Survey of universal authentication protocol for mobile communication

ISSN 2319 – 1953
International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science Applications and Management Studies
IJSRCSAMS
Volume 1, Issue 3 (NOVEMBER 2012) www.ijsrcsams.com
Survey of Universal Authentication Protocols
Abdurahem El Atmen Igrair#1
, Ahmad Sharifi*2
, Mohsen Khosravi@3
, G.PraveenBabu^4
#
School OfInformation Technology,Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad, India
*
School Of Information Technology,Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad, India
@
Faculty of Information and Communication Technolog, International Islamic university Malaysia (IIUM)
^
School Of Information Technology, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad, India
1
abdurahem@ieee.org
2
ahmadsharifi@ieee.org
3
mohsen.khosravi@live.iium.edu.my
4
pravbob@jntuh.ac.in
Abstract— The past two decades have seen an enormous increase
in the development and use of networked and distributed
systems, providing increased functionality to the user and more
efficient use of resources. To obtain the benefits of such systems
parties will cooperate by exchanging messages over networks.
The parties may be users, hosts or processes; they are generally
referred to as principals in authentication literature. Principals
use the messages received, together with certain modelling
assumptions about the behaviour of other principals to make
decisions on how to act. These decisions depend crucially on what
validity can be assumed of messages that they receive. Loosely
speaking, when we receive a message, we want to be sure that it
has been created recently and in good faith for a particular
purpose by the principal who claims to have sent it. We must be
able to detect when a message has been created or modified by a
malicious principal or intruder with access to the network or
when a message was issued some time ago or for a different
purpose and is currently being replayed on the network.
Keywords— Networks, Mobile, Security, Authentication,
Protocol
I. INTRODUCTION
An authentication protocol may be a sequence of message
exchanges between principals that either distributes secrets to
a number of those principals or permits the utilization of some
secret to be recognized. At the tip of the protocol the
principals concerned could deduce sure properties regarding
the system; as an example, that solely sure principals have
access to specific secret info generally cryptanalytic keys or
that a selected principal is operational. they'll then use this
info to verify claims regarding resultant communication, as an
example, a received message encrypted with a fresh
distributed key should are created once distribution of that key
then is timely.
A considerable number of authentication protocols have
been specified and implemented. The area is, however,
remarkably subtle and many protocols have been shown to be
flawed a long time after they were published. The Needham
Schroeder Conventional Key Protocol was published in 1978
and became the basis for many similar protocols in later years.
In 1981, Denning and Sacco demonstrated that the protocol
was flawed and proposed an alternative protocol. This set the
general trend for the field. The authors of both papers
suggested other protocols based on public key cryptography.
In 1994, Martin Abadi demonstrated that the public key
protocol of Denning and Sacco was flawed. In 1995, Lowe
demonstrated an attack on the public key protocol of
Needham and Schroeder seventeen years after its publication.
In the intervening years, a whole host of protocols have been
specified and found to be flawed [1].
This report describes what forms of protocols are nominal
and descriptions what ways are wont to analyse them.
additionally, it provides a outline of the ways that during
which protocols are found to fail. there's an outsized quantity
of fabric within the field, and therefore the main body of this
document is meant as a telegraphic introduction to and survey
of the sector. Some kinds of protocol square measure given
very little elaborate attention, significantly those that consider
number-theoretic properties for his or her security. it's
envisaged that future editions of this report can offer an entire
coverage. Associate in Nursing annotated list is enclosed to
guide the reader. Since authentication depends heavily on
coding and secret writing to attain its goals we have a
tendency to conjointly offer a quick review of parts of
cryptography.
II. PROTOCOL RESOURCES
Due to Authentication never stands still! This paper is
intended as a compendium of useful information related to
authentication. Hopefully, this will be useful to researchers
and protocol designers alike. However, the authors hope to
make this a "living document" and update it as comments
from the community are received. The authors welcome
suggestions for inclusions in future editions omissions,
necessary corrections, new protocols, new attacks etc [2].

