Hubbry Logo
Stream cipher attacksStream cipher attacksMain
Open search
Stream cipher attacks
Community hub
Stream cipher attacks
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Stream cipher attacks
Stream cipher attacks
Stream cipher attacks
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Stream ciphers, where plaintext bits are combined with a cipher bit stream by an exclusive-or operation (xor), can be secure if used properly.[citation needed] However, they are vulnerable to attacks if certain precautions are not followed:

  • Keys must never be reused.
  • Valid decryption should never be relied on to indicate authenticity.

Reused key attack

[edit]

Stream ciphers are vulnerable to attack if the same key is used more than once (a depth of two or greater).

Suppose messages A and B of the same length are both encrypted using the same key, K. The stream cipher produces a string of bits C(K) of the same length as the messages. The encrypted versions of the messages are:

E(A) = A xor C
E(B) = B xor C

where xor is performed bit by bit.

If an adversary intercepts E(A) and E(B), they can compute:

E(A) xor E(B)

Because xor is commutative and has the property that X xor X = 0 (self-inverse):

E(A) xor E(B) = (A xor C) xor (B xor C) = A xor B xor C xor C = A xor B

If one message is longer than the other, the adversary can truncate the longer message to the size of the shorter one, revealing only that portion. In other words, if two messages are encrypted with the same key, an attacker can recover A xor B, which is a form of running key cipher. Even if neither message is known, as long as both are in a natural language, such a cipher can often be broken by hand methods. During World War II, British cryptanalyst John Tiltman accomplished this with the Lorenz cipher (dubbed "Tunny"). With an average personal computer, such ciphers can usually be broken in minutes. If one message is known, the solution is trivial.

Another situation where recovery is trivial is when traffic-flow security measures require each station to send a continuous stream of cipher bits, with null characters (e.g. LTRS in Baudot) transmitted when there is no real traffic. This is common in military communications. In that case, if the transmission channel is not fully loaded, there is a high likelihood that one of the ciphertext streams will consist only of nulls. The NSA has taken extensive measures to prevent keys from being reused. In the 1960s, encryption systems often included a punched card reader for loading keys. The mechanism would automatically cut the card in half when it was removed, preventing reuse.[1]: p. 6 

One way to avoid this problem is to use an initialization vector (IV), sent in the clear, that is combined with a secret master key to create a one-time key for the stream cipher. This is done in several systems that use the popular stream cipher RC4, including Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP), Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA), and Ciphersaber. One of the problems with WEP was that its IV was too short (24 bits). This meant there was a high likelihood that the same IV would be reused if more than a few thousand packets were sent with the same master key (see birthday attack), subjecting those packets to the key reuse attack. This problem was addressed in WPA by changing the "master" key frequently.

Bit-flipping attack

[edit]
Main article: Bit-flipping attack
See also: Malleability (cryptography)

Suppose an adversary knows the exact content of all or part of a message. As part of a man in the middle attack or replay attack, they can alter the content without knowing the key, K. For example, if they know a portion of the message contains the ASCII string "$1000.00", they can change it to "$9500.00" by XORing that portion of the ciphertext with the string: "$1000.00" xor "$9500.00".

The ciphertext being sent is C(K) xor "$1000.00". The adversary creates a new message:

(C(K) xor "$1000.00") xor ("$1000.00" xor "$9500.00") = C(K) xor "$1000.00" xor "$1000.00" xor "$9500.00" = C(K) xor "$9500.00"

Since a string XORed with itself produces all zeros, and a string of zeros XORed with another string leaves that string unchanged, the result C(K) xor "$9500.00" is what the ciphertext would have been if $9500 were the original amount.

Bit-flipping attacks can be prevented by including a message authentication code, which increases the likelihood that tampering will be detected.

