A mathematical model for a block cipher is a collection of invertible functions indexed by keys . We say that the block cipher has block size and key length . For example, DES has and , while its successor AES has and (or or for the super-paranoid).
Let and be block ciphers of block size and key lengths and , respectively. An easy way to boost the key length to , while keeping essentially the same cryptologics, is to compose the encryption functions from the two ciphers. Thus for we define
Perhaps surprisingly, when , this cryptoscheme offers only bits of security, rather than the expected . The purpose of this post is to give a fairly precise costing of the meet-in-the-middle attack behind this.
As a notational convention, denotes quantities unknown to the cryptanalyst and quantities chosen or observed by the cryptanalyst. We cost by the number of encryption/decryption operations, or cryptops, justifying this assumption in the course of the argument.
Let be the (unknown) key. Let be a chosen plaintext and let be its observed encryption. (We write rather than to emphasise that in the chosen plaintext model, we can perform two-stage encryption using the unknown key pair , but not each stage separately.) We denote by the inverse of the encryption function . Let
Thus , and cryptops are required to get this far.
Using any reasonable algorithm, sorting by the second entry in each pair takes at most primitive operations for some smallish . Similarly is sorted using primitive operations. Working through the sorted lists we pair up the with the , for each . In one possible implementation this makes a list of pointers to the relevant members of and for each , so the cost in primitive operations is
for some small . Since each cryptop for must produce bits, and similarly for , it seems reasonable to assume that the cost of cryptops is significantly more than the cost of this sorting and pairing up.
We now have the sets
for each . Observe that is those key pairs (for the composed cryptosystem) that meet-in-the-middle at . Fix distinct plaintexts
For each we encrypt using the guessed key pair , and check if
for each . If all encryptions agree, we assume that . (But for simplicity, let’s say we carry on checking all the other keys.) The number of pairs to be checked in the final step is
and each pair requires two encryptions, making the cost of the final step cryptops. The total cost in cryptops is therefore .
We now estimate for the random cipher, and use this as an approximation to DES and to AES.
Suppose that each and is chosen uniformly and independently at random from the permutations of . We know that and for each other key , the probability is that . Dually, we know that , and for each other key , the probability is that . Therefore and are independently distributed as the shifted binomial distribution
Similarly, if then and are independently distributed as . (It is worth noting that and are not independent: for example we have where the union is disjoint, therefore .) It follows by linearity of expectation that
This is very well approximated by . Hence the total cost is estimated as
It remains to choose a suitable value for . By our randomness assumption, and are each permutations of chosen uniformly at random subject to the constraint . Thus for each chosen plaintext , the ciphertexts and are uniformly distributed on . The probability they agree is therefore . More generally, the probability that for all of the chosen is
We have to check key pairs, so the expected number of ‘false’ keys is very nearly ; by the good approximation for above, this is very nearly
Suppose for simplicity that . Setting , our estimate for the total work is then
cryptops, where should be chosen so that is large compared to . In particular, if is very large then, as one would expect, then one can take : no checking cryptops are needed.
DES as a random cipher
For DES, , , so , and we need large compared to . Taking , the total work is . Clearly for any reasonable choice of , the cost of the attack is dominated by the first phase, and is about cryptops. Even in 2009, using a special purpose device, this took at most days.
AES as a random cipher
For AES with the shortest key length, , so and we need large compared to . Again taking , the total work is , roughly balanced between the first and second phases. For AES with the longest key length, and , so and we need large compared to . Taking , the total work is . The second phase dominates. Of course neither attack is practical.