ISSN 2319 – 1953
IJSRCSAMS
III. CRYPTOGRAPHIC PREREQUISITES
Cryptographic mechanisms square measure elementary to
authentication protocols. Suppose that we've some message
text P that we tend to want to transmit over the network. P is
usually mentioned as plaintext or a datagram. A science rule
converts P to a type that's unintelligible to anyone observation
the network. This conversion method is termed coding. The
unintelligible type is thought as cipher text or a written
material. The precise style of the written material C admire a
plaintext P depends on a further parameter K referred to as the
key. The meant receiver of a written material C might need to
recover the first plaintext P. To do this, a second key K-1 is
employed to reverse the method. This reverse method is
thought as decoding. Encryption and decryption are depicted
in fig.1.
Fig. 1. Encryption and decryption
The classes of encryption and decryption algorithms used
are generally assumed to be public knowledge. [2] By
restricting appropriately who has access to the various keys
involved we can limit the ability to form cipher texts and the
ability to determine the plaintexts corresponding to cipher
texts.
IV.SYMMETRIC KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY
In symmetric key cryptography the encryption key K and
the decryption key K-1
are easily obtainable from each other
by public techniques. Usually they are identical and we shall
generally assume that this is the case. The key K is used by a
pair of principals to encrypt and decrypt messages to and from
each other. Of course, anyone who holds the key can create
cipher texts corresponding to arbitrary plaintexts and read the
contents arbitrary cipher text messages. To ensure security of
communication this key is kept secret between the
communicating principals. Following established convention
we shall use the notation Kab to denote a key intended for
communication between principals A and B using a
symmetric key cryptosystem.
V. CLASSIC CRYPTOGRAPHY
Classical cryptography has used rhombohedral keys.
generally classical ciphers are either substitution or
transposition ciphers or a mix and have worked on text
characters. A substitution cipher substitutes a cipher text
character for a plaintext character. A transposition cipher
shuffles plaintext characters. The precise substitutions and
transpositions created area unit outlined by the key. Examples
embrace easy, homophonic, poly-alphabetic and PolyGram
substitution ciphers and straightforward permutation ciphers
e.g. wherever consecutive teams of N characters area unit
permuted within the same means. parts of transposition and
substitution area unit enclosed in modern-day algorithms too.
it's not our intention to survey classical approaches to
cryptography. associate elementary introduction has been
made by Catoptrophorus semipalmatus.
VI.MODERN DAY CRYPTOGRAPHY
Modern-day centrosymmetric key algorithms ar in the main
block ciphers or stream ciphers. A block cipher can code a
block of plaintext bits at a time. the simplest known block
cipher is that the omnipresent encoding normal, universally
spoken as DES. This has been a massively arguable rule. The
contestation has centred on whether or not the effective key
length fifty six bits, reduced from 128 at the insistence of the
National Security Agency is de facto sufficient to resist
attacks from modern computing power, and over the planning
of parts referred to as S-boxes the planning criteria weren't
created public. it's price noting that the rule is remarkably
proof against attack victimization the revealed state-of-the art
cryptanalytics technique referred to as differential
cryptanalytics discovered by Biham and Shamir in 1988. As
disclosed by artisan in 1994 this was as a result of the
technique was known to the designers of DES back in 1974
after all, during this survey we are able to solely inquire into
what's in public known [4].
Other examples of block ciphers are MADRYGA efficient
for software implementation and operate on 8-bit blocks;
NEWDES operates on 64- bit blocks but with a 120-bit key,
FEAL-N, RC2 and RC4 by Ronald Rivest and IDEA by Lai
and Massey. Schneier has written a readable account of the
IDEA algorithm. A very good overview of block ciphers and
others can be found in Schneier's general cryptography text.
VII. MODES OF BLOCK CIPHER USAGE
Due there are several modes in which a block cipher can be
used. Principal ones are:
 Electronic Code Book (ECB)
 Cipher Block Chaining (CBC)
 Cipher Feedback Mode (CFB)
 Output Feedback Mode (OFB)
ECB is that the simplest mode. Consecutive blocks of
plaintext area unit merely encrypted victimization the

ISSN 2319 – 1953
IJSRCSAMS
algorithmic rule. Thus, identical blocks of plaintext area unit
invariably encrypted within the same means with a similar
result. Its security has to be questioned for specific contexts.