Chosen-IV attack

[edit]

Stream ciphers combine a secret key with an agreed initialization vector (IV) to produce a pseudo-random sequence that is periodically re-synchronized.[2]

A "chosen IV" attack relies on finding particular IVs which, taken together, may reveal information about the secret key. Typically, multiple pairs of IVs are chosen and differences in the generated key streams are then analyzed statistically for a linear correlation and/or an algebraic Boolean relation (see also Differential cryptanalysis). If choosing particular values of the initialization vector exposes a non-random pattern in the generated sequence, the attack can recover some bits and shorten the effective key length. A symptom of such an attack would be frequent re-synchronization. Modern stream ciphers include steps to adequately mix the secret key with the initialization vector, usually by performing many initial rounds.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Stream cipher attacks

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Stream cipher attacks encompass a range of cryptanalytic techniques designed to compromise the security of stream ciphers, which are symmetric-key algorithms that generate a pseudorandom keystream to encrypt by bitwise XOR operation, producing that can be decrypted by the same process using the shared key. These attacks exploit weaknesses in the keystream generation process, such as statistical biases, linear approximations, or structural flaws in the underlying components like linear feedback shift registers (LFSRs), to recover keys, distinguish from random , or forge messages. Unlike block ciphers, stream ciphers process sequentially and continuously, making them suitable for real-time applications but vulnerable to specific threats if the keystream repeats or correlates with . Stream ciphers are broadly classified into synchronous types, where the keystream is generated independently of the and , and self-synchronizing or asynchronous types, where the keystream incorporates feedback from previous blocks to aid recovery from transmission errors. Common attack categories include correlation attacks, which detect linear relationships between the keystream and known to reduce key search ; algebraic attacks, which model the as a of nonlinear equations over finite fields to solve for the internal state; and distinguishing attacks, which identify non-random properties in the output to confirm the 's use. Other notable types encompass chosen-IV attacks, exploiting predictable initialization vectors; time-memory trade-off attacks, balancing precomputation storage against online computation for key recovery; and fault injection attacks, inducing errors to reveal sensitive information. These methods are evaluated by their , often measured against brute-force searches of 21282^{128} operations for 128-bit security. Prominent examples illustrate the practical impact of these attacks. The stream cipher, widely used in protocols like WEP and early TLS, succumbed to bias attacks, enabling key recovery from a relatively small number of captured packets (e.g., around 40,000 for WEP) due to initial byte biases and forbidden state transitions. Similarly, the cipher in networks was broken via correlation attacks and time-memory trade-offs, allowing real-time decryption with precomputed tables covering the 64-bit key space. Modern lightweight ciphers like and , designed for constrained devices, have faced cube attacks and chosen-IV exploits, though their nonlinear structures provide resistance up to 2802^{80} complexity in many cases. Ongoing research emphasizes hybrid designs and larger keys to counter evolving threats, underscoring the need for rigorous analysis before deployment.

Fundamentals of Stream Ciphers

Core Principles

Stream ciphers are symmetric-key cryptographic algorithms designed to encrypt data as a continuous , processing one bit or one byte at a time to produce . This approach contrasts with block ciphers, which handle fixed-size blocks of data, allowing stream ciphers to be particularly efficient for real-time applications such as secure communications over networks. The core encryption mechanism in a stream cipher involves generating a pseudorandom keystream from a secret key, often combined with an initialization vector (IV) or nonce to ensure uniqueness, and then combining this keystream with the plaintext using the bitwise exclusive OR (XOR) operation. This process can be expressed mathematically as follows, where each bit of the ciphertext CiC_i is derived from the corresponding plaintext bit PiP_i and keystream bit KiK_i: Ci=Pi⊕KiC_i = P_i \oplus K_i Decryption reverses this by XORing the ciphertext with the same keystream, yielding Pi=Ci⊕KiP_i = C_i \oplus K_i, assuming the keystream is generated identically on both ends. The keystream must appear indistinguishable from true to maintain , though practical implementations rely on pseudorandom generators rather than truly random sources. The foundational concept of stream ciphers traces back to the , re-invented by and Joseph Mauborgne in 1917 as an additive stream cipher using truly random keys for perfect secrecy, building on earlier ideas such as Frank Miller's 1882 description. This evolved into modern stream ciphers by replacing the impractical requirement of truly random, key-length keystreams with efficient pseudorandom generators seeded by shorter keys, enabling practical deployment while aiming to approximate the one-time pad's security properties. Under the one-time pad's assumptions—truly random keys used only once and securely distributed—it achieves perfect secrecy, meaning no information about the is leaked regardless of computational power. In contrast, pseudorandom keystreams in stream ciphers can be predictable if the generator is flawed, potentially compromising secrecy unless rigorously designed. Such predictability introduces vulnerabilities, such as those arising from keystream reuse, which undermine the cipher's security.

