Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Harvard, 2009

Avatar for ravipappu ravipappu
March 20, 2013
71

Harvard, 2009

Avatar for ravipappu

ravipappu

March 20, 2013

Transcript

  1. RFID Privacy Without Killing Ravi Pappu Co-Founder / Head of

    Advanced Development ThingMagic Inc. Joint work with Ari Juels (RSA, CUSP) and Bryan Parno (CMU) 1 © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb 2009 / US and International Patents Pending
  2. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Overview • History • Reality Search Engines • State of the art in long-range reading • Tiny Secret Sharing (aka RFID privacy without killing) 2
  3. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending 3
  4. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending manipulatory ambulatory vista extra-sensory (over the horizon, in hard drives, on Pluto etc.) ~1.5m ~30m depends on env. A Taxonomy of Space 4 Used with permission of Dr. Wendy Plesniak, Spatial Interaction With Haptic Holograms, PhD Thesis, MIT, 2001.
  5. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending RFID-Enabled Shopping Carts 5
  6. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Tool Link 6
  7. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Tool Link 7
  8. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Tool Link 8
  9. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Tool Link 9
  10. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Ambulatory → Manipulatory transition 10 Used with permission of Dr. Matt Reynolds, Duke University
  11. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Physical limits of passive UHF RFID 11
  12. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Reading a passive tag at 65 m 12
  13. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Eavesdropping at 65 meters 13
  14. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Radar range equation 14 d = (GrGt 2 4⇥2 )(Pr Pt ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 2005 2006 2007 2008 Tag Power Consumption µW Demo
  15. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending 15 PowerBook G4 Passports Currency Smart cards Computing devices Keys and access devices Transit tickets
  16. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending 16 Threat Contexts
  17. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Object Hierarchies 17 1. Factory 2. Distribution Center 3. De- & Re-Palletization and transportation 4. Backroom of retail store 5. Store shelf 6. Individual consumers Physically secured areas Open areas 90 cases with 72 items each 90 cases with 72 items each 10 cases with 72 items each Between 72 and 144 items Typically less than 10 items TIME Razor blades 6571 730 144 5 DVDs 5040 2520 400 24 Pharma. 7200 1920 150 6 Source: EPCGlobal Item Level JRG
  18. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Observations 18 1. Factory 2. Distribution Center 3. De- & Re-Palletization and transportation 4. Backroom of retail store 5. Store shelf 6. Individual consumers Physically secured areas Open areas 90 cases with 72 items each 90 cases with 72 items each 10 cases with 72 items each Between 72 and 144 items Typically less than 10 items TIME Tags start out in large collections which become smaller over time. Larger collections of tags are typically located in secure areas. Shared context from earlier times is not available at later times to adversary.
  19. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Challenges in present-day RFID • Key management ‣ Gen2 RFID tags have two tag-specific operations that need 32-bit secret keys - (Perma)LOCK and KILL. ‣ (Perma)LOCK can be carried out at manufacture time, but KILL PINs need to be available at killing time. ‣ Making KILL pins available at the correct spacetime coordinate is operationally difficult. • Encryption or authentication ‣ Not present in current generation. ‣ Subject of ongoing research. 19
  20. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Key question • Can we exploit the three observations to provide strong privacy in RFID-enabled supply chains? • Yes! In order to do so, we turn to a cryptographic method called secret sharing. 20
