Triple DES or RC4?
I have the choice to employ either one.
As a high level view the following comments on both should be useful.
It is extremely easy to create a protocol based on RC4 (such as WEP) that is of extremely low strength (breakable with commodity hardware in minutes counts as extremely weak).
Triple DES is not great in that its strength comes though excessive cpu effort but it is of considerably greater strength (both theoretically in real world attacks) than RC4 so should be the default choice.
Going somewhat deeper:
In the field of encryption with no well defined target application then the definition of 'best' is inherently hard since the 'fitness' of an algorithm is multi variant.
Ease of implementation
Can you run it on commodity hardware?
Are implementations subject to accidental flaws that significantly reduce security while still allowing 'correctness' of behaviour.
Cost of implementation
Power/silicon/time to encode/decode.
Effort to break
Brute Force resilience. Pretty quantifiable
Resistance to cryptanalysis, less quantifiable, you might think so but perhaps the right person hasn't had a try yet:)
Flexibility
Can you trade off one of the above for another
What's the maximum key size (thus upper limits of the Brute Force)
What sort of input size is required to get decent encryption, does it require salting.
Actually working out the effort to break itself requires a lot of time and effort, which is why you (as a non cryptographer) go with something already done rather than roll your own. It is also subject to change over time, hopefully solely as a result of improvements in the hardware available rather than fundamental flaws in the algorithm being discovered.
The core overriding concern is of course just that, is it secure? It should be noted that many older algorithms previously considered secure are no longer in that category. Some are so effectively broken that their use is simply pointless, you have no security whatsoever simply obscurity (useful but in no way comparable to real security).
Currently neither of the core algorithms of RC4 and TDES is in that category but the naive implementation of RC4 is considered extremely flawed in protocols where the message data can be forced to repeat. RC4 has several more significant theoretical flaws than TDES.
That said TDES is NOT better than RC4 in all the areas listed above. It is significantly more expensive to compute (and that expensiveness is not justified, other less costly crypto systems exist with comparable security to TDES)
Once you have a real world application you normally get one or both of the following:
Constrains on your hardware to do the task
Constraints imposed be the data you are encrypting (this is used to transmit data which needs to be kept secret only for X days... for example)
Then you can state, with tolerances and assumptions, what can achieve this (or if you simply can't) and go with that.
In the absence of any such constraints we can only give you the following:
Ease of implementation
Both have publicly available secure free implementations for almost any architecture and platform available.
RC4 implementations may not be as secure as you think if the message can be forced to repeat (see the WEP issues). Judicious use of salting may reduce this risk but this will NOT have been subject to the rigorous analysis that the raw implementations have been and as such should be viewed with suspision.
Cost of implementation
I have no useful benchmarks for RC4 (it is OLD) http://www.cryptopp.com/benchmarks.html has some useful guides to put TDES in context with RC5 which is slower than RC4 (TDES is at least an order of magnitude slower than RC4) RC4 can encrypt a stream at approximately 7 cycles per byte in a fast implementation on modern x86 processors for comparison.
Effort to break
Brute Force resilience of TDES is currently believed to be high, even in the presence of many encryption outputs.
RC4 brute force resilience is orders of magnitude lower than TDES and further is extremely low in certain modes of operation (failure to discard initial bits of stream)
Resistance to cryptanalysis, There are publicly known flaws for Triple DES but they do not reduce the effectiveness of it to realistic attack in the next decade or two, the same is not true for RC4 where several flaws are known and combined they have produced reliable attacks on several protocols based on it.
Flexibility
TDES has very little flexibility (and your library may not expose them anyway)
RC4 has a lot more flexibility (the key used to initialize it can be arbitrarily long in theory, though the library may limit this.
Based on this and your statement that you must use one or the other you should consider the RC4 implementation only if the CPU cost of TripleDES makes it unrealistic to implement in your environment or the low level of security provided by RC4 is still considerably higher than your requirements specify.
I should also point out that systems exist which are empirically better in all areas than RC4 and TDES.
The eSTREAM project is evaluating various stream cyphers in the order of 5 or less cycles per byte though the cryptanalysis work on them is not really complete.
Many faster, stronger block cyphers exist to compete with TDES. AES is probably the best known, and would be a candidate since it is of comparable (if not better) security but is much faster.
Sorry - triple DES is no longer considered best practices. AES is simply a better algorithm so if you can use it then you should. For an easy implementation, go here.
I strongly suggest that you learn more by reading up on TDES on Wikipedia. The money quote is:
"TDES is slowly disappearing from use,
largely replaced by the Advanced
Encryption Standard (AES)."