Common Design Elements

Stream ciphers typically incorporate a secret key of fixed length, commonly 128 to 256 bits, which serves as the primary input for generating the pseudorandom keystream. This provides resistance against brute-force attacks, with examples including the 128-bit key in Grain-128 and the 256-bit key in Salsa20. An (IV) or nonce, which is public and of variable length such as 96 bits in Grain-128 or 64 bits in Salsa20, is combined with the secret key during the initialization phase. The core of a stream cipher's (PRNG) is often built around linear feedback shift registers (LFSRs) for efficient linear approximations and long-period sequences, combined with nonlinear feedback mechanisms to introduce complexity and resist algebraic attacks. For instance, Grain-128 employs an LFSR of 128 bits alongside a nonlinear feedback shift register (NFSR) for output generation. Nonlinear combining functions, such as those in Salsa20's core quarter-round operations, further enhance security by breaking linearity. The IV or nonce plays a crucial role in seeding the PRNG alongside the secret key, ensuring that each produces a unique keystream and preventing patterns from emerging across multiple encryptions. This seeding initializes the internal state of components like LFSRs or NFSRs through loading and mixing operations, such as the multiple clocking rounds in Grain-128. Common design pitfalls include predictable seeding mechanisms that allow inference of the internal state from observable outputs, as seen in early Bluetooth ciphers like E0. Short key lengths below 128 bits, such as the 64-bit key in , expose ciphers to feasible exhaustive searches. Additionally, reuse of internal states across sessions, often due to improper IV management, can lead to correlations in the keystream.

Keystream Reuse Attacks

Two-Time Pad Attack

The two-time pad attack exploits the reuse of the same keystream to encrypt multiple plaintext messages in a , fundamentally undermining the cipher's by allowing an adversary to recover about the plaintexts without of the key. In a , encryption is performed by XORing the PP with a pseudorandom keystream SS generated from the key, yielding the C=P⊕SC = P \oplus S. If the same keystream SS is inadvertently reused for two different plaintexts P1P_1 and P2P_2, producing ciphertexts C1=P1⊕SC_1 = P_1 \oplus S and C2=P2⊕SC_2 = P_2 \oplus S, an eavesdropper can compute C1⊕C2=(P1⊕S)⊕(P2⊕S)=P1⊕P2C_1 \oplus C_2 = (P_1 \oplus S) \oplus (P_2 \oplus S) = P_1 \oplus P_2. This reveals the bitwise XOR of the two plaintexts directly from the ciphertexts, providing a pathway to partial or full message recovery without decrypting the keystream itself. The recovery process typically involves iterative guessing of plaintext bits or phrases, leveraging the structure of natural language or known message formats to align and extract meaningful content from the XORed result. For instance, an attacker might hypothesize common words, headers, or patterns (known as "cribs") in one plaintext and slide them across the P1⊕P2P_1 \oplus P_2 stream to find alignments that produce coherent text in both derived plaintexts; successful alignments allow progressive recovery of larger portions of the messages. If one full plaintext is known or accurately guessed—such as through or partial cribs—the entire keystream SS can be recovered as S=C1⊕P1S = C_1 \oplus P_1, enabling decryption of all messages using that keystream. This method, often called crib dragging, was computationally feasible even with 1940s technology when applied to depth (reused key) in systems. A prominent historical example of keystream reuse enabling such an attack is the , a U.S. effort during the 1940s that decrypted Soviet communications encrypted with s. The Soviet and reused portions of their one-time pad pages due to manufacturing shortages, creating "depths" that allowed cryptanalysts to apply XOR-based recovery techniques, ultimately revealing espionage activities and identifying agents like the Rosenbergs. Despite the theoretical unbreakability of properly used one-time pads, this reuse compromised thousands of messages over nearly a decade of analysis. The impact of a two-time pad attack is severe, as it achieves confidentiality breaches without requiring the key or IV to be directly compromised, only the observation of multiple ciphertexts encrypted under identical key/IV pairs. This vulnerability applies broadly to any stream cipher design where keystream reuse occurs, such as through operator error or flawed initialization, rendering the system equivalent to a many-time pad and exposing all affected messages to potential full recovery. Modern stream ciphers mitigate this by enforcing unique nonces or IVs per message, but historical and implementation flaws continue to pose risks.