  21. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Programming R. Rivest Techniques Editor How to Share a Secret Adi Shamir Massachusetts Institute of Technology In this paper we show how to divide data D into n pieces in such a way that D is easily reconstructable from any k pieces, but even complete knowledge of k - 1 pieces reveals absolutely no information about D. This technique enables the construction of robust key management schemes for cryptographic systems that can function securely and reliably even when misfor- tunes destroy half the pieces and security breaches ex- pose all but one of the remaining pieces. Key Words and Phrases: cryptography, key manage- ment, interpolation CR Categories: 5:39, 5.6 1. Introduction In [4], Liu considers the following problem: Eleven scientists are working on a secret project. They wish to lock up the documents in a cabinet so that the cabinet can be opened if and only if six or more of the scientists are present. What is the smallest number of locks needed? What is the smallest number of keys to the locks each scientist must carry? It is not hard to show that the minimal solution uses 462 locks and 252 keys per scientist. These numbers are clearly impractical, and they become exponentially worse when the number of scientists increases. In this paper we generalize the problem to one in which the secret is some data D (e.g., the safe combina- Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for direct commer- cial advantage, the ACM copyright notice and the title of the publica- tion and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permis- sion of the Association for Computing Machinery. To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee and/or specific permission. Author's present address: A. Shamir, Laboratory for Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139. This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research under contract no. N00014-76-C-0366. @1979 ACM 0001-0782/79/1100-0612 $00.75. tion) and manipulate this data) divide D into n pieces D, ..... (1) knowledge of any k or more easily computable; (2) knowledge of any k- 1 or fewer Di pieces leaves completely undetermined (in the sense that all its possible values are equally likely). Such a scheme is called a (k, n) threshold scheme. Efficient threshold schemes can be very helpful in the management of cryptographic keys. In order to protect data we can encrypt it, but in order to protect the encryp- tion key we need a different method (further encryptions change the problem rather than solve it). The most secure key management scheme keeps the key in a single, well-guarded location (a computer, a human brain, or a safe). This scheme is highly unreliable since a single misfortune (a computer breakdown, sudden death, or sabotage) can make the information inaccessible. An ob- vious solution is to store multiple copies of the key at dif- ferent locations, but this increases the danger of security breaches (computer penetration~ betrayal, or human er- rors). By using a (k, n) threshold scheme with n = 2k- 1 we get a very robust key management scheme: We can recover the original key even when [n/2J = k- 1 of the n pieces are destroyed, but our opponents cannot reconstruct the key even when security breaches expose [n/21 = k- 1 of the remaining k pieces. In other applications the tradeoff is not between secrecy and reliability, but between safety and conve- nience of use. Consider, for example, a company that digitally signs all its checks (see RSA [5]). If each ex- ecutive is given a copy of the company's secret signature key, the system is convenient but easy to misuse. If the cooperation of all the company's executives is necessary in order to sign each check, the system is safe but in- convenient. The standard solution requires at least three signatures per check, and it is easy to implement with a (3, n) threshold scheme. Each executive is given a small magnetic card with one Di piece, and the company's signature generating device accepts any three of them in order to generate (and later destroy) a temporary copy of the actual signature key D. The device does not contain any secret information and thus it need not be protected against inspection. An unfaithful executive must have at least two accomplices in order to forge the company's signature in this scheme. Threshold schemes are ideally suited to applications in which a group of mutually suspicious individuals with conflicting interests must cooperate. Ideally we would like the cooperation to be based on mutual consent, but the veto power this mechanism gives to each member can paralyze the activities of the group. By properly choos- ing the k and n parameters we can give any sufficiently large majority the authority to take some action while giving any sufficiently large minority the power to block it. 612 Communications November 1979 of Volume 22 the ACM Number 11 Secret Secret Sharing 21 Shares In practice, secrets are shared by evaluating polynomials over finite fields.
  22. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending (n, n) secret sharing 22 Secret Shares All n shares required to recover secret No information revealed if fewer than n shares available Developed independently by Shamir and Blakely in 1979.
