[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Ames/ clipper compromised?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jim Gillogly quoted then replied:
>>Brian D Williams <[email protected]> writes:
>>I remember awhile back someone posted some clipper documents that
>>were released under FOIA as I recall. The thing that struck me
>>was that the NSA was refering internally to clipper as "The
>>Trapdoor chip." Why refer to it as such if there is no back door?
>Those letters made it clear the "trapdoor" was the escrow, and the
>internal debate was over whether the existence of the escrow would
>be made public. So far it's been NSA's consistent public position
>that the escrow is the only way in... and from the FOIA, that's
>evidently what they're telling the President also.
>Most days I'm pretty sure I believe that there aren't any known
>gotchas in the Skipjack algorithm. If they can really get the
>escrow, it's ever so much cheaper than doing real cryptanalysis.
>As Carl Ellison and others point out, that's really one of the big
>dangers -- if LE doesn't have to break Skipjack to read the
>traffic, neither do the attackers... and breaking the escrow is
>probably much cheaper than breaking the algorithm.
>My position is that Clipper is iniquitous whether or not there's
>a[nother] trap door.
> Jim Gillogly
> Mersday, 6 Astron S.R. 1994, 21:58
Hmmmm, lets look at the article I referred to <sounds of digital
rummaging> Ahh, here it is:
- From toad.com!gnu Mon Jun 21 14:54:03 1993
From: [email protected] (John Gilmore)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Some FOIA results re Clipper
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 14:29:59 -0700
Lee Tien and I have submitted a pile of FOIA requests about
Clipper. Here is scanned-in text from some of the more interesting
results, courtesy of Lee. Search for "required", for a mention of
the proposal to require the use of Clipper. Also note that the
role of the "national security community" has been deliberately
withheld from the public statements (search for "mentioned").
Most agencies have not yet responded with documents. FBI is
claiming it will take them a year, and we are preparing to file
suit to force them to do it within 10 days like the law requires.
(Our NSA suit over the same thing, is continuing through the gears
of the court process.)
John Gilmore
[This page originally XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX TOP SECRET; now
UNCLASSIFIED]
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-3040
COMMAND CONTROL COMMUNICATIONS AND
INTELLIGENCE
MEMORANDUM FOR MS. JOANN H. GRUBE, NSA
REPRESENTATIVE/NSC PRD-27 EXPORT CONTROL
WORKING GROUP
SUBJECT: Comments on PRD-27/NSA Draft (U)
(U) Following are comments concerning your proposed
memorandum to Jim Lewis, Department of State:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX blacked out via
FOIA (b)(1) exemption. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(U) The assertions in this draft are merely unsupported
statements. Recommend that the memorandum provide more
empirical evidence to back up its assertions, and that the above
comments be reflected in its contents.
(signed)
Daniel J. Ryan
Director, Information Systems Security
CLASSIFIED BY: OASD(C3I)/DIR, ISS
DECLASSIFY ON: OADR
[This page originally XXXXXXXX SECRET; now UNCLASSIFIED]
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON DC 20301-3040
COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS AND
INTELLIGENCE
30 APR 1993 (stamped)
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (C3I)
Subject: PRD/NSC-27 Advanced Telecommunications and Encryption (U)
(U) Advances in telecommunications have created the opportunity for
public use of encryption to ensure the privacy and integrity of
business and personal communications. These same advances threaten
the capabilities of law enforcement and national security
operations that intercept the communications of narcotraffickers,
organized criminals, terrorists, espionage agents of foreign powers
and SIGINT targets. Diverse interests are in diametric opposition
with regard to industry's right to sell and the public's right to
use such capabilities. A highly-emotional, spirited public debate
is likely.
(U) In its simplest construct, this complex set of issues places
the public's right to privacy in opposition to the public's desire
for safety. The law enforcement and national security communities
argue that if the public's right to privacy prevails and free use
of cryptography is allowed, criminals and spies will avoid wiretaps
and other intercepts and consequently prosper. They propose that
cryptography be made available and required which contains a
"trapdoor" that would allow law enforcement and national security
officials, under proper supervision, to decrypt enciphered
communications. Such cryptography exists, and while there are
many practical problems to be solved, this proposal is technically
possible to achieve.