Reused IV or Key Attack

In stream ciphers, reusing the same (IV) with the same key across multiple messages generates identical keystream prefixes, enabling attackers to exploit overlaps in these segments for recovery. This vulnerability arises because the keystream is deterministically derived from the key-IV pair, so identical inputs produce identical outputs, allowing simple algebraic manipulation to cancel out the keystream. Conversely, employing the same IV with different keys in multi-user scenarios permits the accumulation of diverse keystream samples, which can be leveraged to invert the and recover key material. The attack typically begins with the collection of multiple ciphertexts corresponding to the reused IV-key combinations. For cases involving the same key and IV, the attacker aligns overlapping keystream portions by performing a —exploiting predictable message elements, such as protocol headers or probe responses—to recover segments of the . XORing two such ciphertexts eliminates the common keystream, yielding the XOR of the plaintexts; with one known, the other (and thus the shared keystream segment) is directly recoverable. This partial keystream can then be XORed with additional ciphertexts sharing the overlap to decrypt them or, in some designs, to infer portions of the underlying key through further analysis of the state. In the variant with the same IV but different keys, the attacker gathers numerous short keystream prefixes (e.g., the first 80 bits from each user) via similar techniques. These samples are then subjected to a time-memory-data tradeoff attack: a precomputation table of possible keystreams is built for the IV-fixed function, allowing efficient matching to identify corresponding keys with reduced online effort. For an 80-bit key, this requires approximately 2202^{20} samples, 2602^{60} precomputation time and space, and 2402^{40} online operations per target. A prominent real-world example is the attack on the (WEP) protocol, deployed in the early 2000s for security and relying on the stream cipher. WEP's 24-bit IV led to rapid reuse— with a 50% probability after fewer than 5,000 packets in active networks—pairing the IV with a fixed per-device key to generate the session key and keystream. Attackers captured packets with matching IVs, used known-plaintext elements like ICMP echo requests to recover the keystream prefix, and decrypted subsequent traffic or forged packets without the full key. This flaw compromised WEP's confidentiality, prompting its deprecation. To mitigate these attacks, protocols must enforce unique IVs or nonces for every message under the same key, typically via random selection from a space at least as large as the key length or sequential counters, ensuring no keystream overlaps occur.

Malleability and Modification Attacks

Bit-Flipping Attack

A bit-flipping attack exploits the malleable nature of additive stream ciphers, where encryption is performed by XORing the plaintext with a pseudorandom keystream. In such systems, the ciphertext CC is computed as Ci=Pi⊕KiC_i = P_i \oplus K_i for each bit position ii, with PiP_i the plaintext bit, KiK_i the keystream bit, and ⊕\oplus denoting XOR. An attacker who modifies the ciphertext by flipping a specific bit—i.e., setting Ci′=Ci⊕1C_i' = C_i \oplus 1—results in the receiver decrypting to Pi′=Ci′⊕Ki=(Ci⊕1)⊕Ki=Pi⊕1P_i' = C_i' \oplus K_i = (C_i \oplus 1) \oplus K_i = P_i \oplus 1, thereby flipping the corresponding plaintext bit while leaving other bits unchanged. This propagation is isolated to the targeted position, as the keystream remains independent of the plaintext or ciphertext in synchronous stream ciphers. This vulnerability enables precise manipulation of encrypted data without knowledge of the key or full keystream, particularly in network protocols lacking integrity protection. For example, in initial versions of SSL/TLS employing , the absence of robust message allowed bit flips to modify session data, such as flipping bits in encrypted cookies or payloads to inject malicious commands without detection. These applications highlight how bit-flipping facilitates and active tampering in real-time communications. Detection of bit-flipping attacks is challenging in basic deployments due to the lack of built-in error propagation or , allowing modifications to appear seamless upon decryption. Without an accompanying integrity mechanism, such as a (MAC), the receiver has no means to verify alterations, as the decrypted remains syntactically valid but semantically altered. This undetectable nature underscores the necessity for combined encryption- modes in protocols to mitigate malleability risks.

Fault Injection Attack

Fault injection attacks on stream ciphers involve actively inducing errors in the cipher's hardware or software during keystream generation, resulting in faulty outputs that can be analyzed to recover the secret key. These attacks target the (PRNG) components, such as linear feedback shift registers (LFSRs), by exploiting discrepancies between correct and erroneous keystreams. Unlike passive side-channel attacks that observe normal operation, requires adversarial intervention to alter the internal state, often through physical or electromagnetic means. Common techniques include laser-induced faults, which precisely target specific transistors or registers to flip bits; voltage glitches, which temporarily reduce to cause computational errors across broader circuits; and clock manipulation, such as glitching to skip cycles or desynchronize shifts in registers. These methods alter the PRNG state, for instance, by inducing a single-bit fault in an LFSR that shifts the register contents or flips a bit, propagating errors into the keystream. Attackers then perform differential analysis on pairs of correct and faulty keystreams to derive linear equations representing the state differences, solving the system to reconstruct the initial state and ultimately the key. A seminal example is the 2009 fault analysis on Grain-128, where single-bit flips in the LFSR were simulated using laser injection; approximately 24 faults sufficed to recover the full 128-bit key in minutes of computation by solving linear equations from keystream differences. Similarly, the 2008 differential fault analysis on assumed random single-bit faults in the state registers, requiring about 43 injections to set up quadratic equations solvable in roughly 2442^{44} operations, though practical implementations ran in seconds on standard hardware. These attacks, developed in the late and refined in the through simulations, demonstrated key recovery feasible in around 2322^{32} to 2442^{44} operations depending on the fault model and optimization. Such attacks typically demand physical access to the device for direct fault induction via or glitches, or sophisticated remote setups like electromagnetic pulses for side-channel , highlighting their active nature compared to purely observational cryptanalytic methods. Countermeasures often involve redundancy checks or error-detecting codes in the PRNG to identify and mitigate faulty states.

Initialization Vector Attacks

Chosen-IV Attack

In a chosen-IV attack on stream ciphers, an adversary interacts with an encryption oracle that permits selection of the (IV) for a fixed secret key, enabling observation of the resulting ciphertexts—often with known —to infer details about the pseudorandom number generator's (PRNG) internal state. This adversarial model arises in protocols where the attacker can influence IV generation, such as by querying the or exploiting protocol mechanics in standards like WEP and early WPA-TKIP implementations prior to defenses like . The IV, concatenated with the key to seed the PRNG, plays a critical role in state initialization, and chosen values allow probing for exploitable weaknesses in this process. The attack mechanism leverages biases introduced by specific IV choices during the key scheduling phase, causing predictable transitions in the PRNG state that manifest as non-random patterns in the initial keystream bytes. For example, in the stream cipher, certain IVs—such as those following patterns like (A+3, N-1, X) where N is fixed—create conditions where the state permutation after initialization reveals information about subsequent key bytes with probabilities around 0.05 per trial. By analyzing the first output byte from multiple such encryptions, the attacker solves for key bytes iteratively using relations like K[A+3]=SA+2−1[z0]−jA+2−SA+2[A+3]K[A+3] = S_{A+2}^{-1}[z_0] - j_{A+2} - S_{A+2}[A+3], where SS denotes the state array and jj the index, accumulating guesses to reconstruct the full key. This approach exploits the key scheduling algorithm's (KSA) vulnerability to related-key scenarios induced by IV variations. A landmark historical instance is the Fluhrer-Mantin-Shamir (FMS) attack on as implemented in the WEP protocol, detailed in 2001. In WEP, the 24-bit IV is prepended to the secret key (typically 40 or 104 bits) to form the per-packet key, and the attacker collects packets with weak IVs that align with the exploitable patterns, effectively approximating a chosen-IV scenario through passive aided by protocol-induced IV generation. The attack recovers the key by processing biases from these IVs, requiring roughly 2132^{13} (about 8,192) packets for a 40-bit key in favorable conditions, with linear scaling for longer keys. Such attacks demonstrate practical efficiency, typically necessitating 10410^4 to 10610^6 chosen encryptions to fully recover keys in vulnerable stream ciphers like , depending on key length and bias strength—far fewer than brute-force alternatives.