RC4 is, honestly, just not an acceptable option for any application where security is important.
Agreed -- DES is largely outdated, so unless there is a good reason to use it, go with AES. If that's not an option, TDES would be the better choice, unless you're dealing with streaming data (ie, data which cannot be broken into blocks), then RC4 is the way to go (out of the given options).
Of course, I feel like I should mention... Cryptography is really, really hard to get right, and even the strongest algorithm can be broken easily if you get something even a little wrong (see, eg, older Kerberos or WEP).
This might not be the most informative answer, but during my 4 year employment term with a very large telco, Triple DES was the encryption standard for all sensitive applications, others were simply not allowed. It was Triple DES or the application does not go live. Hope that helps.
Both are secure, well... enough. RC4 is faster so if that's important to you...
After reading other peoples answers (which are all correct), it's clear that it really depends on your context. There are so many other questions that could influence your decision. If it just needs to be fool proof, if it's not really something sensitive and you have a lot of data and speed is the factor, go for RC4.
Otherwise, if you need something a bit more secure and easier to implement or as you say "tougher to screw up" :) then go for 3DES, which is, as far as I remember, secure enough (!) till 2020-2030, or something like that.
Are those your only two options? If you can use AES (also known as Rijndael) then use it instead. DES is slow, and now considered obsolete (AES is the replacement for it).
RC4 sucks, don't use it. It's a stream cipher but you can use a block cipher instead, just pad the final block of data (Google PKCS#5 padding scheme).
Lately I've only seen DES being used in embedded devices (firmware), because the implementation is simple and it uses very little memory. Even in JavaME you can use AES.
One factor in deciding between 3DES and RC4 is language support. Java doesn't natively support RC4 and you would need to grab an open source library such as BouncyCastle to implement. MS doesn't have this same challenge.
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I've been reading up on file encryption lately, and In many places I've seen warnings that encrypted files are susceptible to decryption by people so inclined regardless of encryption algorithm strength.
However, I can't get my head around how someone would go about attempting to decrypt an encrypted file.
For example, lets say you've got an encrypted file and you'd like to know it's contents. You have no idea what the key used to encrypt the file is, nor the encryption algorithm used. What do you do? (Assume for this example that the encryption algorithm is a symmetric-key algorithm such as AES-256, I.E. a file encrypted with key which requires said key to decrypt it).
Additionally, how would your approach change if you knew the encryption algorithm used? (Assume in this case that the encryption algorithm used is AES-256, with a random key + salt).
There's two ways to answer this question, in the literal sense of how a perfect crypto system is attacked, and how real world systems are attacked. One of the biggest problems you'll find as you begin to learn more about cryptography is that selecting algorithms is the easy part. It's how you manage those keys that becomes impossibly difficult.
The way in which you attack the basic primitives depends on the type of algorithm. In the case of data encrypted by symmetric ciphers like AES you use Brute force attacks. That is, you effectively try every key possible, until you find the right one. Unfortunately, barring changes in the laws of physics trying every possible 256-bit key can't be done. From Wikipedia: "A device that could check a billion billion (10^18) AES keys per second would in theory require about 3×10^51 years to exhaust the 256-bit key space"
The problem with your question about coming across a seemingly encrypted file, with no knowledge of the methods used, is that it's a bit of a hard problem known as a Distinguishing Attack. One of the requirements of all modern algorithms is that their output should be indistinguishable from random data. If I encrypt something under both AES and Twofish, and then give you some random data, absent any other information like headers, there's no way for you to tell them apart. That being said....
You asked how knowledge of the algorithm changes the approach. One assumption cryptographers usually make is that knowledge of the algorithm shouldn't affect security at all, it should all depend on the secret key. Usually whatever protocol you're working with will tell you the algorithm specifications. If this wasn't public, interoprobility would be a nightmare. Cipher Suites, for example, are sets of algorithms that protocols like SSL support. NIST FIPS and the NSA Suite B are algorithms that have been standardized by the Federal Government, that most everyone follows.
In practice though, most crypto-systems have much larger problems.
Bad random number generation: Cryptography requires very good, unpredictable random number generators. Bad random number generators can completely collapse security, as in the case of Netscape's SSL implementation. You also have examples like the Debian RNG bug, where a developer changed code to satisfy a memory leak warning, which ultimately led to Debian generating the same certificate keys for every system.
Timing Attacks: Certain operations take longer to execute on a computer than others. Sometimes, attackers can observe this latency and deduce secret values. This has been demonstrated by remotely recovering a server's private key over a local network.
