Computer Networks 4th Ed Andrew S. Tanenbaum [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

8.4 Digital Signatures

The authenticity of many legal, financial, and other documents is determined by the presence or absence of an authorized handwritten signature. And photocopies do not count. For computerized message systems to replace the physical transport of paper and ink documents, a method must be found to allow documents to be signed in an unforgeable way.

The problem of devising a replacement for handwritten signatures is a difficult one. Basically, what is needed is a system by which one party can send a signed message to another party in such a way that the following conditions hold:

The receiver can verify the claimed identity of the sender.

The sender cannot later repudiate the contents of the message.

The receiver cannot possibly have concocted the message himself.

The first requirement is needed, for example, in financial systems. When a customer's computer orders a bank's computer to buy a ton of gold, the bank's computer needs to be able to make sure that the computer giving the order really belongs to the company whose account is to be debited. In other words, the bank has to authenticate the customer (and the customer has to authenticate the bank).

The second requirement is needed to protect the bank against fraud. Suppose that the bank buys the ton of gold, and immediately thereafter the price of gold drops sharply. A dishonest customer might sue the bank, claiming that he never issued any order to buy gold. When the bank produces the message in court, the customer denies having sent it. The property that no party to a contract can later deny having signed it is called nonrepudiation. The digital signature schemes that we will now study help provide it.

The third requirement is needed to protect the customer in the event that the price of gold shoots up and the bank tries to construct a signed message in which the customer asked for one bar of gold instead of one ton. In this fraud scenario, the bank just keeps the rest of the gold for itself.

8.4.1 Symmetric-Key Signatures

One approach to digital signatures is to have a central authority that knows everything and whom everyone trusts, say Big Brother (BB). Each user then chooses a secret key and carries it by hand to BB's office. Thus, only Alice and BB know Alice's secret key, K_A, and so on.

When Alice wants to send a signed plaintext message, P, to her banker, Bob, she generates K_A(B, R_A, t, P), where B is Bob's identity, R_A is a random number chosen by Alice, t is a timestamp to ensure freshness, and K_A(B, R_A, t, P) is the message encrypted with her key, K_A. Then she sends it as depicted in Fig. 8-18. BB sees that the message is from Alice, decrypts it, and sends a message to Bob as shown. The message to Bob contains the plaintext of Alice's message and also the signed message K_BB (A, t, P). Bob now carries out Alice's request.

Figure 8-18. Digital signatures with Big Brother.

What happens if Alice later denies sending the message? Step 1 is that everyone sues everyone (at least, in the United States). Finally, when the case comes to court and Alice vigorously denies sending Bob the disputed message, the judge will ask Bob how he can be sure that the disputed message came from Alice and not from Trudy. Bob first points out that BB will not accept a message from Alice unless it is encrypted with K_A, so there is no possibility of Trudy sending BB a false message from Alice without BB detecting it immediately.

Bob then dramatically produces Exhibit A: K_BB (A, t, P). Bob says that this is a message signed by BB which proves Alice sent P to Bob. The judge then asks BB (whom everyone trusts) to decrypt Exhibit A. When BB testifies that Bob is telling the truth, the judge decides in favor of Bob. Case dismissed.

One potential problem with the signature protocol of Fig. 8-18 is Trudy replaying either message. To minimize this problem, timestamps are used throughout. Furthermore, Bob can check all recent messages to see if R_A was used in any of them. If so, the message is discarded as a replay. Note that based on the timestamp, Bob will reject very old messages. To guard against instant replay attacks, Bob just checks the R_A of every incoming message to see if such a message has been received from Alice in the past hour. If not, Bob can safely assume this is a new request.

8.4.2 Public-Key Signatures

A structural problem with using symmetric-key cryptography for digital signatures is that everyone has to agree to trust Big Brother. Furthermore, Big Brother gets to read all signed messages. The most logical candidates for running the Big Brother server are the government, the banks, the accountants, and the lawyers. Unfortunately, none of these organizations inspire total confidence in all citizens. Hence, it would be nice if signing documents did not require a trusted authority.

Fortunately, public-key cryptography can make an important contribution in this area. Let us assume that the public-key encryption and decryption algorithms have the property that E(D(P)) = P in addition, of course, to the usual property that D(E(P)) = P. (RSA has this property, so the assumption is not unreasonable.) Assuming that this is the case, Alice can send a signed plaintext message, P, to Bob by transmitting E_B(D_A(P)). Note carefully that Alice knows her own (private) key, D_A, as well as Bob's public key, E_B, so constructing this message is something Alice can do.

When Bob receives the message, he transforms it using his private key, as usual, yielding D_A(P), as shown in Fig. 8-19. He stores this text in a safe place and then applies E_A to get the original plaintext.

Figure 8-19. Digital signatures using public-key cryptography.

To see how the signature property works, suppose that Alice subsequently denies having sent the message P to Bob. When the case comes up in court, Bob can produce both P and D_A(P). The judge can easily verify that Bob indeed has a valid message encrypted by D_A by simply applying E_A to it. Since Bob does not know what Alice's private key is, the only way Bob could have acquired a message encrypted by it is if Alice did indeed send it. While in jail for perjury and fraud, Alice will have plenty of time to devise interesting new public-key algorithms.

Although using public-key cryptography for digital signatures is an elegant scheme, there are problems that are related to the environment in which they operate rather than with the basic algorithm. For one thing, Bob can prove that a message was sent by Alice only as long as D_A remains secret. If Alice discloses her secret key, the argument no longer holds, because anyone could have sent the message, including Bob himself.

The problem might arise, for example, if Bob is Alice's stockbroker. Alice tells Bob to buy a certain stock or bond. Immediately thereafter, the price drops sharply. To repudiate her message to Bob, Alice runs to the police claiming that her home was burglarized and the PC holding her key was stolen. Depending on the laws in her state or country, she may or may not be legally liable, especially if she claims not to have discovered the break-in until getting home from work, several hours later.

Another problem with the signature scheme is what happens if Alice decides to change her key. Doing so is clearly legal, and it is probably a good idea to do so periodically. If a court case later arises, as described above, the judge will apply the current E_A to D_A(P) and discover that it does not produce P. Bob will look pretty stupid at this point.

In principle, any public-key algorithm can be used for digital signatures. The de facto industry standard is the RSA algorithm. Many security products use it. However, in 1991, NIST proposed using a variant of the El Gamal public-key algorithm for their new Digital Signature Standard (DSS). El Gamal gets its security from the difficulty of computing discrete logarithms, rather than from the difficulty of factoring large numbers.

As usual when the government tries to dictate cryptographic standards, there was an uproar. DSS was criticized for being

Too secret (NSA designed the protocol for using El Gamal).

Too slow (10 to 40 times slower than RSA for checking signatures).

Too new (El Gamal had not yet been thoroughly analyzed).

Too insecure (fixed 512-bit key).

In a subsequent revision, the fourth point was rendered moot when keys up to 1024 bits were allowed. Nevertheless, the first two points remain valid.

8.4.3 Message Digests

One criticism of signature methods is that they often couple two distinct functions: authentication and secrecy. Often, authentication is needed but secrecy is not. Also, getting an export license is often easier if the system in question provides only authentication but not secrecy. Below we will describe an authentication scheme that does not require encrypting the entire message.

This scheme is based on the idea of a one-way hash function that takes an arbitrarily long piece of plaintext and from it computes a fixed-length bit string. This hash function, MD, often called a message digest, has four important properties:

Given P, it is easy to compute MD(P).

Given MD(P), it is effectively impossible to find P.

Given P no one can find P' such that MD (P') = MD(P).

A change to the input of even 1 bit produces a very different output.

To meet criterion 3, the hash should be at least 128 bits long, preferably more. To meet criterion 4, the hash must mangle the bits very thoroughly, not unlike the symmetric-key encryption algorithms we have seen.

Computing a message digest from a piece of plaintext is much faster than encrypting that plaintext with a public-key algorithm, so message digests can be used to speed up digital signature algorithms. To see how this works, consider the signature protocol of Fig. 8-18 again. Instead of signing P with K_BB (A, t, P), BB now computes the message digest by applying MD to P, yielding MD(P). BB then encloses K_BB (A, t, MD(P)) as the fifth item in the list encrypted with K_B that is sent to Bob, instead of K_BB (A, t, P).

If a dispute arises, Bob can produce both P and K_BB (A, t, MD(P)). After Big Brother has decrypted it for the judge, Bob has MD(P), which is guaranteed to be genuine, and the alleged P. However, since it is effectively impossible for Bob to find any other message that gives this hash, the judge will easily be convinced that Bob is telling the truth. Using message digests in this way saves both encryption time and message transport costs.

Message digests work in public-key cryptosystems, too, as shown in Fig. 8-20. Here, Alice first computes the message digest of her plaintext. She then signs the message digest and sends both the signed digest and the plaintext to Bob. If Trudy replaces P underway, Bob will see this when he computes MD(P) himself.

Figure 8-20. Digital signatures using message digests.

MD5

A variety of message digest functions have been proposed. The most widely used ones are MD5 (Rivest, 1992) and SHA-1 (NIST, 1993). MD5 is the fifth in a series of message digests designed by Ronald Rivest. It operates by mangling bits in a sufficiently complicated way that every output bit is affected by every input bit. Very briefly, it starts out by padding the message to a length of 448 bits (modulo 512). Then the original length of the message is appended as a 64-bit integer to give a total input whose length is a multiple of 512 bits. The last precomputation step is initializing a 128-bit buffer to a fixed value.

