[ISN] Opinion: Cryptanalysis of MD5 and SHA: Time for a new standard

[InfoSec News]

http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,,95343,00.html

Opinion by Bruce Schneier
Counterpane Internet Security Inc.
AUGUST 19, 2004 
COMPUTERWORLD

At the Crypto 2004 conference in Santa Barbara, Calif., this week,
researchers announced several weaknesses in common hash functions.  
These results, while mathematically significant, aren't cause for
alarm. But even so, it's probably time for the cryptography community
to get together and create a new hash standard.
 
One-way hash functions are a cryptographic construct used in many
applications. They are used with public-key algorithms for both
encryption and digital signatures. They are used in integrity
checking. They are used in authentication. They have all sorts of
applications in a great many different protocols. Much more than
encryption algorithms, one-way hash functions are the workhorses of
modern cryptography.

In 1990, Ron Rivest invented the hash function MD4. In 1992, he
improved on MD4 and developed another hash function: MD5. In 1993, the
National Security Agency published a hash function very similar to
MD5, called the Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA). Then in 1995, citing a
newly discovered weakness that it refused to elaborate on, the NSA
made a change to SHA. The new algorithm was called SHA-1. Today, the
most popular hash function is SHA-1, with MD5 still being used in
older applications.

One-way hash functions are supposed to have two properties. One,
they're one-way. This means that it's easy to take a message and
compute the hash value, but it's impossible to take a hash value and
re-create the original message. (By "impossible," I mean "can't be
done in any reasonable amount of time.") Two, they're collision-free.  
This means that it's impossible to find two messages that hash to the
same hash value. The cryptographic reasoning behind these two
properties is subtle, and I invite curious readers to learn more in my
book Applied Cryptography.

Breaking a hash function means showing that either -- or both -- of
those properties aren't true. Cryptanalysis of the MD4 family of hash
functions has proceeded in fits and starts over the past decade or so,
with results against simplified versions of the algorithms and partial
results against the whole algorithms.

This year, Eli Biham and Rafi Chen, and separately Antoine Joux,
announced some pretty impressive cryptographic results against MD5 and
SHA. Collisions have been demonstrated in SHA. And there are rumors,
unconfirmed at this writing, of results against SHA-1.

The magnitude of these results depends on who you are. If you're a
cryptographer, this is a huge deal. While not revolutionary, these
results are substantial advances in the field. The techniques
described by the researchers are likely to have other applications,
and we'll be better able to design secure systems as a result. This is
how the science of cryptography advances: We learn how to design new
algorithms by breaking other algorithms. In addition, algorithms from
the NSA are considered a sort of alien technology: They come from a
superior race with no explanations. Any successful cryptanalysis
against an NSA algorithm is an interesting data point in the eternal
question of how good they really are in there.

As a user of cryptographic systems -- as I assume most readers are --
this news is important, but not particularly worrisome. MD5 and SHA
aren't suddenly insecure. No one is going to be breaking digital
signatures or reading encrypted messages anytime soon with these
techniques. The electronic world is no less secure after these
announcements than it was before.

But there's an old saying inside the NSA: "Attacks always get better;  
they never get worse." These techniques will continue to improve, and
probably someday there will be practical attacks based on these
techniques.

It's time for us all to migrate away from SHA-1.

Luckily, there are alternatives. The National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) already has standards for longer --and
harder-to-break -- hash functions: SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384 and
SHA-512. They're already government standards and can already be used.  
This is a good stopgap, but I'd like to see more.

I'd like to see NIST orchestrate a worldwide competition for a new
hash function, like it did for the new encryption algorithm, Advanced
Encryption Standard, to replace Data Encryption Standard. NIST should
issue a call for algorithms and conduct a series of analysis rounds,
where the community analyzes the various proposals with the intent of
establishing a new standard.

Most of the hash functions we have and all the ones in widespread use
are based on the general principles of MD4. Clearly we've learned a
lot about hash functions in the past decade, and I think we can start
applying that knowledge to create something even more secure.

Better to do it now, when there's no reason to panic, than years from
now, when there might be.


NIST's SHA site 
http://csrc.nist.gov/CryptoToolkit/tkhash.html

Bruce Schneier is the chief technology officer of Counterpane Internet
Security Inc. in Mountain View, Calif. You can subscribe to his
monthly "Crypto-Gram" newsletter at www.schneier.com.