1018 lines
46 KiB
Plaintext
1018 lines
46 KiB
Plaintext
CIPHERTEXT
|
||
The RSA Newsletter
|
||
Volume 1, No. 1, Fall 1993
|
||
|
||
A publication of RSA Data Security, Inc. Copyright _ 1993 RSA Data Security,
|
||
Inc. All rights reserved. For reprints, call your RSA representative.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
IN THIS ISSUE:
|
||
|
||
Clipper Controversy Continues Page 1
|
||
|
||
1994 RSA Data Security Conference Page 1
|
||
|
||
Apple Ships System 7 Pro Page 2
|
||
|
||
Internet PEM Arrives Page 2
|
||
|
||
RSA Opens Certificate Services Center Page 3
|
||
|
||
New Wireless Security Standards Page 4
|
||
|
||
Arkhon Extends Kerberos With RSA Page 4
|
||
|
||
Hilgraeve Licenses RSA for
|
||
Best-Selling Asynch Package Page 5
|
||
|
||
RSA Licensee Spotlight: Datamedia Page 5
|
||
|
||
Difficulty of Factoring Page 6
|
||
|
||
Factoring Challenge Update Page 6
|
||
|
||
RSA Laboratories Report Page 6
|
||
|
||
PKCS Update Page 7
|
||
|
||
Clipper: One Scientist's Perspective Page 7
|
||
|
||
The SmartCard That Needs No Reader Page 9
|
||
|
||
1994 RSA Conference Registration Form Page 11
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
THE CLIPPER CONTROVERSY CONTINUES
|
||
|
||
The government's involvement in cryptography standards and public policy have
|
||
again provoked strong reactions in the crypto community with the announcement
|
||
of the Clipper Chip, an encryption scheme with an acknowledged, built-in
|
||
system for government law-enforcement and intelligence agency monitoring. We
|
||
present here a relatively technical overview of the proposal. Dr. Martin
|
||
Hellman offers his personal opinions later in this Newsletter. -Ed.
|
||
|
||
Clipper is an encryption chip developed and sponsored by the U.S. government
|
||
as part of the Capstone project. Announced by the White House in April, 1993
|
||
Clipper was designed to balance the competing concerns of federal law-
|
||
enforcement agencies with those of private citizens and industry. The law-
|
||
enforcement agencies wish to have access to the communications of suspected
|
||
criminals, for example by wire-tapping; these needs are threatened by secure
|
||
cryptography. Industry and individual citizens, however, want secure
|
||
communications, and look to cryptography to provide it.
|
||
|
||
Clipper technology attempts to balance these needs by using escrowed keys. The
|
||
idea is that communications would be encrypted with a secure algorithm, but
|
||
the keys would be kept by one or more third parties (the "escrow agencies"),
|
||
and made available to law-enforcement agencies when authorized by a court-
|
||
issued warrant. Thus, for example, personal communications would be impervious
|
||
to recreational eavesdroppers, and commercial communications would be
|
||
impervious to industrial espionage, and yet the FBI could listen in on
|
||
suspected terrorists or gangsters. In the case of Clipper, each key is split
|
||
into two parts, each of which is stored at one of two escrow agencies; both
|
||
parts must be known in order to recover the key.
|
||
|
||
Clipper has been proposed as a U.S. government standard; it would then be used
|
||
by anyone doing business with the federal government as well as for
|
||
communications within the government. For anyone else, use of Clipper is
|
||
strictly voluntary. AT&T has announced a secure telephone that uses the
|
||
Clipper chip.
|
||
|
||
The Clipper chip contains an encryption algorithm called Skipjack, whose
|
||
details are classified. Each chip also contains a unique 80-bit unit key U,
|
||
which is escrowed in two parts at two escrow agencies. Also present is a
|
||
serial number and an 80-bit "family key" F; the latter is common to all
|
||
Clipper chips. The chip is manufactured so that it cannot be reversed
|
||
engineered; this means that the Skipjack algorithm and the keys cannot be read
|
||
off the chip.
|
||
|
||
When two devices wish to communicate, they first agree on an 80-bit "session
|
||
key" K. The method by which they choose this key is left up to the
|
||
implementer's discretion; a public-key method such as RSA or Diffie-Hellman
|
||
seems a likely choice. The message is encrypted with the key K and sent; note
|
||
that the key K is not escrowed. In addition to the encrypted message, another
|
||
piece of data, called the law-enforcement block, is created and sent. It
|
||
includes the session key K encrypted with the unit key U, then concatenated
|
||
with the serial number of the sender and an authentication string, and then,
|
||
finally, all encrypted with the family key. The receiver decrypts the law-
|
||
enforcement block, checks the authentication string, and decrypts the message
|
||
with the key K.
|
||
|
||
Now suppose a law-enforcement agency wishes to tap the line. It uses the
|
||
family key to decrypt the law-enforcement block; the agency now knows the
|
||
serial number and has an encrypted version of the session key. It presents an
|
||
authorization warrant to the two escrow agencies along with the serial number.
|
||
The escrow agencies give the two parts of the unit key to the law-enforcement
|
||
agency, which then decrypts to obtain the session key K. Now the agency can
|
||
use K to decrypt the actual message.
|
||
|
||
It has not yet been decided which organizations will serve as the escrow
|
||
agencies, that is, keep the Clipper chip keys. No law-enforcement agency will
|
||
be an escrow agency, and it is possible that at least one of the escrow
|
||
agencies will be an organization outside the government.
|
||
|
||
It is essential that the escrow agencies keep the key databases extremely
|
||
secure, since unauthorized access to both escrow databases could allow
|
||
unauthorized eavesdropping on private communications. In fact, the escrow
|
||
agencies are likely to be one of the major targets for anyone trying to
|
||
compromise the Clipper system; the Clipper chip factory is another likely
|
||
target.
|
||
|
||
The encryption algorithm contained in the Clipper chip is known as Skipjack
|
||
and was designed by the NSA. It uses an 80-bit key to encrypt 64-bit blocks of
|
||
data; the same key is used for the decryption. Skipjack can be used in the
|
||
same modes as DES and may be more secure than DES, since it uses 80-bit keys
|
||
and scrambles the data for 32 steps, or 'rounds'; by contrast, DES uses 56-bit
|
||
keys and scrambles the data for only 16 rounds.
|
||
|
||
The details of Skipjack are classified, although the government has invited a
|
||
small group of independent cryptographers to examine the algorithm. The
|
||
decision not to make the details of the algorithm publicly available has been
|
||
widely criticized. Many people are suspicious that Skipjack is not secure,
|
||
either due to oversight by its designers, or by the deliberate introduction of
|
||
a secret trapdoor. Another consequence of Skipjack's classified status is that
|
||
it cannot be implemented in software, but only in hardware by government-
|
||
authorized chip manufacturers.
|
||
|
||
Controversy has arisen in many areas: first, there is controversy about the
|
||
whole idea of forced escrow of keys. Those in favor of escrowed keys see it as
|
||
a way to provide secure communications for the public at large while allowing
|
||
law-enforcement agencies to monitor the communications of suspected criminals.
|
||
Those opposed to escrowed keys see it as an unnecessary and ineffective
|
||
intrusion of the government into the private lives of citizens. They argue
|
||
that escrowed keys infringe their rights of privacy and free speech. It will
|
||
take a lot of time and much public discussion for society to reach a consensus
|
||
on what role, if any, escrowed keys should have.
|
||
|
||
The second area of controversy concerns various objections to the specific
|
||
Clipper proposal, that is, objections to this particular implementation of
|
||
escrowed keys, as opposed to the idea of escrowed keys in general. Common
|
||
objections include: the Skipjack algorithm is not public and may not be
|
||
secure; the key escrow agencies will be vulnerable to attack; there are not
|
||
enough key escrow agencies; the keys on the Clipper chips are not generated in
|
||
a sufficiently secure fashion; there will not be sufficient competition among
|
||
implementers, resulting in expensive and slow chips; software implementations
|
||
are not possible; and the key size is fixed and cannot be increased if
|
||
necessary.
|
||
|
||
Silvio Micali has recently proposed an alternative system that also attempts
|
||
to balance the privacy concerns of law-abiding citizens with the investigative
|
||
concerns of law-enforcement agencies. Called fair public-key cryptography, it
|
||
is roughly similar to the Clipper chip proposal but users can choose their own
|
||
keys, which they register with the escrow agencies. Also, the system does not
|
||
require secure hardware, and can be implemented completely in software.
|
||
|
||
- Paul Fahn
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
APPLE SHIPS RSA DIGITAL SIGNATURES IN LONG-AWAITED SYSTEM 7 PRO
|
||
|
||
On October 4th, Apple Computer introduced millions of new users to the RSA
|
||
Digital Signature. The products are called PowerTalk and PowerShare, and they
|
||
are part of System 7 Pro, a revolutionary new version of the Macintosh's
|
||
advanced operating system.
|
||
|
||
Evolving personal communications needs, coupled with organizational trends,
|
||
have fueled demand for a whole new class of applications, which Apple calls
|
||
collaborative applications, which enable individuals to communicate and work
|
||
together with each other more effectively. To establish the foundation for
|
||
such applications, Apple extended its System 7 operating system with a tightly
|
||
integrated set of capabilities called PowerTalk and PowerShare.
|
||
|
||
PowerTalk and PowerShare consist of five components, tightly integrated with
|
||
the operating system itself: Messaging, Electronic Mail, Directories, Privacy
|
||
and Authentication, and Digital Signatures. Every user will have access to RSA
|
||
Digital Signature technology for messaging authentication and RSA's lightning
|
||
fast RC4 symmetric stream cipher for server-to-server link encryption.
|
||
Furthermore, every application developer has access to these services as well,
|
||
and third party Mac products using PowerTalk's RSA capabilities are available
|
||
now from Shana Corporation, and many others are coming soon.
|
||
|
||
PowerTalk is compliant with the Public Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS),
|
||
which Apple helped develop, and users will receive a voucher for a free
|
||
unaffiliated "residential" digital certificate, good for use with any secure
|
||
PKCS or Internet PEM-compliant application (see Certificate Services article,
|
||
next page).
|
||
|
||
For more information on System 7 Pro or PowerTalk and its RSA security
|
||
implementation, contact Pierre LeClercq at Apple Computer at 408/974-3179.
|
||
|
||
- Kurt Stammberger
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
INTERNET PRIVACY ENHANCED MAIL ARRIVES
|
||
|
||
Several commercial and "freeware" versions of Internet Privacy-Enhanced Mail
|
||
are available right now. Here are just a few that you can use to start
|
||
sending encrypted, authenticated mail over the Internet.
|
||
|
||
TechMail
|
||
Written at MIT, TechMail provides an easy-to-use electronic mail reading
|
||
program for Macintosh and (soon) Windows platforms. TechMail includes a full
|
||
implementation of the Internet PEM RFC's, using RSA's TIPEM toolkit as its
|
||
security "engine." TechMail is a client of the Internet "Post Office Protocol"
|
||
(or just POP). With POP, E-mail is not directly delivered to a person's PC or
|
||
Macintosh but instead is delivered to a POP server. This is important when
|
||
people wish to turn off (or take home with them!) their systems at the end of
|
||
the day - their mail will be accepted and held at the "Post Office" until they
|
||
request it. Today, TechMail for the Mac (both SLIP and non-SLIP) is available
|
||
on the Internet via anonymous FTP from net.dist.mit.edu (in pub/TechMail).
|
||
Although only the Macintosh versions of TechMail are available today, work is
|
||
progressing on the Microsoft Windows version which should be available
|
||
shortly.
|
||
|
||
TIS/PEM and T-Mail
|
||
TIS/PEM is a non-commercial freeware implementation of Internet PEM that was
|
||
developed by Trusted Information Systems under contract with ARPA and
|
||
agreement with RSADSI, and is available in source code for academic research
|
||
or exploratory use by corporations and individuals on the Internet. TIS/PEM
|
||
was designed by TIS to be easily integrated into any UNIX-based E-mail message
|
||
handling package. Currently, TIS/PEM operates on a majority of the UNIX
|
||
systems used on the Internet, and has also been integrated with the widely
|
||
used Rand MH Mail User Agent software, which is fully compatible with SMTP-
|
||
based MTA's (such as Sendmail and MMDF). T-Mail, or "Trusted Mail" is TIS's
|
||
commercial, supported version of the TIS/PEM product, and is available on
|
||
multiple platforms. For more information on T-Mail or TIS/PEM, please send
|
||
requests via E-mail to tispem-support@tis.com, or call Frederick Avolio at TIS
|
||
at (301) 854-6889.
|
||
|
||
TIPEM 1.1
|
||
TIPEM version 1.1 is the latest release of RSA's Toolkit for Interoperable
|
||
Privacy-Enhanced Messaging. The upgrade includes several new modules which
|
||
allow developers to create applications that comply to the Internet Privacy-
|
||
Enhanced Mail (PEM) standards, as well as the commercial Public Key
|
||
Cryptography Standards (PKCS) established by vendors including Lotus, Apple,
|
||
Novell and Microsoft. The toolkit, which has been used for major
|
||
communications security development projects such as Apple's PowerTalk, allows
|
||
software developers to easily add RSA public key encryption and authentication
|
||
features to any mail, mail-enabled or messaging-based application. TIPEM is
|
||
available direct from RSA Data Security, Inc.
|
||
|
||
RIPEM
|
||
RIPEM is another "freeware" public key encryption program designed for
|
||
Internet PEM. RIPEM version 1.1 implements a subset of Internet Privacy-
|
||
Enhanced Mail (PEM), as described in Internet RFC's 1421-1424. RIPEM
|
||
implements a number of mechanisms to manage public keys. RIPEM can obtain
|
||
public keys from user-managed files, from Internet key servers, and via the
|
||
Internet "finger" protocol. The Internet host ripem.msu.edu acts as a RIPEM
|
||
key server for users who choose to register their keys. RIPEM is for the
|
||
Macintosh, MS-DOS, Windows NT, OS/2, and all major versions of UNIX. RIPEM is
|
||
available via anonymous FTP to rsa.com, and via non-anonymous FTP to
|
||
ripem.msu.edu.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
RSA CERTIFICATE SERVICES CENTER OPENS FOR BUSINESS
|
||
|
||
Last month, the RSA Certificate Services Center (CSC) officially opened for
|
||
business. Right now, today, you can obtain real certificates with your name,
|
||
public key, and organizational affiliation safely embedded in a
|
||
cryptographically tamper-proof digital document. These RSA digital
|
||
certificates are your "digital I.D.", needed for use with Apple PowerTalk,
|
||
Internet Privacy-Enhanced Mail, or any X.509 certificate-based secured
|
||
application. The Certificate Services Center is designed to provide one-stop
|
||
shopping for everyone's needs, whether you just need one certificate for
|
||
yourself <20> or the ability to issue millions for your employees.
|
||
|
||
Getting a Certificate
|
||
There are two primary types of certificates that are supported by the RSA
|
||
Certificate Services Center: affiliated and unaffiliated. The first type of
|
||
certificate has an organizational affiliation; e.g., "John Doe, Engineering,
|
||
Apple Computer, Inc." The second type of certificate has none: just "John
|
||
Doe". Of course, any given person may have multiple certificates.
|
||
|
||
There are three ways to get a certificate:
|
||
1. You can issue your own affiliated certificates, using RSA's Certificate
|
||
Issuing System (CIS). When you purchase RSA's Certificate Issuing System
|
||
(CIS), you establish your company or organization as a Certification
|
||
Authority. You can issue your own certificates for your employees and
|
||
affiliates in the RSA Commercial Hierarchy.
|
||
|
||
2. The CSC can issue affiliated certificates for you, using a CIS housed at
|
||
the Certificate Services Center ("Co-Issuer Relationship"). Alternately, your
|
||
company or organization can "rent space" on a CIS housed at RSA's Certificate
|
||
Services Center. Your organization's RSA private keys are stored inside the
|
||
CIS and managed by CSC personnel. CSC personnel process requests from your
|
||
organization and issue digital certificates on your behalf.
|
||
|
||
3. You can purchase individual unaffiliated certificates directly from the
|
||
CSC. You can generate a request form for a certificate, known as a
|
||
Certificate-Signing Request using RSA-licensee packages like Apple's PowerTalk
|
||
or RSA's own TIPEM developer's toolkit. Once that form is notarized, you send
|
||
it to the CSC for fulfillment, and the CSC sends back your certificate on
|
||
diskette or via E-mail.
|
||
|
||
Revoking a Certificate
|
||
Just like a credit card, occasionally a certificate needs to be "hot listed"
|
||
or revoked. This situation may arise if the integrity of the certificate is
|
||
jeopardized in any way, for example:
|
||
o the owner's RSA Private Key is stolen or compromised;
|
||
o the certificate owner changes her name (gets married);
|
||
o the owner of an affiliated certificate loses affiliation (i.e. graduates
|
||
from a University or is fired from a job)
|
||
|
||
The CSC manages and disseminates Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) for the
|
||
entire hierarchy, and revokes certificates on the behalf of its Co-issuer and
|
||
Unaffiliated customers.
|
||
|
||
Verifying a Certificate
|
||
There will be occasions when you want an up-to-the-second check on the
|
||
validity status of a certificate. The RSA Certificate Services Center offers
|
||
several different ways to accomplish this:
|
||
|
||
Telephone <20> the CSC maintains an automated voice response unit that gives the
|
||
current status of any certificate in the entire Hierarchy, simply by keying in
|
||
the certificate and issuer serial numbers on your touch-tone phone.
|
||
Internet <20> the CSC maintains an automated certificate status E-mail responder.
|
||
Modem <20> you can dial directly into the CSC host and gain certificate status
|
||
information from the RSA Commercial Hierarchy BBS.
|
||
|
||
For more information contact George Parsons, CSC Manager, at 415/595-8782.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
RSA ENTERS WIRELESS ARENA IN NEW CDPD STANDARDS
|
||
|
||
A group of major cellular carriers recently announced release 1.0 of the
|
||
Cellular Digital Packet Data specification, an open standard designed to
|
||
enable customers to send computer data over existing cellular networks. The
|
||
release of the specification is a milestone for the communications and
|
||
computer industries, enabling the introduction of a variety of new products
|
||
and applications to serve business and consumer users who need access to
|
||
information anytime, anywhere.
|
||
|
||
But what makes the CDPD standards particularly significant is that they are
|
||
the first cellular specifications to include built-in encryption and
|
||
authentication, using two technologies in the BSAFE toolkit from RSA Data
|
||
Security, Inc.: the Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement public key algorithm and the
|
||
RC4 Symmetric Stream Cipher. The specification will aid applications such as
|
||
secure wireless electronic mail messages, database queries or credit card
|
||
authorization.
|
||
|
||
Network manufacturers with CDPD projects under development include AT&T
|
||
Network Systems, Motorola, Hughes Network Systems, Cascade Communications
|
||
Corporation and Steinbrecher, Inc. Software companies such as EDS, Alcatel
|
||
TITN, Retix and Cellular Data, Inc. are already developing platforms that will
|
||
drive the CDPD engine. A number of hardware companies have also announced
|
||
plans to introduce CDPD-based products, including Apple, IBM, Eo and
|
||
Cincinnati Microwave, Inc. Virtually the entire cellular carrier industry is
|
||
behind the CDPD effort, with funding provided by carriers such as McCaw,
|
||
NYNEX, PacTel, Ameritech and many others.
|
||
|
||
The CDPD 1.0 specification provides network and customer equipment
|
||
manufacturers the parameters for building to this nationwide approach that
|
||
sends packets of data in previously "wasted" or unused bandwidths, such as in
|
||
the pauses between words in a cellular telephone conversation. The spec
|
||
includes details of the CDPD architecture, airlink, external network
|
||
interfaces, network support services, network applications services, network
|
||
management, radio resource management, radio media access control and, of
|
||
course, encryption and authentication. Those interested in obtaining a copy of
|
||
the CDPD specification can contact Tom Solazzo, CDPD Project Coordinator at
|
||
714/545-9400 ext. 235.
|
||
|
||
RSA is offering low-cost, standardized BSAFE licensing terms for all CDPD
|
||
implementors. Contact Paul Gordon at RSA at 415/595-8782 for more information.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
ARKHON TECHNOLOGIES BUILDING RSA-EXTENDED KERBEROS NETWORK SECURITY SYSTEM
|
||
|
||
Arkhon Technologies. Inc., located in Cerritos, California, has recently
|
||
joined the RSA family. Arkhon's new enterprise management product requires the
|
||
distribution and maintenance of private keys throughout a large network, which
|
||
is divided into a number of Kerberos V domains, and incorporates multiple
|
||
vendors and protocols. The Arkhon solution to these security requirements,
|
||
which is being built with RSA's TIPEM toolkit, provides secure key management
|
||
for any number of distributed Kerberos V servers supporting both logical and
|
||
physical domains.
|
||
|
||
There are three distinct levels of enterprise management in Arkhon's product:
|
||
|
||
l. the management of the physical network and the distributed
|
||
communications environment itself;
|
||
2. the remote administration and automation of the control functions for
|
||
distributed nodes of the network;
|
||
3. the remote administration and automation of the control functions for
|
||
sub-systems and application software running on the distributed
|
||
platforms.
|
||
|
||
Arkhon has joined together with the pre-eminent system software vendors in the
|
||
industry, including companies such as RSA, Oracle and OCSG. Sometimes called a
|
||
"virtual corporation", such partnerships allow a group of specialized
|
||
companies to combine their expertise synergistically to create products with
|
||
complex functionality in a more timely fashion than traditional software
|
||
producers.
|
||
|
||
Arkhon's architecture allows the modular incorporation of any required system
|
||
or application software, providing to the user a single programming interface
|
||
and a consistent look and feel. Additionally, Arkhon offers consolidated
|
||
support, training, on-line documentation, and tutorial software for its full
|
||
product line. Arkhon and its partners constitute the only virtual corporation
|
||
with complex solutions to the problems of enterprise management. Contact
|
||
Arkhon at 310/809-0760.
|
||
|
||
- Stan Tomsic, Arkhon Technologies
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
RSA LICENSEE UPDATE
|
||
|
||
You can find RSA technology in more products from more vendors than ever
|
||
before! Here is a partial list of products available now or coming soon:
|
||
|
||
Security in the OS
|
||
o Novell NetWare 4.0
|
||
o Apple System 7 Pro PowerTalk (AOCE)
|
||
o Microsoft Windows NT
|
||
|
||
Secure E-mail
|
||
o Enterprise Solutions X.400 Mail
|
||
o Trusted Information Systems T-Mail
|
||
o Datamedia SecurExchange
|
||
|
||
Secure Telephone & Fax
|
||
o Motorola Commercial STU's
|
||
o AT&T 3600, 4100
|
||
o Secure Communications, Inc. (ICTI)
|
||
|
||
Secure Workgroup
|
||
o Lotus Notes
|
||
o Microsoft Windows for Workgroups
|
||
|
||
Secure Electronic Forms
|
||
o WordPerfect InForms
|
||
o Delrina PerForm PRO
|
||
o BLOC F3 Forms Automation
|
||
|
||
Link and Node Encryption
|
||
o Semaphore Communications NEU's
|
||
o Racal Datacom Datacryptors
|
||
o Cylink Link Encryptors
|
||
o Newbridge Networks TAP System
|
||
o IBM 4755 and 4753
|
||
o Northern Telecom X.25 PDSO
|
||
|
||
Secure Remote Access
|
||
o Hilgraeve HyperACCESS/5
|
||
o ANS CO+RE InterLock
|
||
o Hughes NetLock TCP/IP
|
||
o Fischer International RSA/3270
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
HILGRAEVE LICENSES RSA FOR BEST-SELLING ASYNCH PACKAGE
|
||
|
||
Hilgraeve, Inc. is about to release the very first mass-market asynchronous
|
||
communications package with RSA encryption capabilities built right in. And
|
||
the current release of that software, HyperACCESS/5, is already a market
|
||
leader.
|
||
|
||
HyperACCESS/5 is Hilgraeve's top-of-the-line communications software for DOS,
|
||
OS/2 and Windows. It is Hilgraeve's flagship product, providing asynchronous
|
||
communications and remote workstation control via modem, ISDN telephone
|
||
deskset, networked or RS232 connections. HyperACCESS/5 has received PC
|
||
Magazine's Editors' Choice Award three out of the last five years for its
|
||
quality, performance and ease of use.
