hckrnws

I agree with the article, but I think it could go farther. Instead of having primitives for every 32/48/64/122 bit block, we need good format-preserving encryption. Then all of this advice boils down to "use as many bits as you need" and we can keep using the standard primitives with hardware support. If you need more security in the future, you only need to decrypt and reencrypt with the new size.

Small sizes have to be used with extra care, so I wouldn't want to make a generic function for all sizes. For bigger sizes we already have nice functions that take care of everything.

Are you suggesting a very large custom blocksize? I don't think this would be feasible beyond a few megabytes.

Nowadays even many small microcontrollers get AES acceleration so I don't see much reason

Basically all of the use cases in the article don't make sense with AES. That's not because it's AES. That's because its blocks are significantly larger than the data you want to protect. That's the point the article was making: in very specific circumstances, there is practical value in having the cipher output be small.

The block size of a block cipher function like AES is important for its security level, but it is completely independent of the size of the data that you may want to encrypt.

Moreover, cryptography has many applications, but the most important 3 of them are data encryption, data integrity verification and random number generation.

The optimal use of a cryptographic component, like a block cipher, depends on the intended application.

If you want e.g. 32-bit random numbers, the fastest method on either Intel/AMD x84-64 CPUs or Arm Aarch64 CPUs is to used the 128-bit AES to encrypt a counter value and then truncate its output to 32 bits. The counter that is the input to AES may be initialized with an arbitrary value, e.g. 0 or the current time, and then you may increment only a 32-bit part of it, if you desire so. Similarly for other sizes of random numbers that are less than 128 bit, you just truncate the output to the desired size. You can also produce random numbers that need to have 1 of a certain number of values that is different from a power of two, by combining either multiplication or division of the output value with rejection done either before or after the operation (for removing the bias).

Similarly, for message authentication, if you have some method that produces an 128-bit MAC, it can be truncated to whatever value you believe to be a good compromise between forgery resistance and message length.

For encryption, short data must be encrypted using either the CTR mode of operation or the OCB mode of operation (where only the last incomplete data block is encrypted using the CTR mode). With these modes of operation, the encrypted data can have any length, even a length that is not an integer number of bytes, without any length expansion of the encrypted message.

The advice given in the parent article is not bad, but it makes sense only in 32-bit microcontrollers, because since 2010 for x86-64 and since 2012 for Aarch64 any decent CPU has AES instructions that are much faster than the implementation in software of any other kind of block cipher.

Moreover, for random number generation or for data integrity verification or for authentication, there are alternative methods that do not use a block cipher but they use a wider invertible function, and which may be more efficient, especially in microcontrollers. For instance, for generating 128-bit unpredictable random numbers, you can use a counter with either an 128-bit block cipher function together with a secret key, or with a 256-bit invertible mixing function, where its 128-bit output value is obtained either by truncation or by summing the 2 halves. In the first case the unpredictability is caused by the secret key, while in the second case the unpredictability is caused by the secret state of the counter, which cannot be recovered by observing the reduced-size output.

In that case just use CTR mode, no?

Some people just itch to use something custom and then to have to think about it. Which can bring amazing results, sure, but it can also bring spectacular disasters as well, especially when we're talking about crypto.

The article is less about crypto and more about improving UUID (and IDs in general) with small block ciphers. It's a low impact mechanism to avoid leaking data that UUID by design does leak. It also doesn't require a good source of entropy.

If you want to encrypt a serial number, you don't want the output to be 256 bits.

>Small block ciphers are thus generally a bad idea against active adversaries.

>However, they can be very useful against passive adversaries whose capability is limited to observing identifiers, who are then unable to map them to the original value.

Really? Isn’t the Sweet32[0] attack mostly passive? “We show that a network attacker who can monitor a long-lived Triple-DES HTTPS connection between a web browser and a website can recover secure HTTP cookies by capturing around 785 GB of traffic.”

[0] https://sweet32.info/

...a long-lived HTTPS connection that manages to transfer >700 GiB of traffic, with no disconnects, and presumably has re-keying disabled? An interesting theoretical setup, I guess.

Small block ciphers are great for some use-cases!

32-bit block ciphers are a good way to create short opaque IDs because they provide a bijection between two sets of integers. And even if your ID is slightly shorter than 32-bit you can easily shave off a few bits with cycle walking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format-preserving_encryption#F... E.g. if you want to make sure your IDs can be mapped into 31/63 bits.

I especially like the RC-5 cipher for these kinds of uses. It can be implemented in just a few lines of code and there are standard test vectors for it.

Slightly unrelated, but aren't these AES-specific custom CPU instructions just a way to easily collect the encryption keys? There is a speedup but is it worth the risks?

If I were a nation state actor, I'd just store the encryption keys supplied to the AES CPU instruction somewhere and in case the data needs to be accessed you just read the stored keys.

No need to waste time deploying a backdoored CPU firmware and wait for days or weeks, and then touch the hardware a second time to extract the information.

When all AES encryption keys are already stored somewhere on the CPU, you can easily do a drive-by readout at any point in time.

Linux kernel has a compile time flag to disable use of custom CPU instructions for encryption, but it can't be disabled at runtime. If "software encryption" is used, the nation state actor needs to physically access the device at least two times or use a network-based exploit which could be logged.

I am not a chip designer but from my limited understanding, this "somewhere" is the problem. You can have secret memory somewhere that isn't noticed by analysts, but can it remain secret if it is as big as half the cpu? A quarter? How much storage can you fit in that die space? How many AES keys do you handle per day? Per hour of browsing HN with AES TLS ciphers? (Literally all supported ciphers by HN involve AES)

We use memory-hard algorithms for password storage because memory is more expensive than compute. More specifically, it's die area that is costly, but at least the authors of Argon2 seem to equate the two. (If that's not correct, I based a stackoverflow post or two on that paper so please let me know.) It sounds to me like it's easily visible to a microscope when there's another storage area as large as the L1 cache (which can hold a few thousand keys at most... how to decide which ones to keep)

Of course, the cpu is theoretically omnipotent within your hardware. It can read the RAM and see "ah, you're running pgp.exe, let me store this key", but then you could say the same for any key that your cpu handles (also rsa or anything not using special cpu instructions)

I don't imagine it would be too difficult to snoop the instruction stream to identify a software implementation of AES and yoink the keys from it, at least if the implementation isn't obfuscated. If your threat model includes an adversarial CPU then you probably need to at least obfuscate your implementation, if not entirely offload the crypto to somewhere you trust.