
you or I ever will.
Which is a loaded answer to say the least. There are folks who, marginally in the honest category, will overlook some restraints when money is available. There are a plethora of people who have no skin at the fire and will lower the boundaries for that type,....
then, not too far away, there is a type of risk that comes from social factors - which is almost impossible to program away. For that person, setting up a device solely to "break the locks" can be an exercise of pure pleasure for no gain or measurable reason. That said, you asked that those who have an opinion please respond so here goes:
Do you think that the salt for block
cipher encryption should be hidden?
Explain why and how.
Think of it this way, it adds to the computational strength needed. It's just one more thing to hide if it has to be hidden. By and of it's self, being forced to hide ( salt, iv, or anything ) places the entity doing the security in the position of being forced to do something. Anytime the opposition can tell you what to do, they can manipulate you. If it leaks, that should have been caught by cross-controls that would have detected the leak and replacement salts available. There is no perfect cipher, save otp, and even that can be compromised somehow as greatest risk comes from within.
In my opinion, the only solution is to be selective about whom you do any security for - the issue of protecting salts leads to issues that are relevant to the threat model. Obviously, keys have to be protected. If you have to protect the salt, you probably need to review your burger flippin resume and question the overall security approach of those for whom you are working.
There is no answer, actually.
Do you agree that the blanket statement 'salts should be hidden' originates from salted hashing and does not apply to encryption?
Who said this, where, and what basis was given.
Should we include stream ciphers in discussion (RC4)?
A cipher is a cipher - what difference would it make?
Each encrypted block is the next block IV. So by definition, the IV cannot be secret. Each block is an IV.
The first block is not very different. An attacker who knows the length of the plain text could have a hint that the first block is the IV.
BLOCK1 could be IV or Encrypted with well known IV
BLOCK2 is encrypted with BLOCK#1 as an IV
...
BLOCK N is encrypted with BLOCK#N-1 as an IV
Still, whenever possible, I generate a random (non-null) IV and give it to each party out-of-band. But the security gain is probably not that important.
The purpose of a per record salt is to make the task of reversing the hashes much harder. So if a password database is exposed the effort required to break the passwords is increased. So assuming that the attacker knows exactly how you perform the hash, rather than constructing a single rainbow table for the entire database they need to do this for every entry in the database.
The per record salt is usually some combination of fields in the record that vary greatly between records. Transaction time, Account Number, transaction Number are all good examples of fields that can be used in a per record salt. A record salt should come from other fields in the record. So yes it is not secret, but you should avoid publicising the method of calculation.
There is a separate issue with a database wide salt. This is a sort of key, and protects against the attacker using existing rainbow tables to crack the passwords. The database wide salt should be stored separately so that if the database is compromised then it is unlikely that the attacker will get this value as well.
A database wide salt should be treated as though it was a key and access to the salt value should be moderately protected. One way of doing this is to split the salt into components that are managed in different domains. One component in the code, one in a configuration file, one in the database. Only the running code should be able to read all of these and combine them together using a bit wide XOR.
The last area is where many fail. There must be a way to change these salt values and or algorithm. If a security incident occurs we may want to be able to change the salt values easily. The database should have a salt version field and the code will use the version to identify which salts to use and in what combination. The encryption or hash creation always uses the latest salt algorithm, but the decode verify function always uses the algorithm specified in the record. This way a low priority thread can read through the database decrypting and re-encrypting the entries.
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.