Attacks against the host: One way to attack a cryptosystem is to attack the host. By cooling memory, its contents can be preserved and inspected in a machine you control.
Rubber hose cryptanalysis: Maybe one of the easiest attacks, you threaten the party with physical harm or incarceration unless they reveal the key. There has been a lot of interesting case law on whether or not courts can force you to reveal crypto keys.
AES256 is effectively unbreakable.
From http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=212324:
I don't think there's any credible speculation that any agency can
break a properly implemented AES. There are no known cryptanalytic
attacks, and actually bruteforcing AES-256 is probably beyond human
capabilities within any of our lifetimes. Let's assume that 56 bit DES
can be bruteforced in 1 sec, which is a ridiculous assumption to begin
with. Then AES-256 would take 2^200 seconds, which is 5 x 10^52 years.
So, you can see that without any known weakness in AES, it would be a
total impossibility within any of our lifetimes, even with quantum
computing. Our sun will explode, approximately 5 billion years from
now, before we obtain enough computing power to bruteforce AES-256
without a known weakness. IF a weakness in AES is never found, there
is absolutely no reason to ever look for another cipher besides AES.
It will suffice for as long as humans occupy the planet.
With basic Brute force attack for example. You ask a software to try every single combination between 1 character to 15 character with a-z A-Z 0-9 and wait.
The software will start with 0 to 10... then 0a, 0b, 0c until it finds the password. Wikipedia will give you more detail.
I partially agree with Andrew and partially with Jeremy.
In the case, if encryption key is generated correctly (random generated or based on complex password, good key derivation function and random salt) then AES256 is effectively unbreakable (as Andrew said)
On other hand, if a key isn't correctly generated. As example, just straight hash of 4 digit's PIN password, brute force could be very efficient.
Regarding "You have no idea what the key used to encrypt the file is, nor the encryption algorithm used. "
In most case, encrypted files has a header or a footer which specify something (an application used to encrypt a file, encryption algorithm or something else).
You can try to figure out algorithm by padding (as example 3DES has padding and AES has different padding)
Could someone explain a couple of scenarios where the system design can justify the use of an encryption solution, respectively, as 3DES and Blowfish?
I'll add a few, one related to the backwards compatability: if you have a hardware implementation that only does 3DES (many older smartcards) then 3DES could be preferred over AES. Hardware accelerators can be used for both speedups and security (side channel attacks, see below).
3DES implementations may be less vulnerable to side channel attacks (although it certainly is not immune from it). AES is harder to get right - as I've come to understand - because of it's internal design (table accesses). AES better algo, bigger blocksize or key size does not mean much when confronted with a good side channel attack.
3DES has a 8 byte blocksize compared with 16 bytes for AES which can lead to a bit more overhead when using it in block mode encryption. Of course, this one can be mitigated by using a stream mode cipher, and we're only talking about a few bytes for the last block. This is an extremely thin argument for this reason.
I'll be a bit shorter on Blowfish: variable key size and sometimes faster than AES, less likely to be implemented in hardware, but backwards compatibility may be reasons, and the 8 byte blocksize again.
None of the three reasons above is generally enough to choose 3DES or Blowfish over AES of course.
Just one: backward compatibility with existing data or services/API that requires them.
Otherwise keep it simple and just use AES :-)
Note that people often suggest that using older algorithms gets better performance (not a very good tradeoff IMHO) but that's generally not the case (you'll need to test it against the library you use) and AES ends up way faster (at least from 3DES).
what about replacing the key addition subroutine with 3DES so that each block of the four blocks of eight characters get encrypted and including Blowfish F() inside the DES function F() i.e before the 32 bits is returned by the DES F(), I am actually using this idea to create a number generator to try and crack the lottery and to date have won £106.40, would love to upload the code but there is no way to do it here anyway.
I don't know much about the heavy math behind cryptosystems, I get stuck when it gets bad with the Z/nZ algebra, and sometimes with all these exponent of exponents. It's not I don't like it, it's just that the information you find on the web are not easy to follow blindly.
I was wondering: how reliable can a algorithm be when it encodes a message into plain binary. If my algorithm is arbitrary and known only to me, how can a cryptanalist study an encrypted file and decrypt it, with or without having the decoded file ?
I'm thinking about not using ASCII text to code my message, and I have some ideas to make this algorithm/program.
Attacking a AES or blowfish crypted file is more trivial for a cryptanalyst, than if the algorithm the file is encrypted with is unknown to him, but how does he do then ?
