Re: [cryptography] Questions about crypto in Oracle TDE

2012-11-09 Thread Morlock Elloi
There is some space. But this is not the usual PK situation where 256-bit 
secret key is stuffed in 2000+ bit space.

Few notes:

- Data integrity/authenticity was not the objective. Only secrecy. 

- Obtaining 'public' key means subverting and reverse engineering the 
application input modules, and is equivalent in difficulty to finding secret 
database key in the classical approach. There is nothing public about this 
'public' key. Whoever can randomly play chosen plaintext attacks already owns 
the application and the database.

- Finding valid credit card numbers or SSNs which are multiples of others 
requires substantial luck.

- Adversary that can derive RSA secret key from poorly-padded ciphertext with 
chosen plaintext attacks will know that it's cheaper to beat the shit out of 
sys admin to get all data.

To conclude, this is not a generic/universal approach that is supposed to 
withstand all (un)imaginable attacks from resourceful adversaries. This is just 
a point solution for protecting certain database fields, that replaces secret 
key crypto with asymmetric crypto, and partitions the application in such way 
to minimize exposure of decrypting keys - modules that need plaintext can be 
kept far away from machines with public interfaces. It is not less secure than 
classical approach, and due to ratio of cipher size to data size it allows 
indexing.



 is there an inferred so we have no space to pad the
 plaintext there?
 
  BTW, the same plaintext is never encrypted with
 different keys, so CRT
  doesn't work.
 
 Well that maybe, but without padding RSA(a)*RSA(b) ==
 RSA(a*b) so the
 attacker can create fake data or test values by using
 multiplication.
 
 eg values a,b,c,d, etc
 
 He can create new values k*a for any integer k (as
 encryption is public)
 RSA(k*a) = RSA(k)*RSA(a); he can test multiples.. RSA(b) =?
 RSA(k)*RSA(a)
 he can compare values with multiples of other values: RSA(c)
 =?
 RSA(a)*RSA(b) and any variation thereof.
 
 With some knowledge of the domain of the values, and given
 arbitrary known
 plaintext-ciphertext pairs (being public key crypto) thats a
 fair amount of
 rope for an attacker to play with.
 
 Not ECB, but its something else fragile with its own
 problems...

___
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography


Re: [cryptography] Questions about crypto in Oracle TDE

2012-11-08 Thread Morlock Elloi
We have been using a different approach for securing particular fields in the 
database.

The main issue with symmetric ciphers inside (distributed) systems is that the 
encrypting entity is always the most numerous weak point. Whoever subverts your 
input flow - and there are lots of opportunities there - gets keys to 
everything. Your distributed system is not really distributed - it's mostly 
distributing vulnerabilities.

However, if you use asymmetric crypto (say, 1024 or 2048-bit RSA), give only 
public key(s) to encrypting flows, and reserve the secret key(s) for modules 
that need the actual plaintext access (a rare situation in practice), then:

- the storage size remains the same;

- you can use the first 512 bits or so for indexing (you may get a collision 
once before the Universe cools down, or whatever your belief about the 
curvature is.)

- there are no ECB issues (for field sizes  1024 or 2048 bits, most are);

- the extra CPU cost for modular arithmetic (to insert or search) is negligible 
(at least in use cases we've seen so far);

- the security requirements on the input side drop down big time. You can 
(continue to) have bozos code your 'apps'.

More philosophically, the database is just a wire with a delay. You would never 
directly use symmetric keys in other communications (by sharing them under the 
table), would you?



--- On Thu, 11/8/12, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:

 IMO this fixed IV for searchability/indexability crypto pattern is a common
 mistake.  I prefer and consider it more secure to use a
 (keyed) MAC of the
 plaintext as the index, and then encrypt the plaintexts
 conventionally with a random IV.

___
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography


Re: [cryptography] -currently available- crypto cards with onboard key storage

2011-10-28 Thread Morlock Elloi
Take a cheap Android, write the code you need for it, make it talk via USB, rip 
out all antennas, put it in your box (wrap in a paper bag first), and connect 
with USB cable to the internal USB port.

HW cost: $80


 a Trojan. Security certification concerns put aside, the
 architectural demands are no more elaborate than a CPU
 unlikely to be infected by a Trojan. From there, you either
 pay for the certification gimmick, or you mend your own
 solution. This is the basis for an open source HSM ...
 cryptography mailing list
___
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography


Re: [cryptography] Digital cash in the news...

2011-06-11 Thread Morlock Elloi
BitCoin has only one problem: maintenance of the relationship between unit 
BitCoin value and the material world (energy, as in KWh) is 'soft', it requires 
some sort of a volatile communal effort, which sets it for failure (as a 
counter example, the amount of Au atoms on this planet is rather independent 
from any communal effort.)

The relationship between unit value and the material world needs to be fixed. 
It's just a matter of time.

Then we may name it ButtCoin.


 We expect money to be a store of value, among a few other
 things. BitCoin has nothing in it that speaks to that goal,
 that I can see [0].  This anti-property would however
 make it more ideal for a bubble [1].
 
 Quite how to fix that and retain the decentralised control
 aspect, I'm unsure.  The essence of a contract is that
 someone delivers something to someone else;  without
 that first party (which speaks to centralisation at some
 level) it is hard.
___
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography


Re: [cryptography] key management guidelines

2010-09-04 Thread Morlock Elloi
The basic fallacy here is the assumption that some magical 'identity' exists 
and all we have to do is be brilliant enough to figure it out.

It doesn't.

It's just a collection of beneficial behaviors, a Nash equilibrium that changes 
as the rules of the Game change (which, by definition, exists :-)

Identity will be something different in digital representations, and as we 
learn to cheat and catch cheaters and benefit from both, it will transform into 
something else again.




 It begins to sound biblical, but I AM is your inner
 identity bereft of name and
 


  
___
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography