26
5
1
ˆ
Problem: no protection on the identities
ˆ
Attack: Malice can interrupt it and modifies Bob’s
identity with his iden tity, and then the key
generated will be known to Alice and Malice.
ˆ
To fix it, Alice can encrypt Bob’s identity with her
key. But not encrypt her identity, why?
this fix is not enough, anot her attack is that Malice
interrupts the Alice’s request message and sends a
message: Alice, {Malice}
KAT
to Trent. Why Malice has
{Malice}
KAT
?
Also at the last step, Mali ce needs send an ACK with
Bob’s identity. Why Malice k nows it’s Bob in the first
message?
Yet another attack is: Malice modifies the message from
Trent to Alice into {K’}
KAT
ˆ
Message Authentication Protocol:prevent
modifying messages.
main idea: a binding between the session keys and its
intended users.
1. Alice sends to Trent: Alice, Bob;
2. Trent sends to Alice: {Bob, K}
KAT
, {Alice, K}
KBT
;
3. Alice decrypts {Bob, K}
KAT
, checks Bob’s identity,
and sends to Bob: Trent, {Alice, K}
KBT
;
4. Bob decrypts {Alice, K}
KBT
, checks Alice’s identity ,
and sends an encrypted Ack message to Alice.
5
2
ˆ
Message replay attack on Message Authentication
Protocol
Malice has old ciphertext messages: {Bob,K’}
KAT
, and
{Alice,K’}
KBT
, and knows the old key K’.
ˆ
Two mechanisms to check if the message received
is an old message.
challenge-response, or handshake, or Needham-
Schroeder Symmetric-key Authentication protocol
Timestamp: DES Authentication Verifiers
ˆ
challenge-response
1. Alice sends to Trent: Alice, Bob, N
A
; (N
A
: random
number)
2. Trent sends to Alice: {N
A
, Bob, K, {Alice, K}
KBT
}
KAT
;
3. Alice sends to Bob: Trent, {Alice, K}
KBT
;
4. Bob sends to Alice: {I’m Bob! N
B
}
K
;
5. Alice sends to Bob: {I’m Alice! N
B
-1}
K
;
ˆ
Attack on this protoc ol: Malice interrupts the
messages 3,4,5, and replaces them with his own
version.
3’. Malice to Bob: Trent, {K’, Alice}
KBT
ˆ
Fix: challenge-response between Trent and Bob
(more message flow)