Associate in Nursing analyst could also be ready to build up a
codebook of plaintext-cipher text pairs either noted or as a
result of he will apply cryptographical strategies to derive the
plaintexts. Also, it's potential to change messages e.g. by
merely commutation Associate in Nursing encrypted block
with another [4].
Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) may be a comparatively
sensible methodology of encrypting many blocks of
information with associate degree algorithmic rule for
encrypting one block. it's one mode within which the wide
used encoding commonplace (DES) is utilized. Block i of
plain text is exclusively-ored hereafter XORed with block i -
one of cipher text and is then encrypted with the keyed block
encoding perform to make block i of cipher text.
A. Stream Ciphers
Stream ciphers code one little bit of plaintext at a time. the
same old approach is to get alittle stream and to XOR sequent
bits with sequent bits of plaintext. Clearly we should always
want the bit-stream created to be as random as doable. Indeed,
a massive quantity of labor into pseudo-random stream
generation has been meted out. The streams created depend
upon a key in how if identical streams were created anytime
then scientific discipline becomes straightforward. A key
stream generator contains a finite state machine associate
degreed an output perform. Fig. 2. shows 2 basic approaches
to bit-stream generation:
Fig. 2. Two basic approaches to bit-stream generation:
Output feedback mode where the value of the key affects
the next state and the output function is pretty straightforward;
and counter mode where the key affects the output function
and the next state is straightforward, typically a counter
increment. It is also possible to use block ciphers as key
stream generators e.g. use Counter Mode and select the
leftmost bit of the encrypted block output [5].
VIII. PUBLIC KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY
In public key cryptography there is no shared secret
between communicating parties. The first publication on the
topic was the classic paper by Whitfield Diffie and Martin
Hellman in 1976. In public key encryption each principal A is
associated with some key pair (Ka, K-1
). The public key
Ka is made publicly available but the principal A does not
reveal the private key Ka-1
. Any principal can encrypt a
message M using Ka and only principal A can then decrypt it
using K-1.
Thus, the secrecy of messages to A can be ensured.
Some public key algorithms allow the private key to be used
to encrypt plaintext with the public key being used to decrypt
the corresponding cipher text. If a cipher text C decrypts using
Ka to a meaningful plaintext message P then it is assumed that
the cipher text must have been created by A using the key K-1
.
This can be used to guarantee the authenticity of the message.
The most widely known public key algorithm that allows such
use was developed by Rivest, Shamir and Adleman and is
universally referred to as RSA. Such algorithms are often said
to provide a digital signature capability. Simply encrypting
using a private key does not constitute a signature. Various
checks must also be made by the receiver.
The RSA algorithm works as follows:
1. Pick two large primes p and q, let n =p * q
2. Choose e relatively prime to = (p - 1) * (q - 1)
3. Use Euclid's algorithm to generate a d such that e * d = 1
mod
4. Make the pair (n, e) publicly available. This is the public
key. The private key is d.
5. A message block M is now encrypted by calculating C =
Me
mod n.
6. The encrypted block C is decrypted by calculating M =
Cd
mod n.
Here encryption and decryption are the same operation
modular exponentiation. A sender A can communicate with B
preserving secrecy and ensuring authenticity by first signing a
message using his own private key K-1
and then encrypting the
result using B's public key Kb. B uses his private key to
decrypt and then uses A's public key to obtain the original
message. Public key algorithms tend to rely on the supposed
computational difficulty of solving certain problems e.g.
finding discrete logarithms for the Diffie Hellman algorithm
and finding prime factors for RSA. Again, key length is an
issue. Computing power is increasing rapidly and there have
been significant advances. For example, ten years ago 512 bit
keys for RSA were thought to be very secure; today 512 bits is
considered a minimum requirement and 1024 bits is often
recommended. Sheer processing capability also affects the
usability of public key encryption. Public key algorithms are
generally much slower than symmetric key algorithms.
