[comp.virus] SNEFRU and other hash algorithm weaknesses

0003158580@mcimail.com (William Hugh Murray) (04/11/91)

James Kirkpatrick writes:

>  -  SNEFRU was discussed on this list, but I was dismayed to find it
>     had been broken, and that Merkle's response was to increase the
>     number of passes.  This worries me because of the experience of
>     knapsack cryptosystems, where a single-iteration system was first
>     broken, followed by the introduction of multiple-iteration systems,
>     which were in turn broken (at least, that is my recollection; I may
>     have some details wrong).

Well, with the same limitations on "details," and without commenting
on SNEFRU, the following may be helpful.

The DEA is an iterative system.  There is a demonstration (Adelman?)
that its strength goes up rapidly with the number of iterations, such
that at sixteen (the number required by the standard) its strength
reaches the point where an analytic attack is as expensive as an
exhaustive attack against the key.  (My recollection is that Adelman
was attempting to demonstrate the power of his analytic attack rather
than the strength of the algorithm.)

Hellman set out to demonstrate the general inadequacy of the length of
the 56 bit DES key; in the process he demonstrated its adequacy for
many applications.  I have always been grateful to him for his
explication of the work required to break it, which is, conversely, a
measure of its strength.  (It should be noted that while the length of
the key in the DES is specified to be 56 bits, the effective key
length in DEA implementations is arbitrarily long.  For example, IBM
uses a 112 bit key in some applications.)

While recovering a great deal of ENIGMA encoded traffic, ULTRA
demonstrated that, with reasonable key management, ENIGMA is a
formidable mechanism.

Anything hit with a sufficiently large hammer will fall to pieces.
The cost of the hammer is a measure of the strength of the thing.  If
the cost of the attack exceeds the value of its success, then the
thing is economically unbreakable.  For most purposes, that is good
enough.

____________________________________________________________________
William Hugh Murray                     email: 315-8580@MCIMAIL.COM
Information System Security             WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Consultant to Deloitte & Touche         MCI-Mail: 315-8580