  23. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending (k, n) secret sharing 23 Secret Shares Any k out of n shares are sufficient to recover secret. No information revealed if fewer than k shares are available.
  24. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending (k, n) secret sharing 24 Secret Shares Any k out of n shares are sufficient to recover secret. No information revealed if fewer than k shares are available.
  25. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Our approach 25 t1 t2 t3 t4 tn-3 tn-2 tn-1 tn . . Pallet of n tags Pallet of n tags E(K, t1) E(K, t2) E(K, t3) E(K, t4) E(K, tn-3) E(K, tn-2) E(K, tn-1) E(K, tn) s1 s2 s3 s4 sn-3 sn-2 sn-1 sn . . Encrypt all tags using a pallet-specific secret key K. Append a share of the secret to each tag.
  26. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending E(K, tn) sn encryption method share size System level challenges 26 K s1 s2 s3 s4 sn-3 sn-2 sn-1 sn (k, n) sharing key length Need to decide encryption method, key size, sharing/recovery algorithm, share size
  27. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Practical requirements • Share size has to be tiny, because tag memory is at a premium ‣ Krawczyk (1994) focused on short shares, but even these are 128 bits long. ‣ Current capacity on commodity EPC Gen2 tags is 96 bits 㱺Tiny Secret Sharing (TSS) • Sharing and recovery algorithms have to be computationally efficient. • System should be robust against ‣ changes in the order of tag reading i.e. permutation invariance ‣ sub-100% read rates ‣ stray reads (or counterfeits) 27
  28. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending ■ Peanut Butter (70 Tag Pallet) ■ Cooking Oil (40 Tag Pallet) 28 Mercury5 read performance Improved read performance 㱺 stray reads from adjacent dock door These are errors sub-100% reads These are erasures
  29. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending J Sor. IXDI~JT. .\PPL. MATII. Vol. 8, No. 2, June, 1960 Printed in U.S.A. POLYNOMIAL CODES OVER CERTAIN FINITE FIELDS*t I. S. REED AXD G. SOLOLIOS$ Introduction. X code is a mapping from a vector space of dimei~sion orer a finite field K (denoted by V,(K)) into a rector space of high dimension n > m orer the same field ( V ,(K)). K is usually taker1 elemei~ts Zz, ill which case it is a nlapping of m-tuple n-tuples of binary digits. If one trallsnlits "redundailt" and allow one to recove the signal during multiple Reed-Solomon Codes 29 • codes over • Total number of symbols = number of tags = • Symbols required to recover message = threshold number of tags = • Code can detect and correct upto errors = stray tags or counterfeits • Code can detect and correct upto erasures = missed tags • With stray tags and missed tags, code can correct as long as • This formulation is identical to secret sharing • Encoding and decoding are efficient on low-powered machines n k s = (d/2) r = (d 1) 2s + r < d s r (k, n) (n, k, d) GF(2m)
  30. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending The whole idea! 30 The code E. Consider the field Ii = &(a). This is the vector space over 2 2 with basis 1,a, a2, .. . ,a'"', where a is the root of a suitable irreducible polynomial over Z2 . The nonzero elements of K form a multiplicative cyclic group. Thus we may represent the elements of K in the order 0, p, p2, ... ,pzn-z, pZn-l = 1 where p is a generator of the multiplicative cyclic group. Let P ( L ) = a. + ala + a2.? + .. . +a,-,z"'-'. The code E sends Upon receiving the message (T'(O), f'(p), . . . , I'(1)), we may decode the message by solving simultaneously any n z of the 2" ecluations, We iiote that any m of these equations are linearly independent since the coezcient deternlinant for, say, P(al), . .. ,P(a,,,), is which is a Vaiidermonde determinant whose value is Thus in the case of no errors in the received values of P ( . ) , we obtain c) determinations of (a0 , . . . ,am-1),
  31. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Permutation invariance • RS codes originally invented to solve digital communication problems • Order of code symbols is usually preserved • In RFID, code symbols are always permuted, because order of tag reading is based on randomization at the MAC layer. • In order to use RS codes, we also need to make the symbol index available at destination. 31 (s1, s2, s3.....sn 2, sn 1, sn ) (s1, s2, s3.....sn 2, sn 1, sn ) (s1, s2, s3.....sn 2, sn 1, sn ) (s6, s1, sn 4.....sn, s7, s3 ) ({s6, 6}, {s1, 1}, {sn 4, (n 4)}.....{sn, n}, {s7, 7}, {s3, 3})
  32. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Permutation invariance 2 32 E(K, t1) s1 . . 1 E(K, t2) s2 2 E(K, tn-1) sn-1 n-1 E(K, tn) sn n Instead of adding separate index, use uniqueness of the EPC to generate symbol index on the fly via hashing E(K, t1) sH(E(K, t 1 )) . . E(K, t2) E(K, tn-1) E(K, tn) sH(E(K, t2)) sH(E(K, tn-1)) sH(E(K, tn))