Schneier gives a good account of relative speeds of
algorithms. There are some very useful and informative
papers that deal at least in part with public key cryptography.
Hellman provides an excellent introduction to public key

ISSN 2319 – 1953
IJSRCSAMS
cryptography and the underlying mathematics. Willet provides
a much higher level view. Gordon provides a good but simple
introduction. Diffie provides an exciting account of the first
decade of public key cryptography with a particularly good
account of the attacks on knapsacks. Brickell and Odlyzko
provide an account of various attacks on public key systems
and others. Other aspects are covered in Massey's informative
general paper on cryptology.
IX.ONE WAY HASH ALGORITHMS
We shall often require evidence that a message that has
been sent has not been subject to modification in any way.
Typically this is carried out using a hash function. A hash
function H when applied to a message M yields a value H (M)
of specific length known as the hash value of that message. H
(M) is often referred to as a message digest. The mapping of
messages to digests is one-way; given M and H (M) it should
be computationally infeasible to find M' such that H (M') =H
(M). The digest is a form of reduced message calculated using
a publicly known technique. A receiver of a message can
check whether a message and a corresponding digest agree.
Hash functions are largely intended for use in conjunction
with cryptography to provide signatures. If M is a message
then A can provide evidence to B that he created it, and that it
has not been tampered with, by calculating E(Kab : H(M)) and
sending the message M together with the newly calculated
encrypted hash value. On receiving the message, B can
calculate H (M) and thenE (Kab:H (M)) and check whether
the value agrees with the encrypted hash value received. Since
the amount of encryption is small this is a quite efficient
means to demonstrate authenticity assuming A and B do not
fake messages from the other.
A. Protocol Types
In this section we provide an overview of various forms of
authentication protocol in use today. At the highest level we
have categorized them according to the principal
cryptographic approach taken, i.e. symmetric key or public
key. We distinguish also between those that use one or more
trusted third parties to carry out some agreed function and
those that operate purely between two communicating
principals that wish to achieve some mode of authentication.
There are further distinctions that can be made: the number of
messages involved in the protocols e.g. one pass, two-pass,
three-pass etc. and whether one principal wishes to convince
the second of some matter one-way or unilateral
authentication or whether both parties wish to convince each
other of something two-way or mutual authentication. These
distinctions are also made by the ISO entity authentication
standards.
B. Symmetric Key without Trusted Third Party
Perhaps the simplest (and yet effective) example in this
class is the ISO One-pass Symmetric Key Unilateral
Authentication Protocol shown below. It consists of the single
message:
(1) A -->B:Text2, E (Kab: [Ta | Na],B, Text1)
Here the text fields shown are optional; their use is
implementation specific and we shall ignore them in this
discussion. We can see that the claimant A i.e. the one who
wishes to prove something sends an encrypted message
containing a nonce and the identifier of the verifier i.e. the
principal to whom the claim is made. The nonce may be a
timestamp Ta or a sequence number Na depending on the
capabilities of the environment and the communicating
principals. On receiving this message, B, who believes that the
key Kab is known only to himself and A, may deduce that A
has recently sent this message if the sequence number is
appropriate or if the timestamp has a recent value. Note here
that if a malicious principal has unfettered access to the
network medium then use of sequence numbers will be
insufficient since he can record message, prevent B from
receiving it, and replay it to B at a later time. The best-known
protocols that do not use a trusted third party are simple
challenge-response mechanisms. One principal A issues data
to a second principal B. B then carries out some
transformation and sends the result to A who checks to see if
the appropriate transformation has occurred. Fig. 3 shows a
simple challenge-response protocol. In this case the nonce Na
should be random. If the nonce were a sequence number, or
were otherwise predictable, a malicious principal could issue
the next nonce value to B and record the response. When A
genuinely issued the same nonce value at a later date the
intruder could replay Bs earlier response to complete the
protocol. A could conclude only that the message he receives
was created at some time by B but not necessarily in response
to his most recent challenge.
Fig. 3. A simple challenge-response protocol
There are other variations on the challenge-response theme.
