What is the difference between Obfuscation, Hashing, and Encryption?
Here is my understanding:
Hashing is a one-way algorithm; cannot be reversed
Obfuscation is similar to encryption but doesn't require any "secret" to understand (ROT13 is one example)
Encryption is reversible but a "secret" is required to do so
Hashing is a technique of creating semi-unique keys based on larger pieces of data. In a given hash you will eventually have "collisions" (e.g. two different pieces of data calculating to the same hash value) and when you do, you typically create a larger hash key size.
obfuscation generally involves trying to remove helpful clues (i.e. meaningful variable/function names), removing whitespace to make things hard to read, and generally doing things in convoluted ways to make following what's going on difficult. It provides no serious level of security like "true" encryption would.
Encryption can follow several models, one of which is the "secret" method, called private key encryption where both parties have a secret key. Public key encryption uses a shared one-way key to encrypt and a private recipient key to decrypt. With public key, only the recipient needs to have the secret.
That's a high level explanation. I'll try to refine them:
Hashing - in a perfect world, it's a random oracle. For the same input X, you always recieve the same output Y, that is in NO WAY related to X. This is mathematically impossible (or at least unproven to be possible). The closest we get is trapdoor functions. H(X) = Y for with H-1(Y) = X is so difficult to do you're better off trying to brute force a Z such that H(Z) = Y
Obfuscation (my opinion) - Any function f, such that f(a) = b where you rely on f being secret. F may be a hash function, but the "obfuscation" part implies security through obscurity. If you never saw ROT13 before, it'd be obfuscation
Encryption - Ek(X) = Y, Dl(Y) = X where E is known to everyone. k and l are keys, they may be the same (in symmetric, they are the same). Y is the ciphertext, X is the plaintext.
A hash is a one way algorithm used to compare an input with a reference without compromising the reference.
It is commonly used in logins to compare passwords and you can also find it on your reciepe if you shop using credit-card. There you will find your credit-card-number with some numbers hidden, this way you can prove with high propability that your card was used to buy the stuff while someone searching through your garbage won't be able to find the number of your card.
A very naive and simple hash is "The first 3 letters of a string".
That means the hash of "abcdefg" will be "abc". This function can obviously not be reversed which is the entire purpose of a hash. However, note that "abcxyz" will have exactly the same hash, this is called a collision. So again: a hash only proves with a certain propability that the two compared values are the same.
Another very naive and simple hash is the 5-modulus of a number, here you will see that 6,11,16 etc.. will all have the same hash: 1.
Modern hash-algorithms are designed to keep the number of collisions as low as possible but they can never be completly avoided. A rule of thumb is: the longer your hash is, the less collisions it has.
Obfuscation in cryptography is encoding the input data before it is hashed or encrypted.
This makes brute force attacks less feasible, as it gets harder to determine the correct cleartext.
That's not a bad high-level description. Here are some additional considerations:
Hashing typically reduces a large amount of data to a much smaller size. This is useful for verifying the contents of a file without having to have two copies to compare, for example.
Encryption involves storing some secret data, and the security of the secret data depends on keeping a separate "key" safe from the bad guys.
Obfuscation is hiding some information without a separate key (or with a fixed key). In this case, keeping the method a secret is how you keep the data safe.
From this, you can see how a hash algorithm might be useful for digital signatures and content validation, how encryption is used to secure your files and network connections, and why obfuscation is used for Digital Rights Management.
This is how I've always looked at it.
Hashing is deriving a value from
another, using a set algorithm. Depending on the algo used, this may be one way, may not be.
Obfuscating is making something
harder to read by symbol
replacement.
Encryption is like hashing, except the value is dependent on another value you provide the algorithm.
A brief answer:
Hashing - creating a check field on some data (to detect when data is modified). This is a one way function and the original data cannot be derived from the hash. Typical standards for this are SHA-1, SHA256 etc.
Obfuscation - modify your data/code to confuse anyone else (no real protection). This may or may not loose some of the original data. There are no real standards for this.
Encryption - using a key to transform data so that only those with the correct key can understand it. The encrypted data can be decrypted to obtain the original data. Typical standards are DES, TDES, AES, RSA etc.
All fine, except obfuscation is not really similar to encryption - sometimes it doesn't even involve ciphers as simple as ROT13.
Hashing is one-way task of creating one value from another. The algorithm should try to create a value that is as short and as unique as possible.
obfuscation is making something unreadable without changing semantics. It involves value transformation, removing whitespace, etc. Some forms of obfuscation can also be one-way,so it's impossible to get the starting value
encryption is two-way, and there's always some decryption working the other way around.
So, yes, you are mostly correct.
Obfuscation is hiding or making something harder to understand.
Hashing takes an input, runs it through a function, and generates an output that can be a reference to the input. It is not necessarily unique, a function can generate the same output for different inputs.
Encryption transforms the input into an output in a unique manner. There is a one-to-one correlation so there is no potential loss of data or confusion - the output can always be transformed back to the input with no ambiguity.
