RaviPappu-HowCamelsAreMade.pdf

Transcript

1. Who invented the RSA cryptosystem? Ravi, Shamir, and Ari (Actual answer on an exam at UMass) Security through non-existence rier between every pair of use ngle secure meeting between each user a oins the system. Another solution is to give each like a telephone directory) containing all the encryption keys V Our Encryption and Decryption Methods To encrypt a message M with our method, using a public encryption key (e, n), proceed as follows. (Here e and n are a pair of positive integers.) First, represent the message as an integer between 0 and n 1. (Break a long message into a series of blocks, and represent each block as such an integer.) Use any standard representation. The purpose here is not to encrypt the message but only to get it into the numeric form necessary for encryption. Then, encrypt the message by raising it to the eth power modulo n. That is, the result (the ciphertext C) is the remainder when Me is divided by n. To decrypt the ciphertext, raise it to another power d, again modulo n. The encryption and decryption algorithms E and D are thus: C ⇤ E(M) ⇤ Me (mod n), for a message M . D(C) ⇤ Cd (mod n), for a ciphertext C . Note that encryption does not increase the size of a message; both the message and the ciphertext are integers in the range 0 to n 1. The encryption key is thus the pair of positive integers (e, n). Similarly, the decryption key is the pair of positive integers (d, n). Each user makes his encryption y public, and keeps the corresponding decryption key private. (These integers perly be subscripted as in nA , eA , and dA , since each user has his own set. ly consider a typical set, and will omit the subscripts.) r encryption and decryption keys, if you want to use es p and q:
2. “A camel is a horse designed by a committee.” Sir Alec Issigonis, Designer of the Mini
3. How Camels Are Made Ravi Pappu / VP, Advanced Development Group ThingMagic, A Division of Trimble
4. © 2011 - 2015 Trimble Navigation Limited / All Rights Reserved Innovation: 2005 - 2010 Mobile phones ~3 m 16 dBm Mobile computers ~5 m Time
5. “Physics is your friend”
6. Law-breaking adversary PT x = +60dBm, GT x = +18dBi, GR x = 2.14dBi
7. Eavesdropping at 200 ft
8. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 RFID +PRIVACY +SECURITY +CRYPTO 184 775 508 1600 Citeseer Articles (2002 - 2011) http://www.avoine.net/rfid = 574
9. 0 75000 150000 225000 300000 375000 450000 525000 600000 2002 2003 2004 2005 515638 171594 71696 Character count Year Character count in EPC air protocol standards Class1 Class 0 Gen 2 y = 69028t1.4232 R2 = 0.9956
10. 0 70 140 210 280 350 420 490 560 630 700 2002 2003 2004 2005 640 80 140 Data rates Year Data Rates in EPC air protocol standards Class1 Class 0 Gen 2
11. Lock under password (16 to 32 bits) Kill under password (16 to 32 bits) Cover coding - password sent in clear Status is approximately Quo
12. Observations Increase in complexity of RFID systems Zero evaluation/adoption of published ideas in RFID security
13. Increase in complexity Rapid entry of old and new companies
14. US RFID Patents (2002 - 2011) 0 6000 12000 18000 24000 30000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 515 885 730 988 1640 1910 5500 7290 9230 13200 17000 294 1400 4140 7730 9250 22800 26300 26400 26100 25700 20300 11300 7740 Filed Issued
15. Increase in complexity Rapid entry of old and new companies Increasing set of use cases More precision in description
16. Weak adoption of new ideas Fundamentally different modes of invention between academia and standards committees
17. Organizational Forms Academia Committees Goals Diverse, implicit Shared, explicit Membership Open, voluntary Closed, contracted Authority Informal, meritocracy Formal, hierarchy Location Co-located Geographically diverse Behavior Emergent, independent Coordinated Legacy Not important Extremely important Investment Time and some $ $$$ Adapted from MacCormack et al. Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: A test of the mirroring hypothesis. (2008)
18. Raymond’s corollary “If you have four groups working on a compiler, you’ll get a 4-pass compiler” Eric S. Raymond (October 1996). The New Hacker's Dictionary - 3rd Edition.
19. Conway’s Law “Organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.” Melvin E. Conway, How do committees invent?, Datamation Magazine, April, 1968. MacCormack et al. Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: A test of the mirroring hypothesis. (2008)
20. Rent’s Rule Landman and Russo. On a pin versus block relationship for partitions of logic graphs. Computers, IEEE Transactions on (1971) vol. 100 (12) pp. 1469-1479
21. Conjecture Rent’s Rule applies to standards bodies. There exists a power law relating the size of the output of standards bodies to the size of their membership.
22. EPC Standards Process http://www.epcglobalus.org/Standards/StandardsDevelopmentProcess/tabid/210/Default.aspx
23. Early vision The Networked Physical World: Proposals for Engineering the Next Generation of Computing, Commerce & Automatic- Identification, Sarma, S; Brock, D. L., Ashton, K, MIT-AUTOID-WH-001.pdf, 2000
24. Tag Data Structure
25. EPC Binary Encoding
27. Reasons for optimism Individual companies are introducing security features as differentiators read protected EPC public / private profiles read range reduction sensor tags EPCGlobal is working on Gen2 V2
28. Sensor, Computational, and large memory RFID tags will continue to push security requirements - continue to invent! Novel connections between companies and academic research - standards apprentices Return to simple vision - do away with unused complexity. What next?
29. Maeda, J: http://www.lawsofsimplicity.com