(U) Opponents of the proposal argue that the public has a right
to and an expectation of privacy, that a trapdoor system would be
prone to misuse and abuse, and that the proposed solution would
not work in any practical sense. They assert that people who are
deliberately breaking much more serious laws would not hesitate to
use cryptography that does not have a trapdoor, and that secure
cryptography will inevitably be supplied by offshore companies.
Thus, freedom will be lost and many tax dollars spent to no effect.
(U) This situation is complicated by the existence of other
interests. For example, there currently exist strict controls on
the export of cryptography. The computer industry points out that
it has one of the few remaining positive trade balances and that it
is vital that the dominance of the American computer industry in
world markets be preserved. The industry fears that this will be
lost if offshore developers incorporate high-quality cryptography
into their products while U.S. industry either cannot do so or
suffers higher costs or delays due to requirements for export
licenses. The industry argues persuasively that overseas markets
(much less drug lords or spies) will not look with favor on U.S.
products which have known trapdoors when offshore products
which do not have them are available. In support of their
argument, they note that powerful public-key cryptography
developed and patented by RSA using U.S. tax dollars is free to
developers in Europe, subject to royalties in the United States,
and cannot be exported without expensive and time-late export
licenses. These charges are true.
(U) The national security community is especially interested in
preventing the spread of high-quality encipherment routines
overseas, and argues that more extensive use here at home will
inevitably result in such a proliferation. Actually, it is too
late. The Data Encryption Standard (DES) is already widely
available throughout the world in both hardware and software forms,
and DES software can be downloaded anywhere in the world from
public bulletin boards by anyone with a PC, a MODEM and a
telephone. In one recent experiment it took three minutes and
fourteen seconds to locate a source-code version of DES on the
INTERNET. Widespread availability of DES and RSA will enable
offshore developers to provide high-quality encipherment for voice
and data communications in competition with U.S. industry's
products.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX blacked out via
FOIA exemption (b)(1) XXXXXXXXXXX
(U) Despite these concerns, the President has directed that the
Attorney General request that manufacturers of communications
hardware use the trapdoor chip, and at least AT&T has been
reported willing to do so (having been suitably incentivised by
promises of Government purchases). The Attorney General has
also been directed to create a system for escrow of key material.
The Secretary of Commerce has been directed to produce standards
based on the use of the trapdoor chip.
(U) The President has also directed that the fact that law
enforcement officials will have access to the keys will not be
concealed from the public. National security officials are not
mentioned.
(U) The new administration is committed to the development of
an information superhighway and a National Information
Infrastructure in support of the economy. This worthy goal is
independent of arguments as to whether or not law enforcement
and national security officials will be able to read at will
traffic passing along the information superhighway. A full-scale
public debate is needed to ascertain the wishes of U.S. citizens
with regard to their privacy, and the impact on public safety of
preserving privacy at the expense of wiretapping and
communications intercept capabilities of law enforcement and
national security personnel. It is not clear what the public will
decide. In the meantime, DoD has trapdoor technology and the
Government is proceeding with development of the processes
needed to apply that technology in order to maintain the capability
to perform licit intercept of communications in support of law
enforcement and national security.
(signed)
Ray Pollari
Acting DASD (CI & SCM)
[This page originally SECRET; now UNCLASSIFIED]
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON DC 20301-3040
May 3, 1993
COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS AND
INTELLIGENCE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MEMORANDUM FOR DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FROM: CHARLES A. HAWKINS, JR., ACTING ASD(C3I)
(initialed C. Hxxx)
SUBJECT: Advanced Telecommunications and Encryption (U)
PURPOSE: INFORMATION
DISCUSSION:(U) In response to DEPSECDEF's tasking of
21 Apr 93 (TAB A) this information is provided. Advances in
telecommunications have created the opportunity for public use of
encryption to ensure the privacy and integrity of business and
personal communications. These same advances threaten the
capabilities of law enforcement and national security operations
that intercept the communications of narcotraffickers, organized
criminals, terrorists, espionage agents of foreign powers and a
broad range of SIGINT targets. Diverse interests are in diametric
opposition with regard to industry's right to sell and the public's
right to use such capabilities. A highly-emotional, spirited
public debate is likely.
