International Association for Cryptologic Research

International Association
for Cryptologic Research


Paul Rösler


Strongly Anonymous Ratcheted Key Exchange
Anonymity is an (abstract) security goal that is especially important to threatened user groups. Therefore, widely deployed communication protocols implement various measures to hide different types of information (i.e., metadata) about their users. Before actually defining anonymity, we consider an attack vector about which targeted user groups can feel concerned: continuous, temporary exposure of their secrets. Examples for this attack vector include intentionally planted viruses on victims' devices, as well as physical access when their users are detained. Ratcheted (or Continuous) Key Exchange (RKE) is a novel class of protocols that increase confidentiality and authenticity guarantees against temporary exposure of user secrets. For this, an RKE regularly renews user secrets such that the damage due to past and future exposures is minimized; this is called Post-Compromise Security and Forward-Secrecy, respectively. With this work, we are the first to leverage the strength of RKE for achieving strong anonymity guarantees under temporary exposure of user secrets. We extend existing definitions for RKE to capture attacks that interrelate ciphertexts, seen on the network, with secrets, exposed from users' devices. Although, at first glance, strong authenticity (and confidentiality) conflicts with strong anonymity, our anonymity definition is as strong as possible without diminishing other goals. We build strongly anonymity-, authenticity-, and confidentiality-preserving RKE and, along the way, develop new tools with applicability beyond our specific use-case: Updatable and Randomizable Signatures as well as Updatable and Randomizable Public Key Encryption. For both new primitives, we build efficient constructions.
On the Worst-Case Inefficiency of CGKA
Continuous Group Key Agreement (CGKA) is the basis of modern Secure Group Messaging (SGM) protocols. At a high level, a CGKA protocol enables a group of users to continuously compute a shared (evolving) secret while members of the group add new members, remove other existing members, and perform state updates. The state updates allow CGKA to offer desirable security features such as forward secrecy and post-compromise security. CGKA is regarded as a practical primitive in the real-world. Indeed, there is an IETF Messaging Layer Security (MLS) working group devoted to developing a standard for SGM protocols, including the CGKA protocol at their core. Though known CGKA protocols seem to perform relatively well when considering natural sequences of performed group operations, there are no formal guarantees on their efficiency, other than the O(n) bound which can be achieved by trivial protocols, where n is the number of group numbers. In this context, we ask the following questions and provide negative answers. 1. Can we have CGKA protocols that are efficient in the worst case? We start by answering this basic question in the negative. First, we show that a natural primitive that we call Compact Key Exchange (CKE) is at the core of CGKA, and thus tightly captures CGKA’s worst-case communication cost. Intuitively, CKE requires that: first, n users non-interactively generate key pairs and broadcast their public keys, then, some other special user securely communicates to these n users a shared key. Next, we show that CKE with communication cost o(n) by the special user cannot be realized in a black-box manner from public-key encryption and one-way functions, thus implying the same for CGKA, where n is the corresponding number of group members. 2. Can we realize one CGKA protocol that works as well as possible in all cases? Here again, we present negative evidence showing that no such protocol based on black-box use of public-key encryption and one-way functions exists. Specifically, we show two distributions over sequences of group operations such that no CGKA protocol obtains optimal communication costs on both sequences.
Combiners for AEAD 📺
Bertram Poettering Paul Rösler
The Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) primitive, which integrates confidentiality and integrity services under a single roof, found wide-spread adoption in industry and became indispensable in practical protocol design. Recognizing this, academic research put forward a large number of candidate constructions, many of which come with provable security guarantees. Nevertheless, the recent past has shaken up with the discovery of vulnerabilities, some of them fatal, in well-regarded schemes, stemming from weak underlying primitives, flawed security arguments, implementation-level vulnerabilities, and so on. Simply reacting to such findings by replacing broken candidates by better(?) ones is in many cases unduly, costly, and sometimes just impossible. On the other hand, as attack techniques and opportunities change over time, it seems venturous to propose any specific scheme if the intended lifetime of its application is, say, twenty years.In this work we study a workable approach towards increasing the resilience against unforeseen breaks of AEAD primitives. Precisely, we consider the ability to combine two AEAD schemes into one such that the resulting AEAD scheme is secure as long as at least one of its components is (or: as long as at most one component is broken). We propose a series of such combiners, some of which work with fully generic AEAD components while others assume specific internal structures of the latter (like an encrypt-then-MAC design). We complement our results by proving the optimality of our constructions by showing the impossibility of combiners that get along with less invocations of the component algorithms.
Flexible Authenticated and Confidential Channel Establishment (fACCE): Analyzing the Noise Protocol Framework 📺