|
||
|
||
Now, using RSA's BSAFE cryptographer's toolkit, point-to-point encryption will
|
||
be integrated as a standard feature in future versions of the HyperACCESS/5
|
||
product.
|
||
|
||
Founded in 1987, Hilgraeve is a privately-held company, a pioneer developer
|
||
and patent holder in the field of high performance communications software.
|
||
|
||
For more information on HyperACCESS/5, contact Matt Gray at Hilgraeve at
|
||
313/243-0576.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
RSA LICENSEE SPOTLIGHT: DATAMEDIA'S SECUREXCHANGE
|
||
|
||
Datamedia Corporation, based in Nashua, New Hampshire, joined the RSA family
|
||
last May with the goal of creating a piece of software that could be used to
|
||
bring RSA's state-of-the-art security and authentication features to any E-
|
||
mail system. They have since achieved that goal: the product is called
|
||
SECURExchange, and it can be used to secure virtually any existing DOS,
|
||
Windows or Macintosh E-mail system.
|
||
|
||
In analyzing the market potential for this new product, Datamedia realized
|
||
that while electronic mail networks have become critical parts of the
|
||
communication infrastructure in most organizations, most commercial E-mail
|
||
systems have little or no capability to protect sensitive information
|
||
transmitted over networks. And the E-mail packages that do claim "encryption"
|
||
features typically use unproven, cryptographically weak homegrown scrambling
|
||
schemes.
|
||
|
||
In its market survey, Datamedia discovered that many organizations that were
|
||
aware of the risks inherent in unsecured E-mail transmission of sensitive
|
||
documents placed tight restrictions on what could and could not be sent via E-
|
||
mail, thereby devaluing the company's substantial investment in the
|
||
technology, and forcing the organization back to expensive, inefficient
|
||
transport mechanisms, such as next day air or sealed interoffice mail for
|
||
sensitive documents.
|
||
|
||
Datamedia is helping companies gain back the E-mail advantages of speed,
|
||
convenience and cost savings for any document. Datamedia's product is designed
|
||
to help organizations realize the full potential of their E-mail investment,
|
||
by allowing transmission of even the most confidential or tamper-sensitive
|
||
information over existing unsecured E-mail systems.
|
||
|
||
SECURExhange is an add-in software application that upgrades your existing E-
|
||
mail infrastructure with privacy, authentication and positive identification
|
||
features. To accomplish this, SECURExchange uses:
|
||
|
||
RSA Digital Envelopes
|
||
Files transmitted using SECURExchange can be placed in a secured electronic
|
||
"envelope" that can only be opened by the addressee. The envelope consists of
|
||
one or more files which are encrypted using the RSA Public Key Cryptosystem
|
||
and DES.
|
||
|
||
RSA Digital Signatures
|
||
Files digitally signed by SECURExchange cannot be tampered with without the
|
||
recipient's knowledge, and the recipient can furthermore be absolutely assured
|
||
of the identity of the signer in any given message.
|
||
|
||
RSA Digital Certificates
|
||
SECURExchange uses industry standard X.509/PKCS Digital Certificates to prove
|
||
identity and RSA Public Key ownership over a network. Certificates, combined
|
||
with SECURExchange's compliance to the Public Key Cryptography Standards
|
||
(PKCS) mean that users can securely communicate worldwide with users of a
|
||
growing family of secured applications, including Internet Privacy-Enhanced
|
||
Mail, Apple PowerTalk and BLOC F3 Forms Automation.
|
||
|
||
SECURExchange has been fully tested with many existing electronic mail
|
||
systems, including cc:Mail, Microsoft Mail, DaVinci Mail, Beyond Mail,
|
||
Internet, Compuserve, MCI Mail, AT&T EasyLink and many, many more. For more
|
||
information on SECURExchange, call Datamedia at 603/886-1570.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
DR. RON RIVEST ON THE DIFFICULTY OF FACTORING
|
||
|
||
(Since the difficulty of "cracking" the RSA algorithm has long been believed
|
||
to be roughly equivalent to the difficulty of factoring a given RSA modulus,
|
||
we have decided to reprint one of Ron Rivest's classic papers on the
|
||
difficulty of the factoring problem. -Ed.)
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
Here are the results of some simple estimations I have done on the projected
|
||
difficulty of factoring various sizes of numbers for the next 25 years.
|
||
|
||
The basic question is:
|
||
|
||
"In the year YYYY, what size number will I be able to factor for an investment
|
||
of $DDDD?"
|
||
|
||
To be specific, I've looked at
|
||
|
||
YYYY= 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015
|
||
and
|
||
$DDDD = $25K, $25M, and $25G
|
||
|
||
(that is, $25,000, $25,000,000, and $25,000,000,000). The three levels might
|
||
correspond to "individual", "corporate", and "national" levels of attack. All
|
||
calculations are done in 1990 dollars.
|
||
|
||
Each of these estimates is also done in an "high," "average," and "low" point
|
||
of view. (That is, the high estimates are for the greatest number of digits
|
||
possible, while the low estimates are for the least number possible.)
|
||
|
||
The estimates are done in terms of MIP-years, a computational unit of power
|
||
analogous to a "kilowatt-hour" of electricity. Specifically, a MIP-year is the
|
||
computational power of a one-MIP machine running for one year. A MIP (more
|
||
correctly, a MIPS) is a "million-instruction per second" machine. Today's
|
||
workstations run in the 1 to 10 MIPS range, and 100 MIPS machines are under
|
||
development. One MIP-year corresponds to 3.15x1013 operations.
|
||
|
||
Factoring algorithms
|
||
To factor a number n with current technology using the best known algorithms,
|
||
we need a number of operations roughly equal to
|
||
|
||
L(n) = exp (_ ln n ln ln n) (1)
|
||
|
||
(Using, say, the quadratic sieve algorithm.) We use this formula for our "low"
|
||
estimates, since this is currently achievable. For our "average" estimate, we
|
||
use the formula
|
||
|
||
A(n) = min (L(n), exp (2.08 (ln n)l/3 (ln ln n)2/3)) (2)
|
||
|
||
This presupposes that the number field sieve (NFS) can be generalized to
|
||
handle ordinary (cryptographic) numbers, as conjectured in the 1990 ACM STOC
|
||
article. Finally, for the high estimates, we use the formula
|
||
|
||
H(n) = exp (1.526 (ln n)l/3 (ln ln n)2/3) (3)
|
||
|
||
which is the number of operations that NFS now uses for rarefied numbers.
|
||
(Achieving this formula would be quite a breakthrough.)
|
||
|
||
Costs of computation
|
||
I estimate that today a MIP-year costs about $10, as follows. You can buy
|
||
(parts for) a 10-MIP machine for about $500. With a lifetime of five years,
|
||
you get 50 MIP-years out of the machine.
|
||
|
||
As for rates of technological progress, for the "low" estimate I assume that
|
||
technology only advances at 20%/year. For the "average" estimate I assume that
|
||
technology advances at 33%/year, and for the "high" estimate I assume
|
||
45%/year. These are measured in terms of the drop in the cost of a MIP-year in
|
||
constant 1990 dollars. Thus, under the high estimate, $10 will buy 1.45 MIP-
|
||
years in 1991 and 2.10 MIP-years in 1992, etc.
|
||
|
||
At this rate, we can estimate the number of MIP-years that can be bought for
|
||
$1 as follows:
|
||
|
||
Year Low Average High
|
||
1990 0.100 0.100 0.100
|
||
1995 0.249 0.416 0.641
|
||
2000 0.619 1.732 4.109
|
||
2005 1.540 7.207 26.340
|
||
2010 3.833 30.000 168.800
|
||
2015 9,540 124.800 1082.000
|
||
2020 23.74 519.500 6935.000
|
||
|
||
Combining this with our "low" ($25K), "average" ($25M), and "high" ($25G)
|
||
estimates for dollars available, we arrive at the following chart for the
|
||
number of MIP-years affordable. (Here T is the abbreviation for "tera," i.e.
|
||
1012.)
|
||
|
||
Year Low Average High
|
||
1990 2.5K 2.5M 2.5G
|
||
1995 6K 10M 16G
|
||
2000 15K 43M 103G
|
||
2005 38K 180M 658G
|
||
2010 96K 750M 4.2T
|
||
2015 239K 3.1G 27T
|
||
2020 549K 13G 173T
|
||
|
||
That is, in the year 2020, a determined opponent with $25G might be able to
|
||
afford 173 tera MIP-years to attack a number.
|
||
|
||
Results
|
||
We now give the number of operations required to factor numbers of various
|
||
sizes under our low, average, and high estimates (formulas (1), (2), and (3)).
|
||
These are given in MIP-years.
|
||
|
||
Digits Low Average High
|
||
100 74 74 0.1
|
||
150 1M 1M 38
|
||
200 4G 4G 4K
|
||
250 6T 2T 261K
|
||
300 5 x 1015 3 x 1014 10M
|
||
350 2 x 1018 2 x 1016 252M
|
||
400 9 x 1020 1018 5G
|
||
450 2 x 1023 6 x 1019 81G
|
||
500 4 x 1025 2 x 1021 1T
|
||
|
||
Combining the above charts with some additional calculation, we end up with
|
||
our low, average, and high estimates for the size of a number (in digits) that
|
||
an attacker would be able to factor at various points in time.
|
||
|
||
Year Low Average High
|
||
1990 117 155 388
|
||
1995 122 163 421
|
||
2000 127 172 455
|
||
2005 132 181 490
|
||
2010 137 190 528
|
||
2015 142 199 567
|
||
2020 147 204 607
|
||
|
||
Conclusions
|
||
If one wishes to devise a "standard" based on a 25-year lifetime for an
|
||
average attack, then a recommendation of 200 decimal digits (665 bits) seems
|
||
justified. A "super-master" key over the same lifetime might well be chosen to
|
||
be three times that length (600 decimal digits, or 1994 bits).
|
||
|
||
- Dr. Ron Rivest
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
RSA FACTORING CHALLENGE UPDATE
|
||
|
||
The RSA Factoring Challenge, sponsored by RSA, is essentially a list of very
|
||
long numbers posted on the RSA host on the Internet (rsa.com). The Challenge
|
||
serves two purposes: it provides a testing platform for new factoring
|
||
algorithms, and it also provides data which RSA (and others) use to measure
|
||
the advance of factoring technology. RSA then turns around and uses these data
|
||
to recommend key sizes for various customer projects, based on the customer's
|
||
security needs.
|
||
|
||
The numbers in the factoring challenge are of two types; so-called partition
|
||
numbers, which can act as a good general assessment of factoring algorithms,
|
||
and RSA challenge numbers which are numbers of the type that would typically
|
||
be used as RSA moduli, because they are assumed to be particularly difficult
|
||
to factor.
|
||
|
||
There are cash prizes for the most successful factorers, although the rules by
|
||
which the money is distributed ensure that factoring a smaller partition
|
||
number that has remained unfactored for a relatively long time is rewarded
|
||
more than the factoring of a larger partition number. Factoring any RSA
|
||
challenge number is a considerable achievement in itself, and is rewarded
|
||
accordingly. Prizes vary anywhere from the tens to the thousands of dollars,
|
||
and unrewarded prize money rolls over in a "kitty" from month to month, much
|
||
like a State Lottery.
|
||
|
||
Since its inception in March 1991, over a thousand partition numbers have been
|
||
factored, providing a complex picture of the success of different algorithms
|
||
for numbers of varying sizes. By contrast, only three RSA challenge numbers,
|
||
of lengths 100, 110 and 120 decimal digits have been factored. "RSA-110,"
|
||
consisting of 110 decimal digits, required an estimated 75 mips-years of
|
||
computer time, while "RSA-120," which was successfully factored only last
|
||
June, consumed over 800 mips-years of computation.
|
||
|
||
From these data it is clear that even a small increase in the length of
|
||
typical RSA moduli requires the use of considerable additional computing
|
||
effort. A typical RSA modulus (some 512 bits long, consisting of 155 decimal
|
||
digits) can be expected to lie well out of reach of current techniques for the
|
||
foreseeable future.
|
||
|
||
Information and rules for the factoring challenge can be obtained by E-mail
|
||
from challenge@rsa.com. A thorough review of the data accumulated over the
|
||
past two years has recently been completed, and will soon be available as an
|
||
RSA Laboratories technical report.