(U) The law enforcement and national security communities
argue that if the public's right to privacy prevails and free use
of cryptography is allowed, criminals and spies will avoid wiretaps
and other intercepts. They propose that cryptography be made
available to the public which contains a "trapdoor" that would
allow law enforcement and national security officials, under proper
supervision, to decrypt enciphered communications. Such
cryptography exists, and while there are many practical problems to
be solved, this proposal is technically possible to implement.
(U) Opponents of the proposal argue that the public has a
right to and expectation of privacy, that such a system would be
prone to misuse and abuse, and that the proposed solution would not
work in any practical sense. They assert that criminals and spies
will not hesitate to use secure cryptography supplied by offshore
companies. Thus, the loss of privacy would outweigh any
advantages to law enforcement or national security.
(U) The computer industry points out that it has one of the
few remaining positive trade balances and that it is vital that the
dominance of the American computer industry in world markets be
preserved. The industry fears that this will be lost if offshore
developers incorporate high-quality cryptography into their
products while U.S. industry either cannot do so or suffers higher
costs or delays due to requirements for export licenses because of
strict controls of export of cryptography. The industry argues
persuasively that overseas markets (much less drug lords or spies)
will not look with favor on U.S. products which have known
trapdoors when offshore products which do not have them are
available.
CLASSIFIED BY: DASD(CI&SCM)
DECLASSIFY ON: OADR
[This page originally XXXXXXXX SECRET; now UNCLASSIFIED]
(U) The national security community is especially interested
in preventing the spread of high-quality encipherment routines
overseas, and argues that more extensive use here at home will
inevitably result in such a proliferation. This would increase the
cost of performing the SIGINT mission or decrease the amount of
intelligence, or both. The Data Encryption Standard (DES) is
already widely available throughout the world in both hardware and
software forms, and DES software can be downloaded anywhere in
the world from public bulletin boards by anyone with a PC, a
MODEM, and a telephone. Thus far, widespread availability has not
led to widespread use. However, widespread availability of DES and
RSA will make it possible for offshore developers to provide high-
quality encipherment for voice and data communications in
competition with U.S. industry's products.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX blacked out under FOIA
exemption (b)(1) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(U) The President has directed that the Attorney General
request that manufacturers of communications hardware use the
trapdoor chip. The Attorney General has also been directed to
create a system for escrow of key material. The Secretary of
Commerce has been directed to produce standards based on the use of
the trapdoor chip. The President has also directed that the fact
that law enforcement officials will have access to the keys will
not be concealed from the public. National security officials are
not mentioned.
(U) The new administration is committed to the development
of an information superhighway and a National Information
Infrastructure in support of the economy. This worthy goal is
independent of arguments as to whether or not law enforcement and
national security officials will be able to read at will traffic
passing along the information superhighway. A full-scale public
debate is beginning which will ascertain the wishes of U.S.
citizens with regard to their privacy and the impact on public
safety of preserving privacy at the expense of wiretapping and
communications intercept capabilities of law enforcement and
national security personnel. It is not clear what the public will
decide. In the meantime, DoD has trapdoor technology and the
Government is proceeding with development of the processes needed
to apply that technology in order to maintain the capability to
perform licit intercept of communications in support of law
enforcement and national security.
Prepared by: Dan Ryan/ODASD(CI & SCM)/x 41779/28 Apr 93/OSD
- ------- End of Forwarded Message
Okay, I had to reread it several times, but I see your point! Why
do they refer to it as a "trapdoor" when there going in the
"frontdoor?" I'm still not convinced that there is no "trapdoor",
and will never be as long as the algorithm remains secret.
Hey just for snicks, (and new members of the list) lets look at
the report on Skipjack again.
