Category: Internet matters

The following is the article I submitted as part of my application for the Richard Casement internship at The Economist. My hope was to demonstrate an ability to deal with a very technical subject in a comprehensible way. This post will be automatically published once the contest has closed in all time zones.

Cryptography
Making a hash of things

Oxford
A contest to replace a workhorse of computer security is announced

While Julius Caesar hoped to prevent the hostile interception of his orders through the use of a simple cipher, modern cryptography has far more applications. One of the key drivers behind that versatility is an important but little-known tool called a hash function. These consist of algorithms that take a particular collection of data and generate a smaller ‘fingerprint’ from it. That can later be used to verify the integrity of the data in question, which could be anything from a password to digital photographs collected at a crime scene. Hash functions are used to protect against accidental changes to data, such as those caused by file corruption, as well as intentional efforts at fraud. Cryptographer and security expert Bruce Schneier calls hash functions “the workhorse of cryptography” and explains that: “Every time you do something with security on the internet, a hash function is involved somewhere.” As techniques for digital manipulation become more accessible and sophisticated, the importance of such verification tools becomes greater. At the same time, the emergence of a significant threat to the most commonly used hashing algorithm in existence has prompted a search for a more secure replacement.

Hash functions modify data in ways subject to two conditions: that it be impossible to work backward from the transformed or ‘hashed’ version to the original, and that multiple originals not produce the same hashed output. As with standard cryptography (in which unencrypted text is passed through an algorithm to generate encrypted text, and vice versa), the standard of ‘impossibility’ is really one of impracticability, given available computing resources and the sensitivity of the data in question. The hashed ‘fingerprint’ can be compared with a file and, if they still correspond, the integrity of the file is affirmed. Also, computer systems that store hashed versions of passwords do not pose the risk of yielding all user passwords in plain text form, if the files containing them are accidentally exposed of maliciously infiltrated. When users enter passwords to be authenticated, they can be hashed and compared with the stored version, without the need to store the unencrypted form. Given the frequency of ‘insider’ attacks within organizations, such precautions benefit both the users and owners of the systems in question.

Given their wide range of uses, the integrity of hash functions has become important for many industries and applications. For instance, they are used to verify the integrity of software security updates distributed automatically over the Internet. If malicious users were able to modify a file in a way that did not change the ‘fingerprint,’ as verified through a common algorithm, it could open the door to various kinds of attack. Alternatively, malicious users who could work backward from hashed data to the original form could compromise systems in other ways. They could, for instance, gain access to the unencrypted form of all the passwords in a large database. Since most people use the same password for several applications, such an attack could lead to further breaches. The SHA-1 algorithm, which has been widely used since 1995, was significantly compromised in February 2005. This was achieved by a team led by Xiaoyun Wang and primarily based at China’s Shandong University. In the past, the team had demonstrated attacks against MD5 and SHA: hash functions prior to SHA-1. Their success has prompted calls for a more durable replacement.

The need for such a replacement has now led the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology to initiate a contest to devise a successor. The competition is to begin in the fall of 2008, and continue until 2011. Contests like the one ongoing have a promising history in cryptography. Notably, the Advanced Encryption Standard, which was devised as a more secure replacement to the prior Data Encryption Standard, was decided upon by means of an open competition between fifteen teams of cryptographers between 1997 and 2000. At least some of those disappointed in that contest are now hard at work on what they hope will become one of the standard hash functions of the future.