Backdoored standards show we desperately need more cryptographers

Posted by   Virus Bulletin on   Sep 11, 2013

Too few currently possess the skills to verify standards.

Recent revelations of the NSA's crypto-breaking capabilities have led to calls for better cryptography. But we need more cryptographers too.

In the 2010 edition of their classic book Cryptography Engineering, Bruce Schneier, Niels Ferguson and Tadayoshi Kohno wrote on the SHA family of hash functions:

"At least they have been standardized by NIST, and they were developed by the NSA."

And, in case that would worry some readers, they added a footnote:

"Whatever you may think about the NSA, so far the cryptography it has published has been quite decent."

Given revelations on how the NSA effectively wrote a NIST standard in which it inserted a (mathematical) backdoor, I doubt these sentences will make it to the next edition unaltered.

What the NSA did was undoubtedly bad and will further damage the agency's reputation within the security community. But I think it also says something important about today's cryptography.

Earlier this year I blogged about how Microsoft appears to make HTTP requests to URLs shared via Skype, proving the company had access to the unencrypted content of Skype conversations.

The source code of Skype is closed. Which means that, even before this discovery, if it would matter to you if Microsoft read your conversations (or shared them with third parties) you had no way of verifying that this didn't happen - so it came down to how much you trusted Microsoft.

Now compare that with cryptography standards, which tend to be public. "Dual_EC_DRBG" had been published by NIST for more than a year before two Microsoft researchers, including the aforementioned Niels Ferguson, found a vulnerability that could act as a backdoor.

It is certainly possible that other cryptography standards contain backdoors, inserted by the NSA or other agencies. In an op-ed for Wired, Bruce Schneier writes:

"Certainly the fact that the NSA is pushing elliptic-curve cryptography is some indication that it can break them more easily."

Although he reckons that using longer keys is an easy fix.

ECC group addition
  Group addition on an elliptic curve. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) is generally seen as the next step for cryptography, replacing decades-old algorithms like Diffie-Helman and RSA. It is certainly a powerful tool that will help fend encryption against ever-faster cracking methods. But it has an important weakness: it is very hard to understand.

It is part of a much broader branch of mathematics called arithmetic geometry. This requires a lot of prior knowledge so that, despite its important applications, the vast majority of maths students will never encounter anything of it during their studies. Most of those that do will only briefly touch upon it.

Even those mathematicians that will learn enough about elliptic curves over finite fields to understand ECC and its many pitfalls do not necessarily have a good enough understanding of computer architecture to be able to implement the algorithms or write standards.

All in all, the number of proper experts in ECC is really small. A few thousand, perhaps even fewer. Given how difficult it is to find bugs in other people's code - especially if you're not sure there is a bug in the first place - it could be that there are mathematical backdoors in some of the other standards. Standards that are out there for billions of Internet readers to download and check.

It is also possible that there aren't any more of these backdoors and that most of the standards, including ones that the NSA worked on, are actually quite good. Yet that lack of certainty could cause us to throw away the baby with the bath water.

The ongoing revelations have resulted in an increased interest in cryptography. Hopefully, it will also result in more cryptographers. We need them now more than ever.

Posted on 11 September 2013 by Martijn Grooten

twitter.png
fb.png
linkedin.png
hackernews.png
reddit.png

 

Latest posts:

VB2019 paper: APT cases exploiting vulnerabilities in region-specific software

At VB2019, JPCERT/CC's Shusei Tomonaga and Tomoaki Tani presented a paper on attacks that exploit vulnerabilities in software used only in Japan, using malware that is unique to Japan. Today we publish both their paper and the recording of their…

New paper: Detection of vulnerabilities in web applications by validating parameter integrity and data flow graphs

In a follow-up to a paper presented at VB2019, Prismo Systems researchers Abhishek Singh and Ramesh Mani detail algorithms that can be used to detect SQL injection in stored procedures, persistent cross-site scripting (XSS), and server‑side request…

VB2020 programme announced

VB is pleased to reveal the details of an interesting and diverse programme for VB2020, the 30th Virus Bulletin International Conference.

VB2019 paper: Cyber espionage in the Middle East: unravelling OSX.WindTail

At VB2019 in London, Jamf's Patrick Wardle analysed the WindTail macOS malware used by the WindShift APT group, active in the Middle East. Today we publish both Patrick's paper and the recording of his presentation.

VB2019 paper: 2,000 reactions to a malware attack – accidental study

At VB2019 cybercrime journalist and researcher Adam Haertlé presented an analysis of almost 2000 unsolicited responses sent by victims of a malicious email campaign. Today we publish both his paper and the recording of his presentation.

We have placed cookies on your device in order to improve the functionality of this site, as outlined in our cookies policy. However, you may delete and block all cookies from this site and your use of the site will be unaffected. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to Virus Bulletin's use of data as outlined in our privacy policy.