SKIPJACK Review
Interim Report
The SKIPJACK Algorithm
Ernest F. Brickell, Sandia National Laboratories
Dorothy E. Denning, Georgetown University
Stephen T. Kent, BBN Communications Corporation
David P. Maher, AT&T
Walter Tuchman, Amperif Corporation
July 28, 1993
(copyright 1993)
Executive Summary
The objective of the SKIPJACK review was to provide a mechanism
whereby persons outside the government could evaluate the strength
of the classified encryption algorithm used in the escrowed
encryption devices and publicly report their findings. Because
SKIPJACK is but one component of a large, complex system, and
because the security of communications encrypted with SKIPJACK
depends on the security of the system as a whole, the review was
extended to encompass other components of the system. The purpose
of this Interim Report is to report on our evaluation of the
SKIPJACK algorithm. A later Final Report will address the broader
system issues.
The results of our evaluation of the SKIPJACK algorithm are as
follows:
1. Under an assumption that the cost of processing power is
halved every eighteen months, it will be 36 years before the
cost of breaking SKIPJACK by exhaustive search will be equal
to the cost of breaking DES today. Thus, there is no
significant risk that SKIPJACK will be broken by exhaustive
search in the next 30-40 years.
2. There is no significant risk that SKIPJACK can be broken
through a shortcut method of attack.
3. While the internal structure of SKIPJACK must be classified in
order to protect law enforcement and national security
objectives, the strength of SKIPJACK against a cryptanalytic
attack does not depend on the secrecy of the algorithm.
1. Background
On April 16, the President announced a new technology initiative
aimed at providing a high level of security for sensitive,
unclassified communications, while enabling lawfully authorized
intercepts of telecommunications by law enforcement officials for
criminal investigations. The initiative includes several
components:
A classified encryption/decryption algorithm called "SKIPJACK."
Tamper-resistant cryptographic devices (e.g., electronic
chips), each of which contains SKIPJACK, classified control
software, a device identification number, a family key used by
law enforcement, and a device unique key that unlocks the
session key used to encrypt a particular communication.
A secure facility for generating device unique keys and
programming the devices with the classified algorithms,
identifiers, and keys.
Two escrow agents that each hold a component of every device
unique key. When combined, those two components form the
device unique key.
A law enforcement access field (LEAF), which enables an
authorized law enforcement official to recover the session key.
The LEAF is created by a device at the start of an encrypted
communication and contains the session key encrypted under the
device unique key together with the device identifier, all
encrypted under the family key.
LEAF decoders that allow an authorized law enforcement official
to extract the device identifier and encrypted session key from
an intercepted LEAF. The identifier is then sent to the escrow
agents, who return the components of the corresponding device
unique key. Once obtained, the components are used to
reconstruct the device unique key, which is then used to
decrypt the session key.
This report reviews the security provided by the first component,
namely the SKIPJACK algorithm. The review was performed pursuant
to the President's direction that "respected experts from outside
the government will be offered access to the confidential details
of the algorithm to assess its capabilities and publicly report
their finding." The Acting Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) sent letters of invitation to
potential reviewers. The authors of this report accepted that
invitation.
We attended an initial meeting at the Institute for Defense
Analyses Supercomputing Research Center (SRC) from June 21-23. At
that meeting, the designer of SKIPJACK provided a complete,
detailed description of the algorithm, the rationale for each
feature, and the history of the design. The head of the NSA
evaluation team described the evaluation process and its results.
Other NSA staff briefed us on the LEAF structure and protocols for
use, generation of device keys, protection of the devices against
reverse engineering, and NSA's history in the design and evaluation
of encryption methods contained in SKIPJACK. Additional NSA and
NIST staff were present at the meeting to answer our questions and
provide assistance. All staff members were forthcoming in
providing us with requested information.
At the June meeting, we agreed to integrate our individual
evaluations into this joint report. We also agreed to reconvene at
SRC from July 19-21 for further discussions and to complete a draft
of the report. In the interim, we undertook independent tasks
according to our individual interests and availability. Ernest
Brickell specified a suite of tests for evaluating SKIPJACK.