  33. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Field size • Field size needs to be chosen to avoid index collisions. • If we have tags, then or 33 GF(2m) n # of tags n # of bits in shares m 50 12 256 16 1000 20 10000 27 2m n2 m log2 (n2) E(K, t1) sH(E(K, t 1 )) E(K, t2) sH(E(K, t 2 )) Need to avoid collisions
  34. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending (15, 20) TSS scheme over GF(216) 34
  35. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending RFID privacy without killing 35 1. Factory 2. Distribution Center 3. De- & Re-Palletization and transportation 4. Backroom of retail store 5. Store shelf 6. Individual consumers Physically secured areas Open areas 90 cases with 72 items each 90 cases with 72 items each 10 cases with 72 items each Between 72 and 144 items Typically less than 10 items TIME 5D6DB3D6542E639DBE7 887152910AA35F41B16 4810173CE1D54018A95 2A270639D6C61E0A265 34FFE1E967C6BB3BC2A B3E86A5CD1EF786F569 3A8D61B1BB9CD00875A BFCF15BD0F4B72AED24 69189CCC9A252FBEB8A 81CF361BCE64D96A288 AEA88CEDD280D1151E6 110deadbeefdeadbeef 200deadbeefdeadbeef 500deadbeefdeadbeef 190deadbeefdeadbeef 130deadbeefdeadbeef 160deadbeefdeadbeef 120deadbeefdeadbeef 170deadbeefdeadbeef 100deadbeefdeadbeef 180deadbeefdeadbeef 700deadbeefdeadbeef 4810173CE1D54018A95 BFCF15BD0F4B72AED24 69189CCC9A252FBEB8A 2A270639D6C61E0A265 AEA88CEDD280D1151E6 5D6DB3D6542E639DBE7 ?
  36. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Real-world example • 200 tag pallet • 2 - 3% (i.e. 4 - 6 tags) read failure (erasures) • 3 - 10 stray tags or errors • (200, 170) RS code can correct up to 29 erasures or 15 errors and is sufficient in this situation - but we need 170 tags to recover secret. • However, a (200, 40) RS code will also suffice from a privacy perspective, but provide much more robustness against errors and erasures.
  37. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Underinformed adversaries • Possess less than the threshold number of shares • When , there’s a single unique solution (Berlekamp, Welch 1986) that can be obtained in polynomial time. • When , RS decoding conjectured to be infeasible (Guruswami, Sudan 1999) 37 d > (n k)/2 d < n (k 1)n
  38. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Overinformed adversaries • Possess shares from multiple instances (i.e., pallets) • This can be simulated by replacing legitimate shares with random values (i.e., chaff) • The choice of is a tradeoff between security against an overinformed attacker and error tolerance ‣ If , an adversary who recovers unlabelled shares from two secrets has shares - possibly greater than the threshold - but a legitimate receiver can still tolerate errors. • Formal hardness of recovering secret in this scenario is an open problem and the subject of ongoing research. 38 0 < < d/2 = d/3 2d/3 d/2 d/3 = d/6
  39. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Extensions • Secret sharing across time aka SWISS or Sliding Window Information Secret Sharing (Juels, Pappu, Parno 2008) ‣ Sender emits shares periodically on pallets ‣ Receiver needs to collect k out of any n shares to recover. ‣ Easy for legitimate receivers, but adversaries have a problem. ‣ Preprint available at http://eprint.iacr.org/2008/044 or in USENIX Security 2008. • This technique can be extended to leverage entire history of interactions between sender and receiver ‣ Shared context and/or history is not available to adversary 39
  40. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Related work • Secret sharing ‣ Information-theoretic: Share size = secret size (Shamir 1979, Blakely 1979) ‣ Computational: Share size = key size (Krawczyk 1994, Bellare and Rogaway 2007) • Secret sharing in RFID ‣ Multiple shares with delayed release on a single tag (Langheinrich and Marti, 2007) 40
  41. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending Summary • Tiny Secret Sharing (TSS) enables RFID privacy without killing • Encryption key length is a free-variable - security can be tailored. • TSS is protocol-independent and offline - no network or bidirectional communication channel required. • The only resources needed are tag memory and some computing power at reader • TSS allows use of standard cryptographic mechanisms for encryption and hashing • TSS fits naturally in many supply-chain scenarios where we have less than 100% reads and where stray tags or counterfeits are present and it scales to item-level tagging • TSS solves key-management problem - enables privacy and write/lock PIN distribution. 41
  42. © 2009 Ravi Pappu / Security Seminar, Harvard / Feb

    2009 / US and International Patents Pending “....I’m still confused, but on a higher level.” Enrico Fermi 42