Recoverable Encryption through Noised Secret over Large Cloud



Similar documents
Scalable Distributed Virtual Data Structures

Numerical SQL Value Expressions Over Encrypted Cloud Databases

Network Security. Computer Networking Lecture 08. March 19, HKU SPACE Community College. HKU SPACE CC CN Lecture 08 1/23

Developing and Investigation of a New Technique Combining Message Authentication and Encryption

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Network Computing Nodes

IMPROVED SECURITY MEASURES FOR DATA IN KEY EXCHANGES IN CLOUD ENVIRONMENT

Kerberos. Public domain image of Heracles and Cerberus. From an Attic bilingual amphora, BC. From Italy (?).

Client Server Registration Protocol

CIS 6930 Emerging Topics in Network Security. Topic 2. Network Security Primitives

Authentication Types. Password-based Authentication. Off-Line Password Guessing

Secret Sharing based on XOR for Efficient Data Recovery in Cloud

2.4: Authentication Authentication types Authentication schemes: RSA, Lamport s Hash Mutual Authentication Session Keys Trusted Intermediaries

Cryptography and Network Security Prof. D. Mukhopadhyay Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

SIMS 255 Foundations of Software Design. Complexity and NP-completeness

Network Security CS 5490/6490 Fall 2015 Lecture Notes 8/26/2015

ADVANCE SECURITY TO CLOUD DATA STORAGE

SECURITY ANALYSIS OF A SINGLE SIGN-ON MECHANISM FOR DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER NETWORKS

CSCE 465 Computer & Network Security

Overview of Scalable Distributed Database System SD-SQL Server

IBM Crypto Server Management General Information Manual

Network Security. Chapter 6 Random Number Generation. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Georg Carle

CS 348: Computer Networks. - Security; 30 th - 31 st Oct Instructor: Sridhar Iyer IIT Bombay

CSC474/574 - Information Systems Security: Homework1 Solutions Sketch

Secure Network Communication Part II II Public Key Cryptography. Public Key Cryptography

Module 8. Network Security. Version 2 CSE IIT, Kharagpur

EFFICIENT AND SECURE ATTRIBUTE REVOCATION OF DATA IN MULTI-AUTHORITY CLOUD STORAGE

Secure Group Oriented Data Access Model with Keyword Search Property in Cloud Computing Environment

Overview of Public-Key Cryptography

Connected from everywhere. Cryptelo completely protects your data. Data transmitted to the server. Data sharing (both files and directory structure)

Overview of Cryptographic Tools for Data Security. Murat Kantarcioglu

Lecture 6 - Cryptography

Authentication and Security in Mobile Phones

Rfid Authentication Protocol for security and privacy Maintenance in Cloud Based Employee Management System

What users should know about Full Disk Encryption based on LUKS

Cryptography and Network Security Prof. D. Mukhopadhyay Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

EFFICIENT AND SECURE DATA PRESERVING IN CLOUD USING ENHANCED SECURITY

1 Digital Signatures. 1.1 The RSA Function: The eth Power Map on Z n. Crypto: Primitives and Protocols Lecture 6.

SINGLE SIGN-ON MECHANISM FOR DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING SECURITY ENVIRONMENT

CSC Network Security. User Authentication Basics. Authentication and Identity. What is identity? Authentication: verify a user s identity

Cryptography and Network Security Prof. D. Mukhopadhyay Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

Network Security. Gaurav Naik Gus Anderson. College of Engineering. Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA. Drexel University. College of Engineering

Public Key Cryptography. c Eli Biham - March 30, Public Key Cryptography

The science of encryption: prime numbers and mod n arithmetic

DISTRIBUTED AND PARALLELL DATABASE

CSE/EE 461 Lecture 23

Lecture 3: One-Way Encryption, RSA Example

3-6 Toward Realizing Privacy-Preserving IP-Traceback

Midterm. Name: Andrew user id:

RSA Attacks. By Abdulaziz Alrasheed and Fatima

7 Network Security. 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Improving the Security 7.3 Internet Security Framework. 7.5 Absolute Security?

EXAM questions for the course TTM Information Security May Part 1

Chapter 13. Chapter Outline. Disk Storage, Basic File Structures, and Hashing

12/3/08. Security in Wireless LANs and Mobile Networks. Wireless Magnifies Exposure Vulnerability. Mobility Makes it Difficult to Establish Trust

nwstor Storage Security Solution 1. Executive Summary 2. Need for Data Security 3. Solution: nwstor isav Storage Security Appliances 4.