I don't know if I understanded well, but a CS teacher once told me that codes are harder to crack that crypted ciphers.
What do you think ?
Attacking a AES or blowfish crypted file is more trivial for a cryptanalyst, than if the algorithm the file is encrypted with is unknown to him...
What about:
Attacking an untested self written algorithm with no real research is more trivial for a cryptanalyst, than if the algorithm the file is encrypted with, is a well known and proofed one, that has been correctly used....
In short, DO NOT roll your own cryptography unless you're an expert, no unless you're part of an expert group in that field.
Nintendo failed when they implemented RSA on their own in the Wii, Sony failed too when using it in the PS3 (they pretty much used XKCD's random number function for M...)
And you really think you can win by using security by obscurity?
PS: That doesn't mean that you should take the Wikipedia entry on RSA and roll you own implementation from that one (that's exactly were Sony and Big-N failed), no use a tested, open source implementation.
You seem to be using two words interchangeably but remember that Encoding is Not Encryption
When the attacker has no idea which algorithm you used and it is safe, cryptoanalyst has a hard job. So it is unimportant if you use AES or your own cipher as long as it is as strong and safe as AES. Here is the but. Cryptography is a bit demanding and therefore you have many ways to shoot yourself in a foot without knowing it. I would suggest using standard algorithms, maybe with some safe variations.
Common wisdom is that you should not build your own algorithms, and especially not rely on these algorithms remaining secret.
The conceptual reason is that good encryption is about quantified confidentiality. We do not want our secrets to get cracked, but in a more precise way we want to be able to tell how much it would cost to crack our secrets (and hopefully show that the cost is way too high to be envisioned by any entity on Earth). This is the real advance which occurred a few years after World War II: to understand the distinction between key and algorithm. The key concentrates the secret. The algorithm becomes the implementation.
Since the implementation is, well, implemented, it exists as some code or a device, which is tangible and stored even when it is not used. Keeping an implementation secret requires keeping track of the hard disk on which the code resides at all times. If the attacker sees the binary code, he may be able to reverse-engineer it, something which depends on his wits and patience. The point here is that it is very difficult to be able to say: "it costs X dollars to recover a description of the algorithm".
On the other hand, the key is short. It can be stored safely much more easily; e.g. you could memorize it, and avoid committing it to any permanent storage device. You then have to worry about your key only at times when you use it (and not when you do not, e.g. in the middle of the night, when you sleep). The number of possible keys is a simple mathematical problem. You can easily and accurately estimate the average cost of enumerating the possible keys until your key is found. The key is a sturdy foundation for quantified security.
So you should not roll your own algorithms because then you do not know how much security you get.
Also, most people who rolled their own algorithms found out, usually the hard way, that they did not get much security at all. Designing a good encryption algorithm is hard, because it cannot be automatically tested. Your code may run, and properly decrypt data that it encrypted, but it tells you nothing about how secure the algorithm is. The design of the AES was the result of a process which took several years and involved hundreds of skilled cryptographers (most of whom had a PhD and years of experience in academic research on symmetric encryption). That a lone developer could do as well, let alone better, in the secrecy of his own workshop, looks kind of... implausible.
The biggest part of your strategy is called "security through obscurity." You're making the gamble that, since nobody knows the precise details of your little variation on an idea, they won't be able to figure it out.
I'm not a security expert, but I can tell you that you probably won't come up with something incredibly new. Cryptography has been studied by people for millenia and your idea is highly unlikely to be original. Even if you're a relatively good programmer and code something really tricky, the question will come down to who you're up against. If you're just trying to protect your data from your kid sister, then it will probably be fine. On the other hand, if you're using it to send credit card numbers across the internet, then you're doomed to fail. It will be analysed in ways you didn't think of or don't know, and ultimately cracked.
Another way to think of it: algorithms like AES have been extensively studied by professionals in the field and its level of security is pretty well understood. Anything you come up with by yourself will not have the benefit of having been attacked by the best and brightest minds out there. You will have almost no idea of how good it actually is until people start reporting identity theft.
I am reading about cryptography I was thinking about these properties of AES (that I use):
same message = same ouput
no message length secrecy
possible insecurity if you know the messages (does this actually apply to AES?)
I hear that AES is secure, but what if I want to theoritcaly improve these properties?
I was thinking I could do this:
apply encryption algorithm A
XOR with random data D (making sure the output looks random in case of any cipher)
generate random data that are longer than the original message
use hashing function F to allocate slots in random data (this scrambles the order bytes)
Inputs: Encryption algorith A, Data to XOR with D and a hashing function F
My questions are
does the proposed solution theoreticaly help with my concerns?
is this approach used somewhere?
