1. Untagging Tor: A Formal Treatment of Onion Encryption 2018 Attacks Eurocrypt SecureChannels Tor eprint.iacr.org
    Jean Paul Degabriele and Martijn Stam

    Tor is a primary tool for maintaining anonymity online. It provides a low-latency, circuit-based, bidirectional secure channel between two parties through a network of onion routers, with the aim of obscuring exactly who is talking to whom, even to adversaries controlling part of the network. Tor relies heavily on cryptographic techniques, yet its onion encryption scheme is susceptible to tagging attacks (Fu and Ling, 2009), which allow an active adversary controlling the first and last node of a circuit to deanonymize with near-certainty. This contrasts with less active traffic correlation attacks, where the same adversary can at best deanonymize with high probability. The Tor project has been actively looking to defend against tagging attacks and its most concrete alternative is proposal 261, which specifies a new onion encryption scheme based on a variable-input-length tweakable cipher.


    We provide a formal treatment of low-latency, circuit-based onion encryption, relaxed to the unidirectional setting, by expanding existing secure channel notions to the new setting and introducing circuit hiding to capture the anonymity aspect of Tor. We demonstrate that circuit hiding prevents tagging attacks and show proposal 261’s relay protocol is circuit hiding and thus resistant against tagging attacks.

  2. Optimal Channel Security Against Fine-Grained State Compromise: The Safety of Messaging 2018 Crypto SecureChannels eprint.iacr.org
    Joseph Jaeger and Igors Stepanovs

    We aim to understand the best possible security of a (bidirectional) cryptographic channel against an adversary that may arbitrarily and repeatedly learn the secret state of either communicating party. We give a formal security definition and a proven-secure construction. This construction provides better security against state compromise than the Signal Double Ratchet Algorithm or any other known channel construction. To facilitate this we define and construct new forms of public-key encryption and digital signatures that update their keys over time.

  3. A Formal Treatment of Multi-key Channels 2017 Crypto SecureChannels eprint.iacr.org
    Felix Günther and Sogol Mazaheri

    Secure channel protocols protect data transmission over a network from being overheard or tampered with. In the common abstraction, cryptographic models for channels involve a single key for ensuring the central security notions of confidentiality and integrity. The currently developed next version of the Transport Layer Security protocol, TLS 1.3, however introduces a key updating mechanism in order to deploy a sequence of multiple, possibly independent encryption keys in its channel sub-protocol. This design aims at achieving forward security, protecting prior communication after long-term key corruption, as well as security of individual channel phases even if the key in other phases is leaked (a property we denote as phase-key insulation). Neither of these security aspects has been treated formally in the context of cryptographic channels so far, leading to a current lack of techniques to evaluate such channel designs cryptographically.


    We approach this gap by introducing the first formal model of multi-key channels, where sender and receiver can update their shared secret key during the lifetime of the channel without interrupting the communication. We present modular, game-based notions for confidentiality and integrity, integrating forward security and phase-key insulation as two advanced security aspects. As we show, our framework of notions on the lower end of its hierarchy naturally connects to the existing notions of stateful encryption established for single-key channels. Like for classical channels, it further allows for generically composing chosen-ciphertext confidentiality from chosen-plaintext confidentiality and ciphertext integrity. We instantiate the strongest security notions in our model with a construction based on authenticated encryption with associated data and a pseudorandom function. Being comparatively close, our construction additionally enables us to discuss the TLS 1.3 record protocol design.