announc nouncem ements
play

Announc nouncem ements Homework 1 Grade released Have 1-week - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Announc nouncem ements Homework 1 Grade released Have 1-week rebuttal period Submit re-grade request via GradeScope 1 Lecture 10 Protocols (Continued) Chapters 9 and 11 in KPS [lecture slides are adapted from previous


  1. Announc nouncem ements Homework 1 • Grade released • Have 1-week “rebuttal period” • Submit re-grade request via GradeScope 1

  2. Lecture 10 Protocols (Continued) Chapters 9 and 11 in KPS [lecture slides are adapted from previous slides by Prof. Gene Tsudik] 2

  3. Recap: Key Distribution Center (KDC) aka Trusted Third Part (TTP) • Alice and Bob need to share a key • KDC shares different master key with each registered user (many users) • Alice and Bob know their own master keys: K A and K B for communicating with KDC KDC K A K E K P K B K X K B K Y K A K Z 3

  4. Key Distribution Center (KDC) or Trusted Third Party (TTP) K(X) = Encryption of X with key K KDC generates fresh K Alice Bob obtains K and Obtains knows to use as a K Msg3: K B (A,K) key for communicating with Alice • Alice and Bob communicate using K as a short-term ( session) key for encryption and/or data integrity • Note: • Msg2 is not tied to Msg1 • Msg1 is possibly old • Msg2 is possibly old and so is Msg3 • Bob and Alice don’t authenticate each other! 4

  5. A Typical Key Distribution Scenario E K [X] = Encryption of X with K KDC (1) Request, B, N 1 (2) E Ka [ K s , Request, N 1 , E Kb (K s ,A) ] (3) E Kb [K s , A] A (4) E Ks [A, N 2 ] B (5) E Ks [f(N 2 )] Notes: •Msg2 is tied to Msg1 •Msg2 is fresh/new •Msg3 is possibly old * •Msg1 is possibly old (KDC doesn’t authenticate Alice) •Bob authenticates Alice •Bob authenticates KDC 5 •Alice DOES NOT authenticate Bob

  6. Public Key Distribution General schemes: • Public announcement (e.g., in a newsgroup or email message) • Can be forged • Publicly available directory • Can be tampered with • Public-key certificates (PKCs) issued by trusted off-line Certification Authorities (CAs) 6

  7. Certification Authorities • Certification authority (CA): trusted, highly secure (physically and electronically) component • Issues public key certificates; each binds a public key to a specific entity • Each entity (user, host, etc.) registers its public key with CA. • Bob provides “proof of identity” to CA. • CA creates public key certificate binding Bob’s ID/name to this public key. • Certificate containing Bob’s public key is signed by CA: CA says: “this is Bob’s public key” Bob’s digital PK public signature B key PK B certificate for Bob’s CA public key, signed by Bob’s SK private CA key identifying CA information 7

  8. Certification Authority • When Alice wants to get Bob’s public key: • Get Bob’s certificate (from Bob or elsewhere) • Using CA’s public key verify the signature on Bob’s certificate • Check for expiration • Check for revocation (we’ll talk about this later) • Extract Bob’s public key Bob’s PK B digital Public Key signature PK B CA Public PK CA Key 8

  9. A Certificate Contains • Serial number (unique to issuer) • Info about certificate owner, including algorithm and key value itself (not shown) • info about certificate issuer • valid dates • digital signature by issuer 9

  10. A Sample Certificate (1/2) 10

  11. A Sample Certificate (2/2) 11

  12. Back to Protocols 12

  13. Needham-Schroeder Protocol (1978): First Distributed Security Protocol {X} K = Encryption of X with key K 1. A  T: A, B, N A 2. T  A: {N A , B, K, {K, A} KB } KA 3. A  B: {K, A} KB 4. B  A: {N B } K KDC 5. A  B: {N B -1} K 2 1 3 Alice Bob 4 B 5 13

  14. Security? Denning-Sacco Attack: suppose Eve recorded an old protocol session for which she somehow knows the session key K ‘ : A  T: 1. A, B, N A T  A: {N A , B, K ’ , {K ’ , A} KB } K A 2. A  B: {K ’ , A} KB 3. ----------------------------------------------------- At a later time: E  B: {K ’ , A} KB 3. B  E: {N B } K ’ 4. E  B: {N B -1} K ’ 5. 14

  15. Fixing the Attack • Bob has no guarantees about freshness of the message in step 3. • Eve exploits this to impersonate Alice to Bob - old session keys are useful. • Can be fixed by adding timestamps: • Limits usefulness of old session keys • Eve ’ s attack becomes: 3: E  B: {K ’ , T ’ , A} KB attack is now thwarted because T ’ is stale 15

  16. PK-based Needham-Schroeder Protocol TTP KDC 3. [N a , A] PKb Alice Bob A B 6. [N a , N b ] PKa 7. [N b ] PKb • CERT B = Message 2, CERT A = Message 5 • PK A : Alice’s public key, PK B : Bob’s public key • SK T : TTP’s secret (private) key used for signing [X] K = Encryption of • Everyone knows TTP’s public key PK T X with key K 16

  17. Another Attack • 1, 2, 4, 5: Delivery of public key • Does not guarantee freshness of the public key How to solve it? • Timestamp in messages 2 and 5 or challenges in messages 1&2 and 4&5 • Public Key Certificate: assign expiration time/data to each certificate (messages 2 and 5) 17

  18. PK-based Denning-Sacco Attack TTP TTP Cert A ={PK A ,A} SKT KDC Cert B ={PK B ,B} SKT Cert C ={PK C ,C} SKT 1. A, B 2. Cert A , Cert B 3. Cert A ,Cert B, [ {K AB ,T A } SKA ] PKB Bob A B B Alice 4. Secure communication with K AB Bob impersonates Alice Thinks she is talking to A 3’. Cert A ,Cert C, [ {K AB ,T A } SKA ] PKC Bob B C B 4’. Secure communication with K AB 18

  19. Lowe’s Attack (Impersonation by Interleaving) Original Attack: E impersonates A 3. A → B: [N a , A] PKb 3. A → E: [N a , A] Pke 6. B → A: [N a , N b ] PKa 3. E → B: [N a , A] PKb 7. A → B: [N b ] PKb 6. B → E: [N a ,N b ] Pka 6. E → A: [N a ,N b ] Pka 7. A → E: [N b ] Pke Fix 7. E → B: [N b ] PKb 3. A → B: [N a , A] PKb 6. B → A: [B, N a , N b ] PKa 7. A → B: [N b ] PKb 19

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend