This looks like something that was anonymously posted to the Internet about a year ago. It is widely believed to be a hoax; if nothing else, the key schedule is horrible. David Wagner broke the algorithm based on the key schedule alone. This is what I wrote about S-1 last time around.... Bruce ----------------------------seperator--------------------------------- I was in Europe while S-1 was posted, so I missed most of the discussion. Better late than never.... Over the last year, I have spent considerable effort collecting SKIPJACK information. I have gone through the published literature, the rumors, and a large stack of documents received by EPIC through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits. At Crypto last week I gave a Rump Session talk entitled "Reverse Engineering SKIPJACK from Open Sources." I prepared the slides before I left for Europe. Here is what I said: What the government told us: Single-key block cipher. Can be used in ECB, CBC, CFB, or OFB. 64-bit block size. 80-bit key size. What the review committee told us: 32 rounds. No weak keys (like DES has). No key complementation property (like DES has). What the hardware specifications tell us: The latency of the Mykotronx chip has 64 clock cycles. This means two clock cycles per round. Assorted rumors (excuse me if I don't reveal sources): SKIPJACK does not have rounds in the same sense that DES does: i.e., half of the text block is not encrypted in each round. SKIPJACK has half the total S-box data as DES. SKIPJACK has a 48-bit internal structure analogous to a 32-bit internal structure in DES. The masks for the Clipper/Capstone chip are unclassified and the chips can be produced in an unclassified foundry. Part of the programming in the secure vault includes installing part of the SKIPJACK algorithm. The part of the algorithm installed in the secure vault are the "S-tables", suggesting that perhaps unprogrammed Clipper chips can be programmed to implement other 80-bit key, 32 round ciphers. Trying to puzzle out the meaning of the third rumor, Matt Blaze and I invented something called an Unbalanced Feistel Network. These are Feistel networks where the source and target blocks are of different size. For example, in each round 48 bits might be used as an input into the F function, and produce 16 output bits to be XORed with the remainder of the bits. We called this a 48:16 UFN, and we proposed a design at last year's Algorithms Workshop in Leuven. Our design was broken, but I am still examining the structure. A 48:16 UFN satisfies the first and third rumor above, and I think it as good a guess as any regarding SKIPJACK. A few months ago, I found some additional information in the form of documents released under FOIA. One document was a Mykotronx design review for "Project Capstone" dated 10 December 1991. The design review was unclassified. Among the details about the modular multipliers and the SHA code was the following page about SKIPJACK: ECB Processing Rate 2 clocks per G-Box operation x 1 G-box per shift x 32 shifts per ECB encryption ______________________________ 64 clocks per ECB 64 clocks per ECB / 64 bits out per ECB = 1 clock per bit Yields 40 Mbit encryption using a 40 MHz clock. The only other thing I found was a SECRET memo. The organization name (either from or to) is blacked out. The date is 25 August 1992. The subject is "SKIPJACK Revision." Paragraph 2 is blacked out, but paragraph 1 reads: 1. (U) The enclosed Informal Technical Report revises the F-table in SKIPJACK 3. No other aspect of the algorithm is changed. That's it. Rounds are called "shifts," which seems to indicate that they are not "rounds" in the DES sense. A shift consists of a "G-box" operation, which includes not only what we call the F- F-function but the XOR as well. And there is something called an F-table, which could be a table of constants or perhaps a table of functions. In any case, it is something that can be revised without changing the rest of the algorithm. Now let's look at S-1. The most probable explanation is that it is a hoax. But it is a very good hoax: The hoaxer knew enough about algorithm design to make a cipher that was not obviously lousy, while at the same time not unduly complicated. The hoaxer knew enough to make a design that included three novel ideas not seen anywhere else: S-boxes that are created according to no known criteria, a G-table that chooses a rotation of S-boxes to use in a given round, and a bizarre key schedule. The hoaxer knew enough about how algorithms are used in the military to make a spookish interface. I am particularly interested in the "zeroize" function, the separation of the key creation and key loading functions, and the key masking. Blaze said that the interface was similar to the Fortezza interface, but not the same. The hoaxer knew about Blaze's and my MacGuffin paper and that we thought SKIPJACK was a 48:16 