Now the computation starts. Each round takes a 512-bit block of input and mixes it thoroughly with the 128-bit buffer. For good measure, a table constructed from the sine function is also thrown in. The point of using a known function like the sine is not because it is more random than a random number generator, but to avoid any suspicion that the designer built in a clever back door through which only he can enter. Remember that IBM's refusal to disclose the principles behind the design of the S-boxes in DES led to a great deal of speculation about back doors. Rivest wanted to avoid this suspicion. Four rounds are performed per input block. This process continues until all the input blocks have been consumed. The contents of the 128-bit buffer form the message digest.

MD5 has been around for over a decade now, and many people have attacked it. Some vulnerabilities have been found, but certain internal steps prevent it from being broken. However, if the remaining barriers within MD5 fall, it may eventually fail. Nevertheless, at the time of this writing, it was still standing.

SHA-1

The other major message digest function is SHA-1 (Secure Hash Algorithm 1), developed by NSA and blessed by NIST in FIPS 180-1. Like MD5, SHA-1 processes input data in 512-bit blocks, only unlike MD5, it generates a 160-bit message digest. A typical way for Alice to send a nonsecret but signed message to Bob is illustrated in Fig. 8-21. Here her plaintext message is fed into the SHA-1 algorithm to get a 160-bit SHA-1 hash. Alice then signs the hash with her RSA private key and sends both the plaintext message and the signed hash to Bob.

Figure 8-21. Use of SHA-1 and RSA for signing nonsecret messages.

After receving the message, Bob computes the SHA-1 hash himself and also applies Alice's public key to the signed hash to get the original hash, H. If the two agree, the message is considered valid. Since there is no way for Trudy to modify the (plaintext) message while its is in transit and produce a new one that hashes to H, Bob can easily detect any changes Trudy has made to the message. For messages whose integrity is important but whose contents are not secret, the scheme of Fig. 8-21 is widely used. For a relatively small cost in computation, it guarantees that any modifications made to the plaintext message in transit can be detected with very high probability.

Now let us briefly see how SHA-1 works. It starts out by padding the message by adding a 1 bit to the end, followed by as many 0 bits as are needed to make the length a multiple of 512 bits. Then a 64-bit number containing the message length before padding is ORed into the low-order 64 bits. In Fig. 8-22, the message is shown with padding on the right because English text and figures go from left to right (i.e., the lower right is generally perceived as the end of the figure). With computers, this orientation corresponds to big-endian machines such as the SPARC, but SHA-1 always pads the end of the message, no matter which endian machine is used.

Figure 8-22. (a) A message padded out to a multiple of 512 bits. (b) The output variables. (c) The word array.

During the computation, SHA-1 maintains five 32-bit variables, H₀ through H₄, where the hash accumulates. These are shown in Fig. 8-22(b). They are initialized to constants specified in the standard.

Each of the blocks M₀ through M_{n -1} is now processed in turn. For the current block, the 16 words are first copied into the start of an auxiliary 80-word array, W, as shown in Fig. 8-22(c). Then the other 64 words in W are filled in using the formula

where S^b(W) represents the left circular rotation of the 32-bit word, W, by b bits. Now five scratch variables, A through E are initialized from H₀ through H₄, respectively.

The actual calculation can be expressed in pseudo-C as

for (i = 0; i < 80; i++) { 
temp = S5(A) + fi (B, C, D) + E + Wi +Ki; 
E=D; D=C; C=S30(B); B = A; A = temp; 
} 

where the K_i constants are defined in the standard. The mixing functions f_i are defined as

When all 80 iterations of the loop are completed, A through E are added to H ₀ through H ₄, respectively.

Now that the first 512-bit block has been processed, the next one is started. The W array is reinitialized from the new block, but H is left as it was. When this block is finished, the next one is started, and so on, until all the 512-bit message blocks have been tossed into the soup. When the last block has been finished, the five 32-bit words in the H array are output as the 160-bit cryptographic hash. The complete C code for SHA-1 is given in RFC 3174.

New versions of SHA-1 are under development for hashes of 256, 384, and 512 bits, respectively.

8.4.4 The Birthday Attack

In the world of crypto, nothing is ever what it seems to be. One might think that it would take on the order of 2^m operations to subvert an m-bit message digest. In fact, 2^m/2 operations will often do using the birthday attack, an approach published by Yuval (1979) in his now-classic paper ''How to Swindle Rabin.''

The idea for this attack comes from a technique that math professors often use in their probability courses. The question is: How many students do you need in a class before the probability of having two people with the same birthday exceeds 1/2? Most students expect the answer to be way over 100. In fact, probability theory says it is just 23. Without giving a rigorous analysis, intuitively, with 23 people, we can form (23 x 22)/2 = 253 different pairs, each of which has a probability of 1/365 of being a hit. In this light, it is not really so surprising any more.