Dorothy Denning worked at NSA on the refinement and execution of
these and other tests that took into account suggestions solicited
from Professor Martin Hellman at Stanford University. NSA staff
assisted with the programming and execution of these tests.
Denning also analyzed the structure of SKIPJACK and its
susceptibility to differential cryptanalysis. Stephen Kent visited
NSA to explore in more detail how SKIPJACK compared with NSA
encryption algorithms that he already knew and that were used to
protect classified data. David Maher developed a risk assessment
approach while continuing his ongoing work on the use of the
encryption chip in the AT&T Telephone Security Device. Walter
Tuchman investigated the anti-reverse engineering properties of the
chips.
We investigated more than just SKIPJACK because the security of
communications encrypted with the escrowed encryption technology
depends on the security provided by all the components of the
initiative, including protection of the keys stored on the devices,
protection of the key components stored with the escrow agents, the
security provided by the LEAF and LEAF decoder, protection of keys
after they have been transmitted to law enforcement under court
order, and the resistance of the devices to reverse engineering.
In addition, the success of the technology initiative depends on
factors besides security, for example, performance of the chips.
Because some components of the escrowed encryption system,
particularly the key escrow system, are still under design, we
decided to issue this Interim Report on the security of the
SKIPJACK algorithm and to defer our Final Report until we could
complete our evaluation of the system as a whole.
2. Overview of the SKIPJACK Algorithm
SKIPJACK is a 64-bit "electronic codebook" algorithm that
transforms a 64-bit input block into a 64-bit output block. The
transformation is parameterized by an 80-bit key, and involves
performing 32 steps or iterations of a complex, nonlinear function.
The algorithm can be used in any one of the four operating modes
defined in FIPS 81 for use with the Data Encryption Standard (DES).
The SKIPJACK algorithm was developed by NSA and is classified
SECRET. It is representative of a family of encryption algorithms
developed in 1980 as part of the NSA suite of "Type I" algorithms,
suitable for protecting all levels of classified data. The
specific algorithm, SKIPJACK, is intended to be used with sensitive
but unclassified information.
The strength of any encryption algorithm depends on its ability to
withstand an attack aimed at determining either the key or the
unencrypted ("plaintext") communications. There are basically two
types of attack, brute-force and shortcut.
3. Susceptibility to Brute Force Attack by Exhaustive Search
In a brute-force attack (also called "exhaustive search"), the
adversary essentially tries all possible keys until one is found
that decrypts the intercepted communications into a known or
meaningful plaintext message. The resources required to perform an
exhaustive search depend on the length of the keys, since the
number of possible keys is directly related to key length. In
particular, a key of length N bits has 2^N possibilities. SKIPJACK
uses 80-bit keys, which means there are 2^80 (approximately 10^24)
or more than 1 trillion trillion possible keys.
An implementation of SKIPJACK optimized for a single processor on
the 8-processor Cray YMP performs about 89,000 encryptions per
second. At that rate, it would take more than 400 billion years to
try all keys. Assuming the use of all 8 processors and aggressive
vectorization, the time would be reduced to about a billion years.
A more speculative attack using a future, hypothetical, massively
parallel machine with 100,000 RISC processors, each of which was
capable of 100,000 encryptions per second, would still take about
4 million years. The cost of such a machine might be on the order
of $50 million. In an even more speculative attack, a special
purpose machine might be built using 1.2 billion $1 chips with a 1
GHz clock. If the algorithm could be pipelined so that one
encryption step were performed per clock cycle, then the $1.2
billion machine could exhaust the key space in 1 year.
Another way of looking at the problem is by comparing a brute force
attack on SKIPJACK with one on DES, which uses 56-bit keys. Given
that no one has demonstrated a capability for breaking DES, DES
offers a reasonable benchmark. Since SKIPJACK keys are 24 bits
longer than DES keys, there are 2^24 times more possibilities.
