Downgrade Resilience in Key-Exchange Protocols
Karthikeyan Bhargavan, Christina Brzuska, Cédric Fournet, Matthew Green, Markulf Kohlweiss, Santiago Zanella-Béguelin
Abstract
Key-exchange protocols such as TLS, SSH, IPsec, and ZRTP are highly configurable, with typical deployments supporting multiple protocol versions, cryptographic algorithms and parameters. In the first messages of the protocol, the peers negotiate one specific combination: the protocol mode, based on their local configurations. With few notable exceptions, most cryptographic analyses of configurable protocols consider a single mode at a time. In contrast, downgrade attacks, where a network adversary forces peers to use a mode weaker than the one they would normally negotiate, are a recurrent problem in practice. How to support configurability while at the same time guaranteeing the preferred mode is negotiated? We set to answer this question by designing a formal framework to study downgrade resilience and its relation to other security properties of keyexchange protocols. First, we study the causes of downgrade attacks by dissecting and classifying known and novel attacks against widely used protocols. Second, we survey what is known about the downgrade resilience of existing standards. Third, we combine these findings to define downgrade security, and analyze the conditions under which several protocols achieve it. Finally, we discuss patterns that guarantee downgrade security by design, and explain how to use them to strengthen the security of existing protocols, including a newly proposed draft of TLS 1.3.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext a77a84e7-d332-4ed4-8c25-b80382ee08b8Cited by top-tier papers6
- A Comprehensive Symbolic Analysis of TLS 1.3Cas Cremers, Marko Horvat, Jonathan Hoyland, Sam Scott et al.CCS 2017 · 247 citations
- Verified Models and Reference Implementations for the TLS 1.3 Standard CandidateKarthikeyan Bhargavan, Bruno Blanchet, Nadim KobeissiS&P 2017 · 233 citations
- Post-Quantum TLS Without Handshake SignaturesPeter Schwabe, Douglas Stebila, Thom WiggersCCS 2020 · 162 citations
- The Provable Security of Ed25519: Theory and PracticeJacqueline Brendel, Cas Cremers, Dennis Jackson, Mang ZhaoS&P 2021 · 78 citations
- Indiscreet Logs: Diffie-Hellman Backdoors in TLSKristen Dorey, Nicholas Chang-Fong, Aleksander EssexNDSS 2017 · 10 citations
Builds on1
Related papers
- Multiple Handshakes Security of TLS 1.3 CandidatesXinyu Li, Jing Xu, Zhenfeng Zhang, Dengguo Feng et al.S&P 2016 · 32 citations
- Key Confirmation in Key Exchange: A Formal Treatment and Implications for TLS 1.3Marc Fischlin, Felix Günther, Benedikt Schmidt, Bogdan WarinschiS&P 2016 · 1 citation
- A Unilateral-to-Mutual Authentication Compiler for Key Exchange (with Applications to Client Authentication in TLS 1.3)Hugo KrawczykCCS 2016 · 24 citations
- Automated Analysis and Verification of TLS 1.3: 0-RTT, Resumption and Delayed AuthenticationCas Cremers, Marko Horvat, Sam Scott, Thyla van der MerweS&P 2016 · 128 citations
- On the Concrete Security of TLS 1.3 PSK ModeHannah Davis, Denis Diemert, Felix Günther, Tibor JagerEUROCRYPT 2022 · 19 citations
