Re: Double Encryption Q

2008-04-21 Thread Martin James Cochran
If your original mode of operation is secure, then this should be  
secure.


The reduction:

Consider algorithm A that tries to break the double encryption mode of  
operation (DM) in the IND-CPA setting.  We can construct an algorithm  
B that tries to break the original mode of operation (OM) in the IND- 
CPA setting.  B simply runs A and responds to A's queries by querying  
B's oracle twice to simulate A's oracle, and returning the result.  B  
returns the output of A.


If A breaks the encryption, so does B.  So if the original mode is IND- 
CPA secure, this double encryption should be okay.


Note that the examples given, OCB and CTR with repeated counters, are  
not IND-CPA secure.


Martin Cochran

On Apr 11, 2008, at 8:30 AM, COMINT wrote:

Quick system scenario:

You have packet [A].

It gets encrypted using an AES algo in a particular mode and we are
left with [zA].

More data [B] is added to that encrypted packet.

Now I have [zA]+[B] in one packet and I re-encrypt it with the same
algo/key/mode.

Have I just compromised the security somehow? I wasn't aware of
anything but something about this double encryption made something
ring in my mind so I wanted to double check...

Many thanks,

Mr Pink

-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Double Encryption Q

2008-04-18 Thread Pehr Söderman
There are some situations when this can be dangerous. It's a matter of
implementation. I can directly come up with one trivial scenario that
will end you up in trouble:

Assume that you are using AES-CTR (AES in Counter mode) and do not
change the IV between the two encryptions. In this case you will
correctly encrypt the data, but the second encryption will leave A
unprotected.

/Pehr Söderman

COMINT wrote:
> Quick system scenario:
>
> You have packet [A].
>
> It gets encrypted using an AES algo in a particular mode and we are
> left with [zA].
>
> More data [B] is added to that encrypted packet.
>
> Now I have [zA]+[B] in one packet and I re-encrypt it with the same
> algo/key/mode.
>
> Have I just compromised the security somehow? I wasn't aware of
> anything but something about this double encryption made something
> ring in my mind so I wanted to double check...
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Mr Pink
>
> -
> The Cryptography Mailing List
> Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>   

-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Double Encryption Q

2008-04-18 Thread Jack Lloyd
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 04:30:47PM +0200, COMINT wrote:
> Quick system scenario:
> 
> You have packet [A].
> 
> It gets encrypted using an AES algo in a particular mode and we are
> left with [zA].
> 
> More data [B] is added to that encrypted packet.
> 
> Now I have [zA]+[B] in one packet and I re-encrypt it with the same
> algo/key/mode.
> 
> Have I just compromised the security somehow? I wasn't aware of
> anything but something about this double encryption made something
> ring in my mind so I wanted to double check...

This would certainly cause problems in if "particular mode" == OFB or
counter, since (if you also reuse the IVs), you could have E(zA) == A.

If you use a different (independent, unrelated) key/IV, then the
existence of a weakness in this scheme would seem to provide evidence
of an attack on AES, regardless of mode choice.

-Jack

-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Double Encryption Q

2008-04-16 Thread COMINT
Quick system scenario:

You have packet [A].

It gets encrypted using an AES algo in a particular mode and we are
left with [zA].

More data [B] is added to that encrypted packet.

Now I have [zA]+[B] in one packet and I re-encrypt it with the same
algo/key/mode.

Have I just compromised the security somehow? I wasn't aware of
anything but something about this double encryption made something
ring in my mind so I wanted to double check...

Many thanks,

Mr Pink

-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]