Crack DES in 3.5 hours for only $1,500,000!
Be the first on your block! Michael Wiener <weiner@bnr.ca> produced a complete design for a DES key search machine, which he presented in the "rump session" at Crypto '93 last month. He designed a single custom chip which can do 50 million test encryptions per second, and the boards and racks and frames into which it fits. The full design has about 60,000 copies of the chip, solves DES in 3.5 hours, and is fully described in the paper. Here is an excerpt from his conclusions: It is possible to build a $1 million machine that can attack DES and recover a key in an average time of 3.5 hours. The machine uses a known plaintext to exhaustively search through the DES key space and could be developed for $500000 in about 10 months. Because a great deal of detail has gone into the design of the key search machine, we can have high confidence in the assessment of its cost and speed. The key search design presented here is one to two orders of magnitude faster than other recently proposed designs. Even cryptosystems with 64-bit keys may be vulnerable. If DES were modified to use 64-bit keys, there would be 2**8 times as many keys to search through, and a $10 million machine would take an average of 3.7 days to find a key. It is possible to build a key search machine that can support a range of modes of DES with little penalty in run-time. A $1 million machine would take 8 hours on average to find a key used in 1-bit CFB mode and 4 hours on average for any of ECB, CBC, 64-bit OFB, 64-bit CFB, or 8-bit CFB mode. This work shows that exhaustive DES key search is alarmingly economical. If it ever was true that attacking DES was only within the reach of large governments, it is clearly no longer true. A fairly painless way to improve security dramatically is to switch to triple-DES. The paper was written as a warning to DES users (bankers) and their customers (depositors). DES is used to protect electronic money transfers among banks all over the world. Several billion dollars per day are moved in this way. Within a day of finishing the machine, a criminal could easily pay back the $1.5M in capital. In the second day, they'd have the capital required to build a second machine, and in the third day a positive cash flow would begin. Banks can do nothing to stop this -- if they shut down their comm links, they go out of business; if they keep moving money over them, intruders suck money out at will. I recommend not keeping your money in banks... Most organizations who would build such a machine (national governments and other forms of organized crime) have probably already constructed many similar machines. This paper will not help them. It is intended to help people who thought that DES was secure. The full paper is available in PostScript via ftp from: ftp.eff.org:/pub/crypto/des_key_search.ps cpsr.org:/cpsr/crypto/des/des_key_search.ps cpsr.org also makes it available via their Gopher service. CPSR.org is on a slow link; use the ftp.eff.org archive if possible. (The file will appear there shortly; apologies for any delay.) John Gilmore Electronic Frontier Foundation Feel free to hack this up and send me back revised copy... John
I will have printed copies of the paper at the Cypherpunks meeting this weekend. Folks in other locations, please print the PostScript version from ftp.eff.org:/pub/crypto/des_key_search.ps, rather than asking me to mail printed copies. Kudos to Michael Wiener for doing the work, and for making the paper freely available online! By the way, with 60,000 chips, it takes 3.5 hours to brute-force a 56 bit key. If you lop 16 bits off, you lose a factor of ~60,000: it takes ONE chip a few hours to brute-force it -- or a third of a second if you use the whole machine. I wondered where those ``40-bit keys'' came from... Oho! I now suspect why RC2 and RC4 must remain trade-secret...NSA doesn't want people to know what particular internal algorithm features their brute-force chips are capable of handling! I recall the discussion of how RC2/4 were invented; NSA told the designer (since identified as Ron Rivest): "No, this is too big; weaken this over here; do fewer rounds here; etc..." What resulted was suitable for NSA brute-force using chips they had readily available. It's possible that simple changes to the algorithm would render it much less penetrable by NSA's current hardware. Ron even knows *which* changes, and I encourage him to tell us. John
participants (1)
-
gnu