More generally, if there is some mapping between inputs and outputs with n inputs (people, messages, etc.) and k possible outputs (birthdays, message digests, etc.), there are n(n - 1)/2 input pairs. If n(n - 1)/2 >k, the chance of having at least one match is pretty good. Thus, approximately, a match is likely for
. This result means that a 64-bit message digest can probably be broken by generating about 2³² messages and looking for two with the same message digest.

Let us look at a practical example. The Department of Computer Science at State University has one position for a tenured faculty member and two candidates, Tom and Dick. Tom was hired two years before Dick, so he goes up for review first. If he gets it, Dick is out of luck. Tom knows that the department chairperson, Marilyn, thinks highly of his work, so he asks her to write him a letter of recommendation to the Dean, who will decide on Tom's case. Once sent, all letters become confidential.

Marilyn tells her secretary, Ellen, to write the Dean a letter, outlining what she wants in it. When it is ready, Marilyn will review it, compute and sign the 64-bit digest, and send it to the Dean. Ellen can send the letter later by e-mail.

Unfortunately for Tom, Ellen is romantically involved with Dick and would like to do Tom in, so she writes the letter below with the 32 bracketed options.

Dear Dean Smith,

This [letter | message] is to give my [honest | frank] opinion of Prof. Tom Wilson, who is [a candidate | up] for tenure [now | this year]. I have [known | worked with] Prof. Wilson for [about | almost] six years. He is an [outstanding | excellent] researcher of great [talent | ability] known [worldwide | internationally] for his [brilliant | creative] insights into [many | a wide variety of] [difficult | challenging] problems.

He is also a [highly | greatly] [respected | admired] [teacher | educator]. His students give his [classes | courses] [rave | spectacular] reviews. He is [our | the Department's] [most popular | best-loved] [teacher | instructor].

[In addition | Additionally] Prof. Wilson is a [gifted | effective] fund raiser. His [grants | contracts] have brought a [large | substantial] amount of money into [the | our] Department. [This money has | These funds have] [enabled | permitted] us to [pursue | carry out] many [special | important] programs, [such as | for example] your State 2000 program. Without these funds we would [be unable | not be able] to continue this program, which is so [important | essential] to both of us. I strongly urge you to grant him tenure.

Unfortunately for Tom, as soon as Ellen finishes composing and typing in this letter, she also writes a second one:

Dear Dean Smith,

This [letter | message] is to give my [honest | frank] opinion of Prof. Tom Wilson, who is [a candidate | up] for tenure [now | this year]. I have [known | worked with] Tom for [about | almost] six years. He is a [poor | weak] researcher not well known in his [field | area]. His research [hardly ever | rarely] shows [insight in | understanding of] the [key | major] problems of [the | our] day.

Furthermore, he is not a [respected | admired] [teacher | educator]. His students give his [classes | courses] [poor | bad ] reviews. He is [our | the Department's] least popular [teacher | instructor], known [mostly | primarily] within [the | our] Department for his [tendency | propensity] to [ridicule | embarrass] students [foolish | imprudent] enough to ask questions in his classes.

[In addition | Additionally] Tom is a [poor | marginal] fund raiser. His [grants | contracts] have brought only a [meager | insignificant] amount of money into [the | our] Department. Unless new [money is | funds are] quickly located, we may have to cancel some essential programs, such as your State 2000 program. Unfortunately, under these [conditions | circumstances] I cannot in good [conscience | faith] recommend him to you for [tenure | a permanent position].

Now Ellen programs her computer to compute the 2³² message digests of each letter overnight. Chances are, one digest of the first letter will match one digest of the second letter. If not, she can add a few more options and try again during the weekend. Suppose that she finds a match. Call the ''good'' letter A and the ''bad'' one B.

Ellen now e-mails letter A to Marilyn for her approval. Letter B she keeps completely secret, showing it to no one. Marilyn, of course, approves, computes her 64-bit message digest, signs the digest, and e-mails the signed digest off to Dean Smith. Independently, Ellen e-mails letter B to the Dean (not letter A, as she is supposed to).

After getting the letter and signed message digest, the Dean runs the message digest algorithm on letter B, sees that it agrees with what Marilyn sent him, and fires Tom. The Dean does not realize that Ellen managed to generate two letters with the same message digest and sent her a different one than Marilyn saw and approved. (Optional ending: Ellen tells Dick what she did. Dick is appalled and breaks off with her. Ellen is furious and confesses to Marilyn. Marilyn calls the Dean. Tom gets tenure after all.) With MD5 the birthday attack is difficult because even at 1 billion digests per second, it would take over 500 years to compute all 2⁶⁴ digests of two letters with 64 variants each, and even then a match is not guaranteed. Of course, with 5000 computers working in parallel, 500 years becomes 5 weeks. SHA-1 is better (because it is longer).