RISKS Vol. 18, No. 57.
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996
From: Paul C. Kocher
I've been watching the recent announcements about fault-induced cryptanalysis with interest [e.g., RISKS-18.50,52,54,55,56]. Whereas the attacks are extremely powerful tools, they aren't at all new to the crypto community -- there has been widespread discussion for years about these, they've been implemented by criminals and security system evaluators, and they are reasonably well documented.
For example, NIST specifically discuss such attacks and the need to prevent them. FIPS PUB 74-1 (see http://csrc.nist.gov/fips), "Guidelines for Implementing and Using the NBS Data Encryption Standard," was published way back in 1981 and says in section 5.2.2 on Error Handling:
Anyone interested in issues relating to secure hardware design should also study FIPS 140-1, "Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules." It's the best public document I know of for anyone designing tamper resistant hardware and does a great job of covering the basics and also describes measures to prevent these attacks, suggests using "two independent cryptographic algorithm implementations whose output are continually compared in order to ensure the correct functioning of the cryptographic algorithm," etc. In general, these attacks are fairly straightforward to implement once the appropriate errors are available.
In addition to published sources, I've had many discussions with other cryptographers error attacks and other hardware issues. (Ross Anderson in particular is extremely knowledgeable about hardware attacks and has done much to raise awareness about them. [See RISKS-18.52]) It's also important to note that there are also quite a few other attacks which haven't been published but which are widely known to the community. (For example, I've discussed widely my work on using timing attack math to analyze power consumption, use of error analysis to reverse-engineer secret algorithms, implementations of attacks using software pointer errors to damage secret keys and encryption function tables, etc.)
With the timing attack I was alarmed by the amount of confusion and misinterpretation that followed my initial release of the paper (though I didn't send out any press releases or contact any reporters), even though it been reviewed by many cryptographers prior to its release and was available online. I haven't seen the actual Bellcore paper yet and don't know whether it was reviewed before they sent press releases to the media, but in general I worry about the consequences of the public trying to evaluate the importance, novelty, and quality of unreviewed work.
Paul Kocher firstname.lastname@example.org (or http://www.cryptography.com)
Added by jya.com November 13, 1996:
See comments by Ross Anderson on DES weakness.
Added by jya.com December 8, 1996:
See comments by Jean-Jacques Quisquater on Single Event Effect.