Security & Operations

Navigation menu

Encryption: Securing Sensitive Data in Changing Corporate Environments
Check Point Full Disk Encryption Software Blade provides automatic security for data on endpoint hard drives, including user data, operating system files, and temporary and erased files. More of your questions answered by our Experts. This number grows very rapidly as n increases. Symmetric Cryptography Symmetric encryption algorithms, also called single-key, shared-secret, or even, confusingly, private-key systems, use a single key or set of keys to encrypt and decrypt the data. For example, only one-third of sensitive corporate data stored in cloud apps is encrypted , according to a survey of more than 3, IT and IT security pros by the Ponemon Institute and Gemalto. Asymmetric See full definition.

Terminology

Survival Guide - Encryption, Authentication

The bad guy has to start all over again to discover the key with no greater knowledge than before but with, hopefully, tightened end-user key security procedures in place. Cryptographic algorithms are not provably in a mathematical sense secure. Instead, they are widely published and exposed to repeated attack by dedicated researchers and specialists black hat testers who love this kind of stuff. Only having resisted repeated and sustained attacks are the algorithms used operationally.

Since research into the cryptographic algorithms is ongoing it can occasionally mean that apparently robust, mature algorithms need to be replaced when weaknesses are discovered. A recent example here relates to theoretical weaknesses being discovered in the MD5 digest algorithm around While it is always possible to use a brute force attack to find a key, cryptographic systems use a concept known as computationally infeasible a termed coined by Diffie and Hellman in their seminal paper which simply means that it would cost too much or take too long to mount such a brute force attack.

Computationally infeasible is based on today's technology and is therefore a relative not absolute definition and does change over time. Thus, for example, in some algorithms the key size is typically increased over time as raw computational capacity increases. If a secret key, or keys, are obtained by an attacker by stealth, brute force, luck or other nefarious means then the last thing they are likely to do is to boast about it, which will only trigger the user to replace the key s.

Instead, the bad guys will simply and quietly continue to eavesdrop on supposedly secure communications. This is a serious problem and is typically handled by some combination of maintaining the keys in a 'tamper-proof' which will destroy the key if a compromise is attempted or a 'tamper-aware' environment a. There is no way to know or prove that a key has been compromised other by observing, typically negative, consequential effects. Many standards were written suggesting a range of cryptographic algorithms but mandating, typically, only one to ensure some form of common demoninator.

However, as computational speed increases and cryptographic attacks become increasingly frequent in some cases from sources that were supposedly benign the need to change, either algorithm or key size, is becoming of growing importance. This process - known as algorithmic agility in the endless jargon - can pose a serious operational problem for legacy systems.

Only the parties to the communication can understand the messages or data sent between the parties. The data received by one party was the data sent by the other party and was not manipulated or compromised during transmission.

One or more of the above may be provided by a single algorithm or may be provided by a combination of algorithms and methods.

In particular SP Part 1 currently rev 4 discusses key management and provides an excellent and thorough analysis of both cryptographic methods and threats. It further provides practical advice on key sizes for various algorithms in Tables 2 and 4. Any interested reader is well advised to plough through this worthy, if long, document for a highly practical and thorough grounding in the arcane subject of cryptography.

Finally, the insatiably curious reader could do no better than read the paper that started the public key revolution, New Directions in Cryptography by Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman.

A bit heavy on the math in places but these can be mercifully skipped without losing the cystal clarity of the ideas. Clear, readable prose, most unusual for this type of paper. A worthy investment in time. Symmetric encryption algorithms, also called single-key, shared-secret, or even, confusingly, private-key systems, use a single key or set of keys to encrypt and decrypt the data.

This single key - the shared secret - must be securely exchanged between the parties that will use it prior to the actual secure communication. The limitations of shared-secret systems are twofold.

First, the key must be distributed securely using a process called key management, which itself is not trivial. Second, the method of securing the key once distributed lies with all the parties to the communication: If a shared-secret key is compromised at any of the parties then it is compromised for all parties that use it. Symmetric algorithms use significantly less computational resources than their asymmetric counterparts. They are, generally, the only viable method for encrypting bulk data streams.

Figure 1 shows the operational use of a shared secret for classic confidential communications. The term shared secret, which describes a single key or set of keys used, or shared, by both ends of the communication should not be confused with secret sharing, which describes a process whereby the shared, or single, secret key is broken up into parts and shared between multiple persons to make it more secure.

Asymmetric encryption algorithms use a pair of keys - a public and a private key - and are generally referred to as public-key cryptographic systems or sometimes as nonsecret encryption somewhat of an oxymoron.

In these systems, data called plain-text in the jargon that is encrypted with one key can only be decrypted with the paired key.

Given one key, it is computationally infeasible to derive the paired key. Asymmetric encryption works by making one key, called the public key, widely available, while maintaining the other key, surprisingly called the private key, a secret.

This process has an interesting side effect. If a message is encrypted with a private key and can be decrypted with its paired public key, then only the owner of the private key could have done it. This property is used in digital signatures and is described later. Asymmetric algorithms use significant computational resources in comparison with their symmetric counterparts and therefore are generally not used to encrypt bulk data streams. Typical key sizes for RSA public-key systems are and bits the current US NIST recommendation to cover the period from until , or even higher if you enjoy causing excessive use of CPU resources in decryptors.

Elliptic Curve Cryptography ECC uses typically smaller bit sizes, examples, , , , or Figure 2 illustrates the use of public-key cryptography for classic confidential communications. To achieve confidentiality, a message to be sent from Host2 to Host1 is encrypted with the public key of Host1.