The Noise protocol framework is a suite of channel establishment protocols, of which each individual protocol ensures various security properties of the transmitted messages, but keeps specification, implementation, and configuration relatively simple. Implementations of the Noise protocols are themselves, due to the employed primitives, very performant. Thus, despite its relative youth, Noise is already used by large-scale deployed applications such as WhatsApp and Slack. Though the Noise specification describes and claims the security properties of the protocol patterns very precisely, there has been no computational proof yet. We close this gap. Noise uses only a limited number of cryptographic primitives which makes it an ideal candidate for reduction-based security proofs. Due to its patterns’ characteristics as channel establishment protocols, and the usage of established keys within the handshake, the authenticated and confidential channel establishment (ACCE) model (Jager et al. CRYPTO 2012) seems to perfectly fit for an analysis of Noise. However, the ACCE model strictly divides protocols into two non-overlapping phases: the pre-accept phase (i.e., the channel establishment) and post-accept phase (i.e., the channel). In contrast, Noise allows the transmission of encrypted messages as soon as any key is established (for instance, before authentication between parties has taken place), and then incrementally increases the channel’s security guarantees. By proposing a generalization of the original ACCE model, we capture security properties of such staged channel establishment protocols flexibly – comparably to the multi-stage key exchange model (Fischlin and Günther CCS 2014). We give security proofs for eight of the 15 basic Noise patterns in the full version (EPRINT 2019/436) and exemplify them by the proof of the  XK pattern in this article.
On the Price of Concurrency in Group Ratcheting Protocols 📺
Post-Compromise Security, or PCS, refers to the ability of a given protocol to recover—by means of normal protocol operations—from the exposure of local states of its (otherwise honest) participants. While PCS in the two-party setting has attracted a lot of attention recently, the problem of achieving PCS in the group setting—called group ratcheting here—is much less understood. On the one hand, one can achieve excellent security by simply executing, in parallel, a two-party ratcheting protocol (e.g., Signal) for each pair of members in a group. However, this incurs O(n) communication overhead for every message sent, where n is the group size. On the other hand, several related protocols were recently developed in the context of the IETF Messaging Layer Security (MLS) effort that improve the communication overhead per message to O(log n). However, this reduction of communication overhead involves a great restriction: group members are not allowed to send and recover from exposures concurrently such that reaching PCS is delayed up to n communication time slots (potentially even more). In this work we formally study the trade-off between PCS, concurrency, and communication overhead in the context of group ratcheting. Since our main result is a lower bound, we define the cleanest and most restrictive setting where the tension already occurs: static groups equipped with a synchronous (and authenticated) broadcast channel, where up to t arbitrary parties can concurrently send messages in any given round. Already in this setting, we show in a symbolic execution model that PCS requires Omega(t) communication overhead per message. Our symbolic model permits as building blocks black-box use of (even "dual") PRFs, (even key-updatable) PKE (which in our symbolic definition is at least as strong as HIBE), and broadcast encryption, covering all tools used in previous constructions, but prohibiting the use of exotic primitives. To complement our result, we also prove an almost matching upper bound of O(t(1+log(n/t))), which smoothly increases from O(log n) with no concurrency, to O(n) with unbounded concurrency, matching the previously known protocols.
Determining the Core Primitive for Optimally Secure Ratcheting 📺
After ratcheting attracted attention mostly due to practical real-world protocols, recently a line of work studied ratcheting as a primitive from a theoretic point of view. Literature in this line, pursuing the strongest security of ratcheting one can hope for, utilized for constructions strong, yet inefficient key-updatable primitives – based on hierarchical identity based encryption (HIBE). As none of these works formally justified utilizing these building blocks, we answer the yet open question under which conditions their use is actually necessary. We revisit these strong notions of ratcheted key exchange (RKE), and propose a more realistic (slightly stronger) security definition. In this security definition, both exposure of participants' local secrets and attacks against executions' randomness are considered. While these two attacks were partially considered in previous work, we are the first to unify them cleanly in a natural game based notion. Our definitions are based on the systematic RKE notion by Poettering and Rösler (CRYPTO 2018). Due to slight (but meaningful) changes to regard attacks against randomness, we are ultimately able to show that, in order to fulfill strong security for RKE, public key cryptography with (independently) updatable key pairs is a necessary building block. Surprisingly, this implication already holds for the simplest RKE variant. Hence, (1) we model optimally secure RKE under randomness manipulation to cover realistic attacks, (2) we (provably) extract the core primitive that is necessary to realize strongly secure RKE, and (3) our results indicate which relaxations in security allow for constructions that only rely on standard public key cryptography.
Towards Bidirectional Ratcheted Key Exchange 📺
Bertram Poettering Paul Rösler
Ratcheted key exchange (RKE) is a cryptographic technique used in instant messaging systems like Signal and the WhatsApp messenger for attaining strong security in the face of state exposure attacks. RKE received academic attention in the recent works of Cohn-Gordon et al. (EuroS&P 2017) and Bellare et al. (CRYPTO 2017). While the former is analytical in the sense that it aims primarily at assessing the security that one particular protocol does achieve (which might be weaker than the notion that it should achieve), the authors of the latter develop and instantiate a notion of security from scratch, independently of existing implementations. Unfortunately, however, their model is quite restricted, e.g. for considering only unidirectional communication and the exposure of only one of the two parties.In this article we resolve the limitations of prior work by developing alternative security definitions, for unidirectional RKE as well as for RKE where both parties contribute. We follow a purist approach, aiming at finding strong yet convincing notions that cover a realistic communication model with fully concurrent operation of both participants. We further propose secure instantiations (as the protocols analyzed or proposed by Cohn-Gordon et al. and Bellare et al. turn out to be weak in our models). While our scheme for the unidirectional case builds on a generic KEM as the main building block (differently to prior work that requires explicitly Diffie–Hellman), our schemes for bidirectional RKE require a stronger, HIBE-like component.

Program Committees

Crypto 2022