Obfuscation is merely making something harder to understand by intruducing techniques to confuse someone. Code obfuscators usually do this by renaming things to remove anything meaningful from variable or method names. It's not similar to encryption in that nothing has to be decrypted to be used.
Typically, the difference between hashing and encryption is that hashing generally just employs a formula to translate the data into another form where encryption uses a formula requiring key(s) to encrypt/decrypt. Examples would be base 64 encoding being a hash algorithm where md5 being an encryption algorithm. Anyone can unhash base64 encoded data, but you can't unencrypt md5 encrypted data without a key.
Related
My question is that, suppose you have some AES-ECB encrypted hash and you want to decode it. You are also given a bunch of example plaintexts and hashes. For example:
I want: unknown_plaintext for the hash given_hash
and i have a bunch of known_plaintexts and hashes that have been encrypted with the same secret key. None of them (obviously) are the exact same to the given hash.
Please let me know if you can help. This is not for malicious intents, just to learn how Cryptography and AES systems work.
This is not computationally feasible. I.e., you can't do this.
Modern encryption algorithms like AES are resistant to known-plaintext attacks, which is what you are describing.
There has been some past success in a category called adaptive chosen plaintext attacks. Often these exploit an "oracle." In this scenario, an attacker can decrypt a single message by repeatedly asking the victim whether it can successfully decrypt a guess generated by the attacker. By being smart about choosing successive guesses, the attacker could decrypt the message with a million tries or so, which is a relatively small number. But even in this scenario, the attacker can't recover the key.
As an aside, ciphers don't generate hashes. They output cipher text. Hash functions (aka message digests) generate hashes.
For any respectable block cipher (and AES is a respectable block cipher), the only way to decrypt a ciphertext block (not "hash") is to know the key, and the only way to find the key from a bunch of plaintext-ciphertext pairs is by guessing a key and seeing if it maps a known plaintext onto the corresponding ciphertext. If you have some knowledge of how the key was chosen (e.g., SHA-256 of a pet's name), this might work; but if the key was randomly selected from the set of all possible AES keys, the number of guesses required to produce a significant probability of success is such a large number that you wander off into age-of-the-universe handwaving.
If you know that all the encrypted hashes are encrypted with the same key you can first try to find that key using your pairs of plaintexts and encrypted hashes. The most obvious way to do that would be to just take one of your plaintexts, first hash it and then try out all the possible keys to encrypt it until it matches the encrypted hash that you know. If the key you're looking for is just one of the many many possible AES keys this is set to fail, because it would take way too long to try all the keys.
Assuming you were able to recover the AES key somehow, you can decrypt that one hash you don't have a plaintext for and start looking for the plaintext.
The more you know about the plaintext, the easier this guesswork would be. You could just throw the decrypted hash into google and see what it spits out, query databases of known hashes or make guesses in the most eduated way possible. This step will again fail, if the hash is strong enough and the plaintext is random enough.
As other people have indicated, modern encryption algorithms are specifically designed to resist this kind of attack. Even a rather weak encryption algorithm like the Tiny Encryption Algorithm would require well over 8 million chosen plaintexts to do anything like this. Better algorithms like AES, Blowfish, etc. require vastly more than that.
As of right now, there are no practical attacks on AES.
If you're interested in learning about cryptography, the older Data Encryption Standard (DES) may actually be a more interesting place to start than AES; there's a lot of literature available about it and it was already broken (the code to do so is still freely available online - studying it is actually really useful).
I am looking for a way of obtaining the key from this set of information, I know for a fact that we are using 16 byte blocks with CBC and I have the first 16 byte plaintext and cyphered, along with the used IV.
At the moment I can test if a key is correct by comparing the output, but I cannot bruteforce 16 character keys for obvious reasons, reading other posts it was my understanding that having the data I have it might be possible to get the key.
Any hint?
What you are trying to do is called a "known plaintext atack", you have both the cyphertext and the plaintext, all that you lack is the key used. Unfortunately, all modern cyphers are designed to resist such attacks. Unless you have extremely sophisticated mathematical skills, you will not be able to find the key this way. AES is resistant to a known plaintext attack.
You will have to try some other method of determining the key. Has the key owner left it written on a piece of paper somewhere?
Note that if AES has been applied as it should be then you cannot find the key. However, judging on the amount of incorrect implementations on stackoverflow, the key may as well be a password, or a simple SHA-256 of a string. If you can obtain information about how the key was generated/applied or stored you may be able to get around even AES-256.
Otherwise your only attack vector is breaking AES or brute forcing the key. In that case I wish you good luck, because brute forcing a 256 bit key is completely out of the question, even with a quantum computer. Unless vulnerabilities are found, of course, AES is not provably secure after all. There may be a vulnerability.
I need to save the password to database.I get confused in encryption,hash using sha-256 ,salt generation method .If any one explains the basic concept behind this then it will be helpful
The follow is a very basic explanation, anyway...
