Re: [Cfrg] Encrypt in place guidance

Michael StJohns <> Wed, 01 April 2020 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87B183A122C for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 09:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5pGxfrzjxNIo for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 09:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6FEC3A12EE for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 09:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x3so497289qki.4 for <>; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 09:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=lvFqeDW2Xx72edL5CJbpQIsRGqMCtgG8c2Bv8CRKTpI=; b=DbRrqedVPqASbglFep7qNefIdjn6wNg5ZQQkosJNhTBNLpfpoTBgbuTif0xbS9khFI nORvDTFzSCGESdJbXGTkEYpthiVsMUAH/bCMiO+BHgUKbOL3KZQsqtoeSCQgkdrVGjb8 ZngeQqNXrD/BL3nVvDnFgk7tGO/I9CkhosCDc+YsAqqRrzOMw7aKaXUmJJWPICtzrMjc fSIprOCccs07/8Y2LdMzn6nWbEgk1CPLtQINI+xFzCFK3BhjUtwq3VcelSuY2ovNFfkq B++kbVtZf9711VQ9IceR0I/ugVJ4vP/uTE8tHY9mpODsdzLUYjzdMDE53tAqgo5VoHJu T9lw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=lvFqeDW2Xx72edL5CJbpQIsRGqMCtgG8c2Bv8CRKTpI=; b=FhGlQIojc5/yZAsXzPZCzJ+UtCQXWnPmwBCDYBbjueHTAGjS7bd00oeRVxX8x8zxio WPRylCOiZcFf21FBfMvdNQIMC7OkAPeoaRmepjK/jOlQYcwdI0sAfgcXf+4SDg+G31gA LWMNMyo95Ws5PLZ4DcP59B9EIPdrt3yRkOrXvSAuXHWwGEzEWNI40vQz6nfw53cSG9q8 yvpOuLOWVpHCDEeAqzPc4zrDAVUCQFj/mbZ6ORYMicgnGCJ206hCHaIowS0/srYUiuR2 CFxzDhaQbY8IG+xNXCgPGHcBF1MiJUAvCCu7/qQCkKw/FRLzIAjftV0MsTCkiVWDbBBY Xstg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1PCb4BU6r8ZG9+m+ElO+SzT4wyPy5yBJ9EM0f6HlrJmHQP1QWx HNRsMa+ZXuT1cTF1dDMXGE3WWRxS/Rs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvnO36pfNZDXsResTJkDIvanDFqK1bj4efl1zS/97MP81njttBbcWumer/irDoOeRmzReqhew==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:6182:: with SMTP id v124mr10766545qkb.320.1585757738394; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 09:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 85sm1669520qke.128.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Apr 2020 09:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
References: <> <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 12:15:35 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------CD324C329F699780B0739221"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Encrypt in place guidance
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 16:15:58 -0000

Pretty much every IOT chip these days has support for at least AES 128 
(and usually for ECB and  CTR and/or CCM).   Unless there is a good 
reason to use something else, assuming you have a good IV source, use 
AES-CTR - it can be used for any number of bytes without expansion.  If 
you don't have a great IV source, use something like AES-CFB8.   Avoid 
domain specific algorithms that may or may not have had security 
analyses done that are appropriate to your domain.

You should have some some sort of message authentication/integrity 
protection and that's a physics problem that needs to be solved by 
allocating some additional bytes.  Generally at least 4 for an integrity 
tag.   If you have that space, move to AES-CCM as your mode.

IMO, Speck may be a better choice later on as it gains more public 
experience and more implementations but you may want to think twice 
about including it in a specification at this time.

Later, Mike

On 4/1/2020 10:58 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> On 4/1/20 10:06 AM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote:
>> Robert,
>> You're in luck, because Speck offers 96-bit block-size (with key size 96 or 144 bits). ;-)
> I did see that and felt it was a strong point for Speck.
>> This (variable block size) was one of the advantages of Speck over, e.g., AES. So the ISO first trimmed it down to the AES capabilities, and then decided "oh well, we already have AES".
> I saw that in the IACR slides:
> Gee look at all these great advantages it has.
> But the other guys don't, so let's strip them out.
> Oh, gee, no advantage here, so let's just drop it.
> Got to love that logic.  Of course if it is really a broken cipher, 
> then it is broken.
> There is really crypto justification for AEAD.  But this comes at a 
> serious cost that sometimes cannot be met.
> Having options like what Speck provides has value.  Not great, but a 
> real value.
> Yes, there are all sorts of replay attacks.  There are some use-case 
> related mitigations.  In this case, so the operator is lieing about 
> where they are.  So what, they can do that anyway and have all the 
> crypto right.
> This is why, on a system level, we are proposing how an authorized 
> entity can directly and securely message the operator's control system 
> with such things as:  "Land now or be shot out of the air and THEN we 
> will come to get you." Much more timely than trying to send an officer 
> to the supposed Geo position of the operator first.
> :)
>> On 4/1/20, 09:38, "Cfrg on behalf of Leo Perrin"< on behalf of>  wrote:
>>      > So I am looking for both a 64 bit and 96 bit block cipher.  I figured
>>      > out that if there is no 96 bit, I can do this by first encrypting the
>>      > 1st 64 bits and then the last 64 bits.  The middle 32bits are double
>>      > encrypted, but I not seeing that as a problem. But then I am not a
>>      > cryptographer, only a crypto-plumber.
>>      I would advise you *not* to do this: this effectively creates a 96-bit block cipher with at least one significant flaw.
>>      Suppose that your plaintext is (A,B,C), where each word is 32-bit long, and that you use a block cipher E_k operating on 64 bits. Then you would first obtain (W,X) = E_k(A,B), and then (Y,Z) = E_k(X,C), so that the encryption of (A,B,C) is (W,Y,Z). The problem with this approach is that W does not depend on C. A similar behaviour exists for decryption (C does not depend on W). As a consequence, this 96-bit block cipher does not provide full diffusion!
>>      It is better to use a dedicated 96-bit block cipher. There are not many of them but they exist:
>>      - BKSQ, from the AES designers (essentially a 96-bit AES);
>>      - SEA,
>>      - EPCBC.
>>      The references for these are in our survey.
>>      If you really need to turn a 64-bit block cipher into a 96-bit one, then you would need to do at least 3 iterations of the 64-bit cipher instead of 2 as you suggested:
>>      (A, B, C) ---(E_k, Id)---> (W, X, C)
>>      (W, X, C) ---(Id, E_k)---> (W, Y, Z)
>>      (W, Y, Z) ---(E_k, Id)---> (T, U, Z)
>>      Still: from a security stand-point, I would much prefer a dedicated 96-bit cipher if I were in your position.
>>      Cheers,
>>      /Léo
>>      _______________________________________________
>>      Cfrg mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cfrg mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list