Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

Citation - WoS: 25
Citation - Scopus: 26
Quantum Key Distribution in the Classical Authenticated Key Exchange Framework
(Springer, 2013) Mosca, Michele; Stebila, Douglas; Ustaoğlu, Berkant
Key establishment is a crucial primitive for building secure channels in a multi-party setting. Without quantum mechanics, key establishment can only be done under the assumption that some computational problem is hard. Since digital communication can be easily eavesdropped and recorded, it is important to consider the secrecy of information anticipating future algorithmic and computational discoveries which could break the secrecy of past keys, violating the secrecy of the confidential channel. Quantum key distribution (QKD) can be used generate secret keys that are secure against any future algorithmic or computational improvements. QKD protocols still require authentication of classical communication, although existing security proofs of QKD typically assume idealized authentication. It is generally considered folklore that QKD when used with computationally secure authentication is still secure against an unbounded adversary, provided the adversary did not break the authentication during the run of the protocol. We describe a security model for quantum key distribution extending classical authenticated key exchange (AKE) security models. Using our model, we characterize the long-term security of the BB84 QKD protocol with computationally secure authentication against an eventually unbounded adversary. By basing our model on traditional AKE models, we can more readily compare the relative merits of various forms of QKD and existing classical AKE protocols. This comparison illustrates in which types of adversarial environments different quantum and classical key agreement protocols can be secure. © 2013 Springer-Verlag.
Citation - WoS: 4
Reusing Static Keys in Key Agreement Protocols
(Springer Verlag, 2009) Chatterjee, Sanjit; Menezes, Alfred; Ustaoğlu, Berkant
Contrary to conventional cryptographic wisdom, the NIST SP 800-56A standard explicitly allows the use of a static key pair in more than one of the key establishment protocols described in the standard. In this paper, we give examples of key establishment protocols that are individually secure, but which are insecure when static key pairs are reused in two of the protocols. We also propose an enhancement of the extended Canetti-Krawczyk security model and definition for the situation where static public keys are reused in two or more key agreement protocols. © 2009 Springer-Verlag.
Security Arguments for the Um Key Agreement Protocol in the Nist Sp 800-56a Standard
(Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), 2008) Menezes, Alfred; Ustaoğlu, Berkant
The Unified Model (UM) key agreement protocol is an efficient Diffie-Hellman scheme that has been included in many cryptographic standards, most recently in the NIST SP 800-56A standard. The UM protocol is believed to possess all important security attributes including key authentication and secrecy, resistance to unknown key-share attacks, forward secrecy, resistance to known-session key attacks, and resistance to leakage of ephemeral private keys, but is known to succumb to key-compromise impersonation attacks. In this paper we present a strengthening of the Canetti-Krawczyk security definition for key agreement that captures resistance to all important attacks that have been identified in the literature with the exception of key-compromise impersonation attacks. We then present a reductionist security proof that the UM protocol satisfies this new definition in the random oracle model under the Gap Diffie-Hellman assumption. Copyright 2008 ACM.
Citation - WoS: 19
Comparing the Pre- and Post-Specified Peer Models for Key Agreement
(Springer Verlag, 2008) Menezes, Alfred; Ustaoğlu, Berkant
In the pre-specified peer model for key agreement, it is assumed that a party knows the identifier of its intended communicating peer when it commences a protocol run. On the other hand, a party in the post-specified peer model for key agreement does not know the identifier of its communicating peer at the outset, but learns the identifier during the protocol run. In this paper we compare the security assurances provided by the Canetti-Krawczyk security definitions for key agreement in the pre- and post-specified peer models. We give examples of protocols that are secure in one model but insecure in the other. We also enhance the Canetti-Krawczyk security models and definitions to encompass a class of protocols that are executable and secure in both the pre- and post-specified peer models. © 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Mathematics / Matematik

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results