Assuming that the cost of processing power is halved every eighteen
months, then it will not be for another 24 * 1.5 = 36 years before
the cost of breaking SKIPJACK is equal to the cost of breaking DES
today. Given the lack of demonstrated capability for breaking DES,
and the expectation that the situation will continue for at least
several more years, one can reasonably expect that SKIPJACK will
not be broken within the next 30-40 years.
Conclusion 1: Under an assumption that the cost of processing
power is halved every eighteen months, it will be 36 years before
the cost of breaking SKIPJACK by exhaustive search will be equal to
the cost of breaking DES today. Thus, there is no significant risk
that SKIPJACK will be broken by exhaustive search in the next 30-40
years.
4. Susceptibility to Shortcut Attacks
In a shortcut attack, the adversary exploits some property of the
encryption algorithm that enables the key or plaintext to be
determined in much less time than by exhaustive search. For
example, the RSA public-key encryption method is attacked by
factoring a public value that is the product of two secret primes
into its primes.
Most shortcut attacks use probabilistic or statistical methods that
exploit a structural weakness, unintentional or intentional (i.e.,
a "trapdoor"), in the encryption algorithm. In order to determine
whether such attacks are possible, it is necessary to thoroughly
examine the structure of the algorithm and its statistical
properties. In the time available for this review, it was not
feasible to conduct an evaluation on the scale that NSA has
conducted or that has been conducted on the DES. Such review would
require many man-years of effort over a considerable time interval.
Instead, we concentrated on reviewing NSA's design and evaluation
process. In addition, we conducted several of our own tests.
4.1 NSA's Design and Evaluation Process
SKIPJACK was designed using building blocks and techniques that
date back more than forty years. Many of the techniques are
related to work that was evaluated by some of the world's most
accomplished and famous experts in combinatorics and abstract
algebra. SKIPJACK's more immediate heritage dates to around 1980,
and its initial design to 1987.
SKIPJACK was designed to be evaluatable, and the design and
evaluation approach was the same used with algorithms that protect
the country's most sensitive classified information. The specific
structures included in SKIPJACK have a long evaluation history, and
the cryptographic properties of those structures had many prior
years of intense study before the formal process began in 1987.
Thus, an arsenal of tools and data was available. This arsenal was
used by dozens of adversarial evaluators whose job was to break
SKIPJACK. Many spent at least a full year working on the
algorithm. Besides highly experienced evaluators, SKIPJACK was
subjected to cryptanalysis by less experienced evaluators who were
untainted by past approaches. All known methods of attacks were
explored, including differential cryptanalysis. The goal was a
design that did not allow a shortcut attack.
The design underwent a sequence of iterations based on feedback
from the evaluation process. These iterations eliminated
properties which, even though they might not allow successful
attack, were related to properties that could be indicative of
vulnerabilities. The head of the NSA evaluation team confidently
concluded "I believe that SKIPJACK can only be broken by brute
force there is no better way."
In summary, SKIPJACK is based on some of NSA's best technology.
Considerable care went into its design and evaluation in accordance
with the care given to algorithms that protect classified data.
4.2 Independent Analysis and Testing
Our own analysis and testing increased our confidence in the
strength of SKIPJACK and its resistance to attack.
4.2.1 Randomness and Correlation Tests
A strong encryption algorithm will behave like a random function of
the key and plaintext so that it is impossible to determine any of
the key bits or plaintext bits from the ciphertext bits (except by
exhaustive search). We ran two sets of tests aimed at determining
whether SKIPJACK is a good pseudo random number generator. These
tests were run on a Cray YMP at NSA. The results showed that
SKIPJACK behaves like a random function and that ciphertext bits
are not correlated with either key bits or plaintext bits.
Appendix A gives more details.
4.2.2 Differential Cryptanalysis
Differential cryptanalysis is a powerful method of attack that
exploits structural properties in an encryption algorithm. The
method involves analyzing the structure of the algorithm in order
to determine the effect of particular differences in plaintext
pairs on the differences of their corresponding ciphertext pairs,
where the differences are represented by the exclusive-or of the
pair. If it is possible to exploit these differential effects in
order to determine a key in less time than with exhaustive search,
an encryption algorithm is said to be susceptible to differential
cryptanalysis. However, an actual attack using differential
cryptanalysis may require substantially more chosen plaintext than
can be practically acquired.