Hash Functions. Integrity checks

How To Encrypt Data With A Power Of N On A K Disk

(Refer Slide Time: 02:17)

The Security Behind Sticky Password

SECURITY IN NETWORKS

Cryptography and Network Security

Cryptography and Network Security

Lecture Objectives. Lecture 8 Mobile Networks: Security in Wireless LANs and Mobile Networks. Agenda. References

1. Comments on reviews a. Need to avoid just summarizing web page asks you for:

International Journal of Advance Research in Computer Science and Management Studies

Cryptography and Network Security Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

Presentation on Black Hat Europe 2003 Conference. Security Analysis of Microsoft Encrypting File System (EFS)

Whitepaper: performance of SqlBulkCopy

Deploying EFS: Part 1

IMPLEMENTATION OF SOURCE DEDUPLICATION FOR CLOUD BACKUP SERVICES BY EXPLOITING APPLICATION AWARENESS

PASSWORD MANAGEMENT. February The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Lecture 9 - Message Authentication Codes

Data Grid Privacy and Secure Storage Service in Cloud Computing

Lukasz Pater CMMS Administrator and Developer

DataTrust Backup Software. Whitepaper Data Security. Version 6.8

PIONEER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT GROUP

Chapter 13. Disk Storage, Basic File Structures, and Hashing

AN IMPLEMENTATION OF HYBRID ENCRYPTION-DECRYPTION (RSA WITH AES AND SHA256) FOR USE IN DATA EXCHANGE BETWEEN CLIENT APPLICATIONS AND WEB SERVICES

Split Based Encryption in Secure File Transfer

Cryptography: Authentication, Blind Signatures, and Digital Cash

Network Security. Abusayeed Saifullah. CS 5600 Computer Networks. These slides are adapted from Kurose and Ross 8-1

Network Security. Chapter 6 Random Number Generation

Wireless Pre-Shared Key Cracking (WPA, WPA2)

Introduction to Computer Security

Enhancing Data Security in Cloud Storage Auditing With Key Abstraction

The Mathematics of the RSA Public-Key Cryptosystem

How To Encrypt With A 64 Bit Block Cipher

Final Exam. IT 4823 Information Security Administration. Rescheduling Final Exams. Kerberos. Idea. Ticket

An Introduction to Cryptography and Digital Signatures

Lecture 3: Scaling by Load Balancing 1. Comments on reviews i. 2. Topic 1: Scalability a. QUESTION: What are problems? i. These papers look at

Counter Expertise Review on the TNO Security Analysis of the Dutch OV-Chipkaart. OV-Chipkaart Security Issues Tutorial for Non-Expert Readers

Project Proposal. Data Storage / Retrieval with Access Control, Security and Pre-Fetching

Role Based Encryption with Efficient Access Control in Cloud Storage

Transcription:

Recoverable Encryption through Noised Secret over Large Cloud Sushil Jajodia 1, W. Litwin 2 & Th. Schwarz 3 1 George Mason University, Fairfax, VA {jajodia@gmu.edu} 2 Université Paris Dauphine, Lamsade {witold.litwin@dauphine.fr} 3 Thomas Schwarz, UCU, Montevideo {tschwarz@ucu.edu.uy} 1

What? New schemes for backup of encryption keys entrusted to an Escrow Collectively called RE NS Schemes They backup high quality encryption keys AES (256b), DH 500+b Backup itself is specifically encrypted Unlike a traditional simple key copy 2

What? Fast brute-force recovery remains possible In the absence of key owner Within the timing wished by the recovery requestor But only over a large cloud 1K 100K nodes 3

What? Unwelcome recovery is unlikely E.g. could easily take, say, 70 or even 700 days at escrow s processor alone Illegal use of a large cloud is implausible Cloud providers do best to prevent it Easily noticeable if ever starts Follow the money Leaves compromising traces in numerous logs 6

Why High quality key loss danger is Achilles heel of modern crypto Makes many folks refraining of any encryption Other loose many tears if unthinkable happens 7

Why If you create key copies Every copy increases danger of disclosure For an Escrow, her/his copy is an obvious temptation Some Escrows may not resist to In short users face the dilemma: Key loss or disclosure? That is The Question 8

Why RE NS schemes alleviate this dilemma Easily available large clouds make them realistic Our schemes should benefit numerous applications 9

How (Overview) : Key Owner Side Key owner or client chooses inhibitive timing of 1-node (bruteforce) recovery Presumably unwelcome at escrow s site alone E.g. 70 days Or 700 days for less trusted escrows Or anything between 10

How : Key Owner Side Consequently, the owner fixes a large integer Called backup encryption complexity or hardness Actually, this step may be programmed The backup encryption agent on client node may be in charge of 11

How : Key Owner Side Key owner or the agent creates the shared noised secret Some share(s) of the actual secret become noised shares «Burried» among very many look-alike but fake noise shares 12