Encryption is a reversible method to crypt the data. So if you have "password" a encryption method convert it into (for example) "ufmehlejw" and then you are able to get again "password".
An hash function (one of them is the sha-256) is a function that once it's used on a string you have no way to recover the original string.
A salt is a string which usually prorammers (and not only, of course) use to mix the given password. It's usually randomly generated. A salt is used to extend the original data before using an hash function. The goal of the salt is to avoid attackers to discover the original password of a user from a stolen hash using rainbow tables.
In short:
Encryption is a process with an inverse. In other words: If I encrypt some text, there is a process which is able to convert the new text back to the original, called decryption.
Hashing is fundamentally different from encryption, because it does not have such a process. What a hash is meant to do is provide you with a result, which is unique for that given input text (well, almost unique, let's keep it at unique). This way, people can verify if two input texts were equal, without knowing what the actual input text was. So, if people get their hands on your hashed password, they still cannot decrypt it. SHA is a family of methods which provide hashing.
Salts and Peppers are merely additional techniques to hashing, which describe the process of adding something before and after the input text before hashing. This improves the difficulty of brute-force cracking of hashes back to text.
Brute force cracking means simply trying all possible inputs (aa, ab, ac, etc...) and see if you can generate a hash which matches the hash you have gotten via hacking some website or whatever. You can find more on that here: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/3272/password-hashing-add-salt-pepper-or-is-salt-enough
This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Duplicate:
Confused about hashes
How can SHA encryption create unique 40 character hash for any string, when there are n infinite number of possible input strings but only a finite number of 40 character hashes?
SHA is not an encryption algorithm, it is a cryptographic hashing algorithm.
Check out this reference at Wikipedia
The simple answer is that it doesn't create a unique 40 character hash for any string - it's inevitable that different strings will have the same hash.
It does try to make sure that close-by string will have very different hashes. 40 characters is a pretty long hash, so the chance of collision is quite low unless you're doing ridiculous numbers of them.
SHA doesn't create a unique 40 character hash for any string. If you create enough hashes, you'll get a collision (two inputs that hash to the same output) eventually. What makes SHA and other hash functions cryptographically useful is that there's no easy way to find two files that will have the same hash.
To elaborate on jdigital's answer:
Since it's a hash algorithm and not an encryption algorithm, there is no need to reverse the operation. This, in turn, means that the result does not need to be unique; there are (in theory) in infinite number of strings that will result in the same hash. Finding out which on those are is practically impossible, though.
Hash algorithms like SHA-1 or the SHA-2 family are used as "one-way" hashes in support of password-based authentication. It is not computationally feasible to find a message (password) that hashes to a given value. So, if an attacker obtains the list of hashed passwords, they can't determine the original passwords.
You are correct that, in general, there are an infinite number of messages that hash to a given value. It's still hard to find one though.
It does not guarantee that two strings will have unique 40 character hashes. What it does is provide an extremely low probability that two strings will have conflicting hashes, and makes it very difficult to create two conflicting documents without just randomly trying inputs.
Generally, a low enough probability of something bad happening is as good as a guarantee that it never will. As long as it's more likely that the world will end when a comet hits it, the chance of a colliding hash isn't generally worth worrying about.
Of course, secure hash algorithms are not perfect. Because they are used in cryptography, they are very valuable things to try and crack. SHA-1, for instance, has been weakened (you can find a collision in 2000 times fewer guesses than just doing random guessing); MD5 has been completely cracked, and security researchers have actually created two certificates which have the same MD5 sum, and got one of them signed by a certificate authority, thus allowing them to use the other one as if it had been signed by the certificate authority. You should not blindly put your faith in cryptographic hashes; once one has been weakened (like SHA-1), it is time to look for a new hash, which is why there is currently a competition to create a new standard hash algorithm.
The function is something like:
hash1 = SHA1(plaintext1)
hash2 = SHA1(plaintext2)
now, hash1 and hash2 can technically be the same. It's a collision. Not common, but possible, and not a problem.
The real magic is in the fact that it's impossible to do this:
plaintext1 = SHA1-REVERSE(hash1)
So you can never reverse it. Handy if you dont want to know what a password is, only that the user gave you the same one both times. Think about it. You have 1024 bytes of input. You get 40 bits of output. How can you EVER reconstruct those 1024 bytes from the 40 - you threw information away. It's just not possible (well, unless you design the algorithm to allow it, I guess....)
Also, if 40 bits isn't enough, use SHA256 or something with a bigger output. And Salt it. Salt is good.
Oh, and as an aside: any website which emails you your password, is not hashing it's passwords. It's either storing them unencrypted (run, run screaming), or encrypting them with a 2 way encryption (DES, AES, public-private key et al - trust them a little more)
There is ZERO reasons for a website to be able to email you your password, or need to store anything but the hash. /rant.
Nice observation. Short answer it can't and leads to collisions which can be exploited in birthday attacks.
The simple answer is: it doesn't create unique hashes. Look at the Pidgeonhole priciple. It's just so unlikely for there to be a collision that nobody has ever found one.
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.