We examined the internal structure of SKIPJACK to determine its
susceptibility to differential cryptanalysis. We concluded it was
not possible to perform an attack based on differential
cryptanalysis in less time than with exhaustive search.
4.2.3 Weak Key Test
Some algorithms have "weak keys" that might permit a shortcut
solution. DES has a few weak keys, which follow from a pattern of
symmetry in the algorithm. We saw no pattern of symmetry in the
SKIPJACK algorithm which could lead to weak keys. We also
experimentally tested the all "0" key (all 80 bits are "0") and the
all "1" key to see if they were weak and found they were not.
4.2.4 Symmetry Under Complementation Test
The DES satisfies the property that for a given
plaintext-ciphertext pair and associated key, encryption of the
one's complement of the plaintext with the one's complement of the
key yields the one's complement of the ciphertext. This
"complementation property" shortens an attack by exhaustive search
by a factor of two since half the keys can be tested by computing
complements in lieu of performing a more costly encryption. We
tested SKIPJACK for this property and found that it did not hold.
4.2.5 Comparison with Classified Algorithms
We compared the structure of SKIPJACK to that of NSA Type I
algorithms used in current and near-future devices designed to
protect classified data. This analysis was conducted with the
close assistance of the cryptographer who developed SKIPJACK and
included an in-depth discussion of design rationale for all of the
algorithms involved. Based on this comparative, structural analysis
of SKIPJACK against these other algorithms, and a detailed
discussion of the similarities and differences between these
algorithms, our confidence in the basic soundness of SKIPJACK was
further increased.
Conclusion 2: There is no significant risk that SKIPJACK can be
broken through a shortcut method of attack.
5. Secrecy of the Algorithm
The SKIPJACK algorithm is sensitive for several reasons.
Disclosure of the algorithm would permit the construction of
devices that fail to properly implement the LEAF, while still
interoperating with legitimate SKIPJACK devices. Such devices
would provide high quality cryptographic security without
preserving the law enforcement access capability that distinguishes
this cryptographic initiative. Additionally, the SKIPJACK algorithm
is classified SECRET NOT RELEASABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS. This
classification reflects the high quality of the algorithm, i.e., it
incorporates design techniques that are representative of
algorithms used to protect classified information. Disclosure of
the algorithm would permit analysis that could result in discovery
of these classified design techniques, and this would be
detrimental to national security.
However, while full exposure of the internal details of SKIPJACK
would jeopardize law enforcement and national security objectives,
it would not jeopardize the security of encrypted communications.
This is because a shortcut attack is not feasible even with full
knowledge of the algorithm. Indeed, our analysis of the
susceptibility of SKIPJACK to a brute force or shortcut attack was
based on the assumption that the algorithm was known.
Conclusion 3: While the internal structure of SKIPJACK must be
classified in order to protect law enforcement and national
security objectives, the strength of SKIPJACK against a
cryptanalytic attack does not depend on the secrecy of the
algorithm.
- ------- End of forwarded message -------
Brian Williams
Extropian
Cypherpatriot
"Cryptocosmology: Sufficently advanced comunication is
indistinguishable from noise." --Steve Witham
"Have you ever had your phones tapped by the government? YOU WILL
and the company that'll bring it to you.... AT&T" --James Speth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a
iQCVAgUBLZh2xdCcBnAsu2t1AQHSLwP+KQ8GLveVcE9Tv6ES+Y8Y2/hWWJW+i2Vl
1nwhzll4XqcHBM00+8d/SIWGR0tmdq3tySKifDa/zdX6bz7hNUuwjeAG3hwUXROj
CquRYngU8akbTNkifulJrkgOBVYdN/QdZXn9fullQC5pBWexOtRBWb6cR5XrNnRu
6WUKfvzsXtA=
=3qXS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----