Only the private key of Host1 can decrpyt this message. If Host1 wishes to send a confidential message to Host 2 then it must obtain the public key of Host2 not shown in diagram 2 to avoid unnecessary complexity. Public-key systems have one significant limitation. They rely on knowing, or trusting, that the public key which will be used in communications with a person, organization or entity really is the public key of the person or organization and has not been spoofed by a malicious third party.

There are two broad methods by which this is usually accomplished. The third party securely manages, and attests to the authenticity of, public keys. If the third party a. The third party is trusted to have satisfied themselves by some process - attestation, notarization, or another process - that X is the one and only, or globally unique, X. The most common method for making available public keys that have been verified by a third party is to embed them in an X.

Due to the widespread adoption of RSA in it was the dominant public key encryption method it has been widely studied for exploits and optimized implementations exist for most machine architectures. ECC is much less studied and therefore may, or may not, still yield some surprises. ECC implementations have probably not yet reached peak efficiency and therefore the comparisons below should be treated with some caution but will likely remain generally true.

While it is almost a no brainer that mobile devices will prefer ECC due to lower CPU loads and smaller bandwidth requirement when receiver, say, web pages decrypt function , web servers will see significant increases due to the increased performance requirement of ECC encryption and would probably love to keep on using RSA. The Diffie-Hellman exchange DH is a method by which two or in some case more peers can independently create the same shared secret that may be subsequently used in a symmetric cryptographic algorithm TLS, for example uses DH to create the key used for the Data Record phase.

It is assumed that the entire session during which the two peers communicate can be evesdropped by a third party. The third party cannot derive the same key because it lacks certain information. The exchange is shown in Figure 3. Also, recently the full IPv6 support was added, as well as "tls-crypt" support. In our tests, performance was fast when using local servers, although we did find subpar speeds with some servers.

The company has servers in 20 countries, which is on the low side compared to some rivals. There are five available plans that are fairly affordable overall. One of the main factors that makes Windscribe so alluring is that it allows users to hook up an unlimited number of devices, making it ideal for families.

Mobile users won't have any problem using the service, as there are apps available for both iOS and Android. Encryption can only go so far. Further misunderstandings can stem from the mishmash of jargon that surrounds talk of encryption, which is all likely to be meaningless to the casual VPN user. Terms like bit, bit, AES, and other jargon is likely to confuse, so a bit of explanation is in order.

Encryption relies on advanced mathematical formulae to work its magic. However, after design, a new attack might be discovered. For instance, Triple DES was designed to have a bit key, but an attack of complexity 2 is now known i. Nevertheless, as long as the relation between key length and security is sufficient for a particular application, then it doesn't matter if key length and security coincide.

This is important for asymmetric-key algorithms , because no such algorithm is known to satisfy this property; elliptic curve cryptography comes the closest with an effective security of roughly half its key length. Keys are used to control the operation of a cipher so that only the correct key can convert encrypted text ciphertext to plaintext. Many ciphers are actually based on publicly known algorithms or are open source and so it is only the difficulty of obtaining the key that determines security of the system, provided that there is no analytic attack i.

The widely accepted notion that the security of the system should depend on the key alone has been explicitly formulated by Auguste Kerckhoffs in the s and Claude Shannon in the s ; the statements are known as Kerckhoffs' principle and Shannon's Maxim respectively.

A key should therefore be large enough that a brute force attack possible against any encryption algorithm is infeasible — i. Shannon's work on information theory showed that to achieve so called perfect secrecy , the key length must be at least as large as the message and only used once this algorithm is called the One-time pad.

In light of this, and the practical difficulty of managing such long keys, modern cryptographic practice has discarded the notion of perfect secrecy as a requirement for encryption, and instead focuses on computational security , under which the computational requirements of breaking an encrypted text must be infeasible for an attacker. Encryption systems are often grouped into families. Common families include symmetric systems e. AES and asymmetric systems e.

RSA ; they may alternatively be grouped according to the central algorithm used e. As each of these is of a different level of cryptographic complexity, it is usual to have different key sizes for the same level of security , depending upon the algorithm used.

For example, the security available with a bit key using asymmetric RSA is considered approximately equal in security to an bit key in a symmetric algorithm. The actual degree of security achieved over time varies, as more computational power and more powerful mathematical analytic methods become available. For this reason cryptologists tend to look at indicators that an algorithm or key length shows signs of potential vulnerability, to move to longer key sizes or more difficult algorithms.

The computation is roughly equivalent to breaking a bit RSA key. However, this might be an advance warning that bit RSA used in secure online commerce should be deprecated , since they may become breakable in the near future. Cryptography professor Arjen Lenstra observed that "Last time, it took nine years for us to generalize from a special to a nonspecial, hard-to-factor number" and when asked whether bit RSA keys are dead, said: The Logjam attack revealed additional dangers in using Diffie-Helman key exchange when only one or a few common bit or smaller prime moduli are in use.

This common practice allows large amounts of communications to be compromised at the expense of attacking a small number of primes. Even if a symmetric cipher is currently unbreakable by exploiting structural weaknesses in its algorithm, it is possible to run through the entire space of keys in what is known as a brute force attack.

Since longer symmetric keys require exponentially more work to brute force search, a sufficiently long symmetric key makes this line of attack impractical. With a key of length n bits, there are 2 n possible keys. This number grows very rapidly as n increases. The large number of operations 2 required to try all possible bit keys is widely considered out of reach for conventional digital computing techniques for the foreseeable future. If a suitably sized quantum computer capable of running Grover's algorithm reliably becomes available, it would reduce a bit key down to bit security, roughly a DES equivalent.

This is one of the reasons why AES supports a bit key length. See the discussion on the relationship between key lengths and quantum computing attacks at the bottom of this page for more information.

Latest Articles

Leave a Reply