4. A padding oracle attack is an attack that exploits the padding of encrypted d

Question

4. A padding oracle attack is an attack that exploits the padding of encrypted data in order to decrypt the message without having the key. 10 (a) Describe the basic mechanism by which a padding oracle attack works. Please be (b) What is the time complexity of a padding oracle attack on an AES-CBC encryption (c) Say the people who designed the system you are trying to use a padding oracle attack specific. scheme in big-O notation? Is this concerning? against also took 388 and know about the attack. They decide to only send a generic error message whenever something goes wrong in a request, whether that be an incorrect key, incorrect padding, or any other error. What side channel could you exploit that will allow you to continue to use their system as a padding oracle? (d) Let's say you are a cunning cryptographer and decide that you are going to build a system with a padding scheme that is secret. Will this stop the padding oracle attack or not? What principle supports or disproves this claim?

Explanation / Answer

In cryptography, a cushioning prophet assault is an assault which utilizes the cushioning approval of a cryptographic message to decode the ciphertext. In cryptography, variable-length plaintext messages regularly must be cushioned (extended) to be good with the hidden cryptographic crude. The assault depends on having a "cushioning prophet" who openly reacts to questions about whether a message is effectively cushioned or not. Cushioning prophet assaults are for the most part connected with CBC mode decoding utilized inside square figures. Cushioning modes for uneven calculations, for example, OAEP may likewise be helpless against cushioning prophet assaults

Cushioning prophet assault on CBC encryption

The standard execution of CBC unscrambling in square figures is to decode all ciphertext squares, approve the cushioning, expel the PKCS7 cushioning, and restore the message's plaintext. In the event that the server restores an "invalid cushioning" blunder rather than a bland "unscrambling fizzled" mistake, the assailant can utilize the server as a cushioning prophet to decode (and now and again scramble) messages.

CBC decryption.svg

The scientific recipe for CBC unscrambling is

{displaystyle P_{i}=D_{K}(C_{i})oplus C_{i-1},} {displaystyle P_{i}=D_{K}(C_{i})oplus C_{i-1},}

{displaystyle C_{0}=IV.} {displaystyle C_{0}=IV.}

As delineated above, CBC unscrambling XORs each plaintext obstruct with the past ciphertext square. Thus, a solitary byte alteration in square {displaystyle C_{1}} C_{1} will roll out a comparing improvement to a solitary byte in {displaystyle P_{2}} P_{2}.

Assume the aggressor has two ciphertext squares {displaystyle C_{1},C_{2}} C_{1},C_{2} and they need to unscramble the second square to get plaintext {displaystyle P_{2}} P_{2}. The assailant changes the last byte of {displaystyle C_{1}} C_{1} (making {displaystyle C_{1}'} C_{1}') and sends {displaystyle (IV,C_{1}',C_{2})} {displaystyle (IV,C_{1}',C_{2})} to the server. The server at that point returns regardless of whether the cushioning of the last unscrambled square ( {displaystyle P_{2}'} {displaystyle P_{2}'}) is right (equivalent to 0x01). In the event that the cushioning is right, the assailant presently realizes that the last byte of {displaystyle D_{K}(C_{2})oplus C_{1}'} {displaystyle D_{K}(C_{2})oplus C_{1}'} is {displaystyle mathrm {0x01} } {displaystyle mathrm {0x01} }. In this way, {displaystyle D_{K}(C_{2})=C_{1}'oplus mathrm {0x01} } {displaystyle D_{K}(C_{2})=C_{1}'oplus mathrm {0x01} }. In the event that the cushioning is inaccurate, the assailant can change the last byte of {displaystyle C_{1}'} C_{1}' to the following conceivable esteem. At most, the assailant should make 256 endeavors (one figure for each conceivable byte) to locate the last byte of {displaystyle P_{2}} P_{2}. In the event that the unscrambled square contains cushioning data or bytes utilized for cushioning then an extra endeavor should be made to determine this ambiguity.[2]

In the wake of deciding the last byte of {displaystyle P_{2}} P_{2}, the aggressor can utilize a similar method to acquire the second-to-last byte of {displaystyle P_{2}} P_{2}. The aggressor sets the last byte of {displaystyle P_{2}} P_{2} to {displaystyle mathrm {0x02} } {displaystyle mathrm {0x02} } by setting the last byte of {displaystyle C_{1}} C_{1} to {displaystyle D_{K}(C_{2})oplus mathrm {0x02} } {displaystyle D_{K}(C_{2})oplus mathrm {0x02} }. The assailant at that point utilizes a similar methodology depicted over, this time altering the second-to-last byte until the point that the cushioning is right (0x02, 0x02).

In the event that a square comprises of 128 bits (AES, for instance), which is 16 bytes, the assailant will acquire plaintext {displaystyle P_{2}} P_{2} in close to 25516 = 4080 endeavors. This is fundamentally quicker than the {displaystyle 2^{128}} 2^{128} endeavors required to bruteforce a 128-piece key.

Assaults utilizing cushioning prophets

The first assault was distributed in 2002 by Serge Vaudenay. Solid instantiations of the assault were later acknowledged against SSL and IPSec. It was likewise connected to a few web systems, including JavaServer Faces, Ruby on Rail and ASP.NET and also other programming, for example, Steam gaming customer. In 2012 it was appeared to be compelling against some solidified security gadgets.

While these prior assaults were settled by most TLS practitioners following its open declaration, another variation, the Lucky Thirteen assault, distributed in 2013, utilized a planning side-channel to re-open the powerlessness even in usage that had beforehand been settled. Starting at mid 2014, the assault is never again thought about a risk, in actuality, task, however it is as yet functional in principle (see motion to-clamor proportion) against a specific class of machines. Starting at 2015, the most dynamic territory of advancement for assaults upon cryptographic conventions used to anchor Internet movement are downsize assault, for example, Logjam and Export RSA/FREAK assaults, which trap customers into utilizing less-secure cryptographic tasks furnished for similarity with inheritance customers when more secure ones are accessible. An assault called POODLE(late 2014) consolidates both a downsize assault (to SSL 3.0) with a cushioning prophet assault on the more established, shaky convention to empower trade off of the transmitted information. In May 2016 it has been uncovered in CVE-2016-2107 that the fix against Lucky Thirteen in OpenSSL presented another cushioning prophet.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 4
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.