UFN. We made no secret about this, and our paper is on Blaze's web page. The hoaxer knew to use the term F-table. I haven't shown many people what I found in EPIC's documents, so the hoaxer either had to look through them himself or get them by some other means (maybe an independent FOIA request). It's not a perfect hoax, though. The classification markings look odd: NSA algorithms are SECRET, not TOP SECRET, and the codeword restriction sentence is strange. The key schedule is hopelessly flawed (David Wagner posted an attack to sci.crypt). The coding style is amateurish, like it was translated from one language to another. (Maybe this is clever on the hoaxer's part.) And there's even a typo in the code. And maybe the hardware latency is wrong. Clearly the design facilitates parallelization. You can precompute all possible F- table outputs in previous shifts, and then use the G-table result to select between them; I am not sure you can get a shift down to two clock cycles. I don't have the hardware background, and would appreciate comments from others. And why are there not bitwise permutations? If SKIPJACK is designed for hardware, it makes sense to put them in. They're free, after all. Anyway, it's a real good hoax. Blaze estimated that he could have done it, but it would have taken him a month of effort. I agree with his assessment: one man-month. It's a lot of time to spend on a hoax, especially one where the hoaxer doesn't get any credit. So, maybe it's SKIPJACK. It has a 64-bit block size and an 80- bit key size. It's a 48:16 UFN with 32 rounds (or shifts, or whatever). And it has an F-table. This is really interesting, because the structure really is an S-box. Everyone knows it's an S-box, and it makes no sense for a hoaxer to call it something else. But in S-1 it's called an F-table. (I think this is very significant, but others find it less convincing.) And the F-table has been revised at least once. In the code it says that the F-table entries "differ in the S-2 version." The code is dated 1 February 1989 and 31 July 1991, and I have a memo dated 25 August 1992 that says the F-table has been revised in "SKIPJACK 3." Pretty convincing, I think. (Of course this means that we can't confirm anything by testing the hardware, since the F-table entries are different.) Maybe there are no bit permutations because they make analysis harder, and perhaps they don't add all that much. Maybe the algorithm was designed for both hardware and software, or maybe it was designed for specialized cryptographic hardware with several parallel microprocessors and some cryptographic primitives. If it is real, we have a lot to learn about S-box design. The S- boxes are not even balanced. Maybe they are created just so to avoid some bizarre attack we can only dream about, but I kind of doubt it. But the key schedule is just plain wrong. So, here's a theory. Let's assume the code is real. (Not that it's SKIPJACK, but that it's a real algorithm from some military or some corporation.) Clearly the code is not designed to test the cryptographic algorithm, but to simulate some kind of hardware interface: it's called a "software chip simulator." If I were the NSA and I designed an algorithm whose security rested on some tables of constants, I might replace them with phony constants before giving them to another organization to test. I might call the phony version S-1 and the real version S-2. Maybe the code was originally written in FORTRAN, and then translated into C. (NSA doesn't use ADA.) NSA algorithms are classified SECRET, put perhaps algorithms in development are classified TOP SECRET. (We know cryptanalytic techniques can be TOP SECRET, so perhaps commented code falls under that category as well.) And maybe the code originally didn't have an 80-bit key schedule. Maybe it had a longer key schedule. The poster then modified this key schedule to make it look more like SKIPJACK. (This might also explain the bug in the code, which might not be a bug if it still had the original key schedule.) Which leaves us precisely nowhere. The most likely explanation is that it is a hoax, but I am hard-pressed to imagine a hoaxer with the requisite combination of skills, resources, and attitude. I also don't believe that it is SKIPJACK. It might be a preliminary design for SKIPJACK, but if both the key schedule and F-table entries are wrong, we really haven't learned anything. If we suddenly discovered that unbalanced S-boxes are far superior to balanced ones, then all best are off. Bruce ************************************************************************** * Bruce Schneier APPLIED CRYPTOGRAPHY, 2nd EDITION is * Counterpane Systems available. For info on a 15% * schneier@counterpane.com discount offer, send me e-mail. * * For Blowfish C code, see ftp.ox.ac.uk:/pub/crypto/misc/blowfish.c.gz **************************************************************************