|
||
|
||
- Dr. Matthew Robshaw
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
RSA LABORATORIES REPORT
|
||
|
||
Over recent months, RSA Laboratories has become increasingly busy. As well as
|
||
the customary work of technical support and independent consulting, we
|
||
continue to maintain our close awareness of recent work in the cryptographic
|
||
community, particularly new results from recent IACR meetings such as
|
||
Eurocrypt '93. We are releasing an increasing number of RSA Laboratories
|
||
technical reports and we anticipate the imminent publication of the newly
|
||
updated version of "Frequently Asked Questions".
|
||
|
||
New projects have included an analysis of the vast quantity of data received
|
||
as a result of the RSA Factoring Challenge. The challenge was established over
|
||
two years ago with the aim of assessing the limits in factoring ability. A
|
||
full analysis of this data is now being concluded and the full report will be
|
||
available soon.
|
||
|
||
A particularly exciting development has recently become a major research
|
||
priority at the Labs. Research at RSA Laboratories has revealed a
|
||
cryptographic technology that could provide a solution to some of the more
|
||
pressing problems associated with the distribution of data by CD-ROM. Patent
|
||
applications have been filed, and the project code-named "Arcade".
|
||
|
||
Recently we were pleased to host our first annual RSA Laboratories Seminar
|
||
Series. Diverse sessions provided not only a full review of many of today's
|
||
issues, but also news and assessment of the very latest advances within the
|
||
cryptographic community. We are pleased to report that there was considerable
|
||
interest in this new venture, with scientists and developers from many of our
|
||
major licensees attending. Currently, of course, we are quite busy planning
|
||
technical sessions for January's upcoming 1994 RSA Data Security Conference <20>
|
||
we hope to see you there!
|
||
|
||
- Dr. Matthew Robshaw
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
PUBLIC KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY STANDARDS UPDATE
|
||
|
||
RSA Laboratories just sent out for comments the first set of revisions to the
|
||
Public-Key Cryptography Standards. Major improvements include the following:
|
||
|
||
o PKCS #7, the cryptographic message standard, now supports certificate-
|
||
revocation lists (CRLs), "certificates-only" messages, and messages
|
||
encrypted with only secret-key algorithms
|
||
|
||
o PKCS #10, a new standard for certification requests, is added. The
|
||
standard gives compact formats for requesting key certification services
|
||
such as those offered by RSA Data Security and other certification
|
||
authorities.
|
||
|
||
Editorial improvements include updates to the references and the addition of a
|
||
revision history. PKCS #1 now gives a comparison of MD2, MD4, MD5; the
|
||
overview addresses compatibility between PKCS and new work, including NIST's
|
||
proposed Digital Signature Standard, ISO/IEC 9796, and ANSI X9.30 and .31; and
|
||
the examples reflect new naming conventions.
|
||
|
||
The proposed revisions, pending approval by the PKCS participants, should be
|
||
released in September. Suggestions for further improvements are welcome.
|
||
|
||
Since its publication in June 1991, PKCS has become a part of several
|
||
standards and products, including Privacy-Enhanced Mail, the NIST/OSI
|
||
Implementors' Workshop, BLOC F3 Forms Automation, Apple's PowerTalk, Shana
|
||
Informed, Fischer International's Workflow 2000, and RSA's TIPEM and BSAFE.
|
||
More is just around the corner.
|
||
|
||
- Dr. Burton S. Kaliski
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
THE CLIPPER CHIP: ONE SCIENTIST'S PERSPECTIVE
|
||
|
||
Dr. Martin Hellman is one of the co-inventors of Public Key technology, a
|
||
Distinguished Associate of RSA Laboratories, and is currently a professor of
|
||
Electrical Engineering at Stanford University. -Ed.
|
||
|
||
The CLIPPER and CAPSTONE initiatives have hit the crypto community like an
|
||
asteroid impacting Earth. Some dinosaurs are likely to become extinct (DES and
|
||
the lack of a public key standard). But the impact is so great that
|
||
cryptographic evolution itself might seem threatened: What good is
|
||
cryptography if someone else can access your key without your knowledge or
|
||
permission? Here I offer some thoughts on how to maximize the probability of
|
||
evolution continuing, and perhaps even benefiting from this unexpected impact.
|
||
(The first I heard of it was in the New York Times!)
|
||
|
||
Looking back to my fight with NIST and NSA over DES in the 1975-80 time frame,
|
||
I see that fighting them did not work very well. I got a lot of good press,
|
||
but not one additional bit of key size (my main goal). NSA has immense power
|
||
to determine what gets manufactured and what does not. As evidence that DES
|
||
was not an anomaly, AT&T has already decided to shift its 3600 encrypted
|
||
telephone from DES to CLIPPER. This time, I would like to get more of what I
|
||
want on the technical side, even though compromise does not make as many
|
||
headlines.
|
||
|
||
Based on my experience with DES, the algorithm and key size are probably
|
||
frozen in concrete, but the administrative procedures governing key escrow,
|
||
and possibly even the secrecy of the SKIPJACK encryption algorithm used by
|
||
both CLIPPER and CAPSTONE, might still be influenced. Thus, while I would like
|
||
to see the key size increased from 80 bits (why limit it if keys are
|
||
escrowed?), and I would prefer triply-encrypted DES to SKIPJACK, that is not
|
||
where I am putting my main effort. Rather, my main hope is on the following
|
||
three administrative changes.
|
||
|
||
1. More than one court order should be required for a key to be divulged.
|
||
While most judges will not succumb to governmental hysteria over
|
||
"communist threats" or whatever replaces them, some will think like
|
||
Richard Nixon, John Mitchell, or J. Edgar Hoover. If multiple court
|
||
orders would slow the process down too much, an after-the-fact GAO-type
|
||
audit might suffice, with overly zealous judges removed from future
|
||
decisions.
|
||
|
||
2. If even one of the judges involved in the process believes that the
|
||
wiretap request is an illegal abuse of power, as in Watergate or J.
|
||
Edgar Hoover' s excesses, penalties should be levied on the requesting
|
||
of official. At a minimum, the intended target of the wiretap should be
|
||
officially notified, and I would prefer the official be barred from
|
||
making any future requests.