How : Key Owner Side The only way to recognize whether a noise share is a noised one is to try out its «footprint» The owner/agent creates the footprint for each noised share Each footprint is unique Remember Cinderella? 13

How : Key Owner Side Key owner/agent sends the noised secret to Escrow Noised secret is the backup Guess your key by its print in this mess (inspired by CSIS actual ex.) 14

How (Overview) : Escrow Side Key requestor asks Escrow to recover data in acceptable max recovery time E.g. 10 min Escrow s server sends the time and all but one shares of the noised secret to the cloud Intruder to the cloud cannot find the key 15

How : Escrow s Side RE NS scheme executed at the cloud chooses the cloud size To fit the calculus time limit for sure Say 10K nodes Search for the noised share gets partitioned over the nodes Nodes work in parallel Matching the footprints 16

How : Escrow s Side Every lucky node reports back to Escrow the noised share found Escrow server recovers the key from all the shares Using the clasical XORing Sends the recovered key to Requestor Not forgetting the bill 17

What Else? Well, everything is in details Client Side Encryption Server Side Recovery Static Scheme Scalable Scheme Related Work Conclusion 18

More : Res. Rep. What Else? http://www.lamsade.dauphine.fr/~litwin/recoverabl e%20encryption_10.pdf S. Jajodia, W. Litwin & Th. Schwarz. Recoverable Encryption through a Noised Secret over a Large Cloud. 5th Inl. Conf. on Data Management in Cloud, Grid and P2P Systems (Globe 2012 ) Publ. Springer Verlag, Lecture Notes in Comp. 19

Client Side (Backup) Encryption Client X backs up encryption key S X estimates 1-node inhibitive time D Say 70 days D measures trust to Escrow Lesser trust? Choose 700 days 20

Client Side Encryption D determines minimal cloud size N for future recovery in any acceptable time R Chosen by recovery requestor E.g. 10 min X expects N > D / R but also N D / R E.g. N 10K for D = 70 days N 100K for D = 700 days 21

Client Side Encryption X creates a classical shared secret for S S is seen as a large integer, E.g., 256b long for AES Basically, X creates a 2-share secret Share s 0 is a random integer Share s 1 is calculated as s 1 = s 0 XOR S Common knowledge: S = s 0 XOR s 1 22

Client Side Encryption X transforms the shared secret into a noised one X makes s 0 a noised share : Chooses a 1-way hash H E.g. SHA 256 Computes the hint h = H (s 0 ) Chooses the noise space I = 0,1,m, M-1 For some large M determined as we explain soon 23

Client-Side Encryption Each noise m and s 0 define a noise share s In a way we show soon as well There are M different pseudo random noise shares All but one are different from s 0 But it is not known which one is s 0 The only way to find for any s whether s = s 0 is to attempt the match H (s)?= h 24

Shared Secret / Noised (Shared) Secret S = XOR S 0 S 1 Hint H (s 0 ) S = S 1 XOR Noise shares S 0 Noised share S 0 n H is one-way hash SHA 256 by default Noise shares Noise space I 25

Client Side Encryption X estimates the 1-node throughput T # of match attempts H (s)?= h per time unit 1 Sec by default X sets M to M = Int (DT). M should be 2 40 2 50 in practice 26

Client Side Encryption X randomly chooses m I = [0,1 M[ Calculates base noise share f = s 0 m Defines noised share s n 0 = (f, M, h). Sends the noised secret S = (s 0n, s 1 ) to Escrow as the backup 27

Escrow-Side Recovery (Backup Decryption) Escrow E receives legitimate request of S recovery in time R at most E chooses between static or scalable recovery schemes E sends data S = (s 0n, R) to some cloud node with request for processing accordingly Keeps s 1 out of the cloud 28

Recovery Processing Parameters Node load L n : # of noises among M assigned to node n for match attempts Throughput T n : # of match attempts node n can process / sec Bucket (node) capacity B n : # of match attempts node n can process / time R B n = R T n Load factor n = L n / B n 29

α t L Node Load 1 R B B L B L 1 T T T Overload Normal load Optimal load 30

Recovery Processing Parameters Notice the data storage oriented vocabulary Node n respects R iff n 1 Assuming T constant during the processing The cloud respects R if for every n we have n 1 This is our goal For both static and scalable schemes we now present 31

Static Scheme Intended for a homogenous Cloud All nodes provide the same throughput 32

Static Scheme : Init Phase Node C that got S from E becomes coordinator Calculates a (M) = M / B (C) Usually (M) >> 1 Defines N as a (M) Implicitly considers the cloud as homogenous E.g., N = 10K or N = 100K in our ex. 33