Nonce Misuse Attack

A nonce misuse attack on stream ciphers exploits protocol-level errors where the nonce—intended to ensure unique initialization for each encryption under the same key—is repeated or generated predictably, resulting in reusable or foreseeable keystream segments that enable plaintext recovery or key exposure. Unlike properly randomized or unique nonces, which maintain the pseudorandom properties of the keystream, misuse allows adversaries to correlate outputs across messages without needing to choose the nonce directly. This vulnerability is particularly acute in systems where nonce management is handled by higher-level protocols rather than the cipher itself. Common misuses arise in hybrid constructions like counter (CTR) mode applied to block ciphers for stream-like operation, where counters may reset or reuse values under the same nonce, generating identical keystream blocks. In IoT devices, resource limitations often lead to predictable nonces derived from timestamps, device , or incremental counters, violating uniqueness assumptions and facilitating targeted . For instance, protocols may inadvertently repeat nonces during session resumption or device pairing, amplifying risks in constrained environments. The attack vector leverages this predictability or repetition to derive plaintext without full key knowledge. With repeated nonces and the same key, identical keystreams are produced, permitting an attacker to XOR two ciphertexts C1C_1 and C2C_2 (from plaintexts P1P_1 and P2P_2) to obtain P1⊕P2=C1⊕C2P_1 \oplus P_2 = C_1 \oplus C_2, revealing relational information or full plaintexts if one is known. Predictable nonces enable precomputation of potential keystreams for anticipated values; upon observing a ciphertext, the adversary XORs it with the matching precomputed segment to recover plaintext, especially effective if partial known plaintext exists. This contrasts with ideal nonce usage, where even seeded from common design elements like key-derived values, uniqueness prevents such correlations. A notable example is the practical cube attack on the Ascon stream cipher in nonce-misuse scenarios, demonstrated in 2022. Ascon, proposed in 2014 and standardized by NIST in 2023 as a lightweight scheme, suffers full-round key recovery when nonces are reused, requiring only modest computational resources (around 2402^{40} operations) and enabling on encrypted communications. This highlights protocol-induced vulnerabilities in modern ciphers like Salsa20 and ChaCha, where nonces must remain strictly unique—unlike more flexible IVs in other modes—to avoid keystream predictability, as reuse directly undermines their ARX-based resistance to standard .

Statistical and Distinguishing Attacks

Correlation Attacks

Correlation attacks exploit linear correlations between the generated keystream and the output of underlying linear components, such as linear feedback shift registers (LFSRs), in stream ciphers that employ nonlinear combining or filtering functions. These attacks are particularly effective against designs where the nonlinear function fails to completely decorrelate the keystream from individual LFSR sequences, allowing an adversary to recover the initial state of the targeted LFSR using only keystream observations (ciphertext-only in many cases). The principle relies on measuring a non-zero , which indicates a statistical that can be amplified over sufficient samples to distinguish the correct initial state from random guesses. The CC between the observed keystream bits ZiZ_i and a LiL_i of the LFSR output is computed as: C=1N∑i=1NZi⋅Li,C = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} Z_i \cdot L_i, where NN is the number of samples, and the bits are typically encoded as +1+1 for 0 and −1-1 for 1 to facilitate spectral analysis. A value of CC significantly deviating from 0 (e.g., ∣C∣>1/N|C| > 1/\sqrt{N}
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.