|
||
|
||
3. I would like government officials, from the President on down, to be
|
||
subject to the same key escrow requirements as the rest of us. This
|
||
would help insure the safety of the escrow system (they would have a
|
||
major incentive to make sure it was working!), and would help prevent
|
||
illegal activities on the part of the government- everything from Iran-
|
||
Contra-type abuses through illegal wiretapping.
|
||
|
||
Interested readers can obtain the full text of my comments to NIST, on which
|
||
this article is based, by anonymous ftp over Internet on isl.stanford.edu in
|
||
the file /pubs/hellman/nist clipper.txt.
|
||
|
||
- Dr. Martin Hellman
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
SMARTDISK - THE SMARTCARD THAT NEEDS NO READER
|
||
|
||
How would you like to get your hands on a single pocket-sized device that
|
||
could: identify users to the system, store their passwords and crypto-keys and
|
||
protect access to PCs and data? What if that device plugged straight into the
|
||
front of most computers without the need for any additional hardware
|
||
connector, cables or readers? And suppose that it could also provide a trusted
|
||
time source and generate random numbers <20> would you want one? Well, now you
|
||
can.
|
||
|
||
It is a SmartDisk; it is shaped like a regular 3.5" floppy and fits into a
|
||
standard disk-drive but it contains no magnetic media. The SmartDisk is a
|
||
solid state electronic device containing a microprocessor, memory, real-time
|
||
clock and special magnetic interface circuitry that allows it to interface
|
||
directly with floppy disk-drive heads. It has its own embedded operating
|
||
system firmware <20> SDOS <20> which provides all the functions necessary to support
|
||
a wide range of computer and data security applications.
|
||
|
||
The SmartDisk is effectively a high performance smartcard which doesn't need a
|
||
reader. However, in addition to the normal smartcard functions such as
|
||
password verification and secure data storage, the SmartDisk can also provide
|
||
hardware "boot protection" for PC access control applications. This is
|
||
achieved by a unique function within SDOS which, on insertion of the SmartDisk
|
||
into a disk drive, will output special bootstrap software for direct execution
|
||
in the PC at power-up (or re-boot) before the PC disk operating system (DOS)
|
||
is loaded. This special bootstrap is fully programmable by the SmartDisk
|
||
systems integrator and can be used to gain complete control over the PC
|
||
environment without the need to install special hardware on the PC's internal
|
||
bus.
|
||
|
||
The first application available for the SmartDisk is SafeBoot, a complete PC
|
||
access control package which is virtually unhackable. Unlike most software-
|
||
only security systems, SafeBoot stores its encryption algorithm and key on the
|
||
SmartDisk rather than on the PC's hard disk, where they can be relatively
|
||
easily found using low level software tools such as Norton Utilities.
|
||
|
||
Various other applications are currently under construction by SmartDiskette
|
||
Security Corporation (supplier of the SmartDisk) and third party vendors. A
|
||
full range of "SmartDisk Application Integration Tools" is also available
|
||
including a 'C' language dynamic linkable library (DLL) for Windows
|
||
applications. For further information contact Gene Wagner or Jon Kaplan at
|
||
Fischer International at 813/643-1500.
|
||
|
||
- Paul Barrett, SmartDiskette
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
UPCOMING RSA TRADESHOW APPEARANCES
|
||
|
||
National Computer Security Expo
|
||
Anaheim Hilton & Towers
|
||
November 8 <20> 9, 1993
|
||
|
||
1994 RSA Data Security Conference
|
||
Hotel Sofitel, Redwood Shores, CA
|
||
January 12 <20> 14, 1994
|
||
|
||
Networks Expo
|
||
John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center, Boston
|
||
February 15 <20> 17, 1994
|
||
|
||
Electronic Mail Association
|
||
Anaheim Hilton & Towers
|
||
April 18 <20> 21, 1994
|
||
|
||
Networld/Interop Spring
|
||
Las Vegas Convention Center
|
||
May 4 <20> 6, 1994
|
||
|
||
Networld/Interop Fall
|
||
Atlanta, Georgia World Congress Center
|
||
September 12 <20> 14, 1994
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
REGISTER NOW FOR THIRD ANNUAL RSA DATA SECURITY CONFERENCE
|
||
|
||
What's happening?
|
||
RSA Data Security is pleased to announce our third annual Data Security
|
||
Conference, to be held at the Hotel Sofitel in Redwood Shores, California. The
|
||
conference is set for Wednesday through Friday, January 12-14 1994.
|
||
|
||
Who should attend?
|
||
Cryptographers, software developers, product line managers, security analysts,
|
||
product marketing professionals, mathematicians, secure product buyers,
|
||
consultants... anyone that has an interest in cryptography and the products
|
||
that use it.
|
||
|
||
What will be covered?
|
||
You'll see presentations and products from RSA's major licensees, including
|
||
Apple, Microsoft, Novell, Lotus and many others... Panel discussions from
|
||
experts from government and industry... Tutorials going all the way from the
|
||
basics to the cutting edge of crypto theory and application. A detailed
|
||
conference & tutorial schedule will be available November 1st.
|
||
|
||
How do I register?
|
||
Fill out the registration form and fax it back to RSA. Space is extremely
|
||
limited: we can only admit the first 400 people that register, so sign up now!
|
||
There will be no registration at the door. $245 admits you to the conference
|
||
and all tutorials and includes the full hardcopy conference proceedings, a
|
||
cocktail reception, and breakfast and lunch all three days.
|
||
|
||
Conference Dates:
|
||
January 12-14, 1994.
|
||
|
||
Registration Deadline:
|
||
Friday, December 17, 1993.
|
||
No onsite registration.
|
||
|
||
Tutorial Selection Deadline:
|
||
Friday, December 17, 1993.
|
||
|
||
Registration Fee: $245 per person
|
||
(CA residents add applicable sales tax)
|
||
|
||
Registration fee includes breakfast and lunch all three days, admission to the
|
||
conference and all tutorials, a hardcopy of the full conference proceedings,
|
||
cocktail reception, and conference souvenir. Tutorial selection forms will be
|
||
sent to conference registrees starting November 1st. Cancellations are subject
|
||
to a $50 administrative fee.
|
||
|
||
Travel Information
|
||
Hotel Sofitel
|
||
Guaranteed rate $103 per night
|
||
(415) 598-9000
|
||
The Hotel Sofitel offers a complimentary airport shuttle.
|
||
|
||
|