Static Scheme : Map Phase C asks for allocation of N-1 nodes Associates logical address n = 1, 2 N-1 with each new node & 0 with itself Sends out to every node n data (n, a 0, P) a 0 is its own physical address, e.g., IP P specifies Reduce phase 34

Static Scheme : Reduce Phase P requests node n to attempt matches for every noise share s = (f + m) such that n = m mod N In practice, e.g., while m < M: Node 0 loops over noise m = 0, N, 2N So over the noise shares f, f + N, f + 2N Node 1 loops over noise m = 1, N+1, 2N+1.. Node N 1 loops over m = (your guess here) 35

Static Scheme : Node Load α t, L.. f + 2N f + N f.. f + 2N + 1 f + N + 1 f + 1.. f + 2N + 2 f + N + 2 f + 2.. f + 3N - 1 f + 2N - 1 f + N - 1 1 R, B 1 T 0 1 2 N - 1 36

Static Scheme Node n that gets the successful match sends s to C Otherwise node n enters Termination C asks every node to terminate Details depend on actual cloud C forwards s as s 0 to E 37

Static Scheme E discloses the secret S and sends S to Requestor Bill included (we guess) E.g., up to 400$ on CloudLayer for D = 70 days R = 10 min Both implied N = 10K with private option 38

Static Scheme Observe that N D / R and N D / R If the initial estimate of T by S owner holds Observe also that for every node n, we have (n) 1 Under our assumptions maximal recovery time is thus indeed R Average recovery time is R / 2 Since every noise share is equally likely to be the lucky one 39

Static Scheme See papers for Details, Numerical examples Proof of correctness The scheme really partitions I Whatever is N and s 0, one and only one node finds s 0 40

Static Scheme Safety No disclosure method can in practice be faster than the scheme Dictionary attack, inverted file of hints Other properties 41

Scalable Scheme Heterogeneous cloud Node throughputs may differ 42

Scalable Scheme Intended for heterogenous clouds Different node throughputs Basically only locally known E.g. Private or hybrid cloud Public cloud without so-called private node option 43

Scalable Scheme Init phase similar up to (M) calculus Basically (M) >> 1 Also we note it now 0 If > 1 we say that node overflows Node 0 sets then its level j to j = 0 and splits Requests node 2 j = 1 Sets j to j = 1 Sends to node 1, (S, j, a 0 ) 44

Scalable Scheme As result There are N = 2 nodes Both have j = 1 Node 0 and node 1 should each process M / 2 match attempts We show precisely how on next slides Iff both 0 and 1 are no more than 1 Usually it should not be the case The splitting should continue as follows 45

Scalable Scheme Recursive rule Each node n splits until n 1 Each split increases node level j n to j n + 1 Each split creates new node n = n + 2 j n Each node n gets j n = j n initially Node 0 splits thus perhaps into nodes 1,2,4 Until 0 1 Node 1 starts with j= 1 and splits into nodes 3,5,9 Until 1 1 46

Scalable Scheme Node 2 starts with j = 2 and splits into 6,10,18 Until 2 1 Your general rule here Node with smaller T splits more times and vice versa 47

Scalable Scheme : Splitting Node 0 split 5 times. Other nodes did not split. B α = 0.8 α = 0.7 α = 0.5 j 5 T T T 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 4 8 16 48

Scalable Scheme If cloud is homogenous, the address space is contiguous Otherwise, it is not No problem Unlike for a extensible or linear hash data structure 49

Scalable Scheme : Reduce phase Every node n attempts matches for every noise k [0, M-1] such that n = k mod 2 j n. If node 0 splits three times, in Reduce phase it attempts to match noised shares (f + k) with k = 0, 8, 16 If node 1 splits four times, it attempts to match noised shares (f + k) with k = 1, 17, 33 Etc. 50

Scalable Scheme : Reduce Phase B. f + 16 f + 8 f α = 0.5 T j 3 L 4 0 1. f + 33 f + 17 f + 1 51

Scalable Scheme N D / R If S owner initial estimate holds For homogeneous cloud it is 30% greater on the average and twice as big at worst / static scheme Cloud cost may still be cheaper No need for private option Versatility may still make it preferable besides 52

Scalable Scheme Max recovery time is up to R Depends on homogeneity of the cloud Average recovery time is up to R /2 See again the papers for Examples Correctness Safety Detailed perf. analysis remains future work 53

Related Work RE scheme for outsourced LH* files CSCP scheme for outsourced LH* records sharing Crypto puzzles One way hash with trapdoor 30-year old excitement around Clipper chip Botnets 54

Conclusion Key safety is Achilles heel of cryptography Key loss or key disclosure? That is The Question RE NS schemes alleviate the dilemma Future work Deeper formal analysis Proof of concept implementation Variants 55

Thanks for Your Attention Witold LITWIN & al 56