Possible enhancements to this approach
I could also say that the next position chosen by hashing function will be altered using a checksum of the last decoded byte after the XOR step (that way the message has to be decoded from beginning to end)
If I was to use this to have conversation with someone, the data to XOR with could be the last message from the other person, but thats probably a vulnerability.
I am looking forward to your thoughts!
(This is only theoretical, I am not in need of more secure encryption, just trying to learn from you guys.)
Yeah.
Look. If you want to learn about cryptography, I suggest you read Applied Cryptography. Really, just do it. You will get some nice definitive learnings, and get an understanding of what is appropriate and what is not. It specifically talks about implementation, which is what you are after.
Some rules of thumb:
Don't make up your own scheme. This is almost universally true. There may be exceptions, but it's fair to say that you should only invent your own scheme if you've thoroughly reviewed all existing schemes and have specific quantifiable reasons for them not being good enough.
Model your attacker. Find out what scenarios you are intending to protect against, and structure your system so that it works to mitigate the potential attacks.
Complexity is your enemy. Don't make your system more complex then it needs to be.
Stay up to date. You can find a few mailing lists related to cryptography and (and hashing) join them. From there you will learn interesting implementation details, and be aware of the latest attacks.
As for specifically addressing your question, well, it's confusing. I don't understand your goal, nor do I understand steps 3 and 4. You might like to take a quick look here to gain an understanding of the different ways you can use a given encryption algorithm.
Hope this helps.
You assumptions are incorrect.
same message != same output
The output will not be the same if you encrypt the same message twice.
This is because you are suppsed to use different IVs'.
Message length can be hidden by adding random data to the plaintext.
Attacks have been demonstrated against AES with lesser number of rounds.
Full-round AES has not been compromised in any way.
Other than that I suggest you follow Noon Silks recommendation and read Applied Cryptography.
What's the point of the random data XOR? If it's truly random, how will you ever decrypt it? If you're saying the random data is part of the key, you might as well drop AES and use only the truly random key - as long as it's the same length (or longer than) the data and is never used more than once to encrypt. It's called a one-time pad, the only theoretically unbreakable encryption algorithm I know about.
If the random bits are pseudo-randomly generated, it's highly unlikely that your efforts will yield added security. Consider how many talented mathematicians were involved in designing AES...
EDIT: And I too highly recommend Applied Cryptography, it's an actually very readable and interesting book, not as dry as it may sound.
The iPhone supports the following encryption algorithms
enum {
kCCAlgorithmAES128 = 0,
kCCAlgorithmDES,
kCCAlgorithm3DES,
kCCAlgorithmCAST,
kCCAlgorithmRC4,
kCCAlgorithmRC2
};
I want to use only symmetric algorithm since asymmetric encryptions requires more computation overhead.
So I want to know which of the ones listed is the best algorithm and also what is the key-length in order to avoid excessive computation overhead.
Key length
Bruce Schneier wrote back in 1999:
Longer key lengths are better, but
only up to a point. AES will have
128-bit, 192-bit, and 256-bit key
lengths. This is far longer than
needed for the foreseeable future. In
fact, we cannot even imagine a world
where 256-bit brute force searches are
possible. It requires some fundamental
breakthroughs in physics and our
understanding of the universe. For
public-key cryptography, 2048-bit keys
have same sort of property; longer is
meaningless.
Block ciphers
AES
It's the current standard encryption algorithm. It's considered to be safe by most people. That's what you should be using if you haven't got a very deep knowledge in cryptography.
DES
DES is the predecessor of AES and is considered broken because of its short key length.
3DES
Is a variation of DES with a longer key length. It's still in use but there are some known attacks. Still it's not yet broken.
RC2
It's considered to be weak.
Stream ciphers
RC4
It has some known vulnerabilities but is still used today, for example in SSL. I recommend not to use it in new products.
Conclusion
Use either RC4 or AES, depending if you need a stream or a block cipher.
Of those algorithms you list, I believe RC4 is the fastest. In addition, the speed of RC4 does not depend on the key length once it has been initialized. So you should be able to use the maximum key size for that one without worrying about runtime cost.
RC4 is probably the fastest, but it has some security issues.
If security is an important factor, I would recommend going for AES128. AES is the standard solution and on the top of excellent security you might expect the implementations to get faster over time as people are still actively working on them. Maybe future CPUs will also include support for it, just like new Intel desktop processors will.