Sometimes the challenge is encrypted, sometimes not;
sometimes it is random, sometimes predictable but never
before used. Gong highlights many issues associated with the
use of nonce for such purposes.
C. Symmetric Key with Trusted Third Party
Symmetric key protocols that use a trusted third party (TTP)
are by far the most numerous in the literature. The most
celebrated protocol of all time, the Needham Schroeder
Symmetric Key Authentication protocol is described below:
(1) A S:A,B,Na
(2) S A:E (Kas:Na,B,Kab,E (Kbs:Kab, A))
(3) A B:E (Kbs:Kab,A)

ISSN 2319 – 1953
IJSRCSAMS
(4) B A:E (Kab:Nb)
(5) A B:E (Kab:Nb, 1)
In this protocol A requests from the server S a key to speak
with B. He includes a random time being metallic element
generated specially for this run of the protocol. This time
being are going to be employed by A to confirm that message
is timely. S creates a key Kab and creates message. solely A
will decipher this message with success since he possesses the
key Kas. In doing therefore he can get the key Kab and ensure
the message contains the time being metallic element. A
passes on to B the encrypted message element E (Kbs:Kab, A)
as message [9].
Principal B decrypts this message to discover the key Kab
and that it is to be used for communication with A. He then
generates a nonce Nb, encrypts it using the newly obtained
key, and sends the result to A as message. Principal A, who
possesses the appropriate key Kab, decrypts it, forms Nb - 1,
encrypts it and sends the result back to B as message. B
decrypts this and checks the result is correct. The purpose of
this exchange is to convince B that A is genuinely operational
and that message was not simply the replay of an old message.
At the end of a correct run of the protocol, both principals
should be in possession of the secret key Kab newly generated
by the server S and should believe that the other principal has
the key. Rather, this is what the protocol is intended to
achieve.
X. PROTOCOL RESOURCES
Due Authentication never stands still! This report is
intended as a compendium of useful information related to
authentication. Hopefully, this will be useful to researchers
and protocol designers alike. However, the authors hope to
make this a "living document" and update it as comments
from the community are received. The authors welcome
suggestions for inclusions in future editions omissions,
necessary corrections, new protocols, new attacks etc.
XI.CONCLUSIONS
Protocol construction might seem a simple task; protocols
often comprise only a few messages. This is, however, clearly
deceptive and the examples we have shown above indicate
that the invention of secure protocols is a remarkably subtle
affair. The current explosion in distributed system
development and network usage means that there is a pressing
need for a framework and tool support for the rigorous
development and analysis of new security protocols. Although
significant advances have been made in recent years, there is
clearly some way to go! As Lowe has shown the same
mistakes seem to be made time after time. There are, however,
signs that the community is getting to grips with the matter at
hand. There is a gradual realization that it is the whole system
that is important and that a considerable number of factors
need to be taken into account. Anderson emphasizes the
management aspects in banks. Abadi and Needham take a
strong practical engineering approach providing ten useful
rules of thumb in their excellent general design guide. The
subtlety of some attacks indicates that a systematic (and
automated) approach to analysis is essential. The next section
indicates some of the methods and tools that have been used
to date.
REFERENCES
[1] H.-C. Hsiang and W.-K. Shih, “Improvement of the secure dynamic ID
based remote user authentication scheme for multi-server environment,”
Computer Standards & Interfaces, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1118-1123, 2009.
[2] T. Nakanishi and N. Funabiki, “Verifer-local revocation group signature
schemes with backward unlinkability from bilinear maps,” in Proc.
ASIACRYPT’05, LNCS, vol. 3788, pp. 533-548, 2005.
[3] M. Zhang and Y. Fang, “Security analysis and enhancements of 3GPP
authentication and key agreement protocol,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 734-742, 2005.
[4] C. C. Lee, M. S. Hwang, and I. E. Liao, “Security enhancement on a new
authentication scheme with anonymity for wireless environments,” IEEE
Trans. Consumer Electron., vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1683-1687, 2006.
[5] G. Yang, D. S. Wong, and X. Deng, “Anonymous and authenticated key
exchange for roaming networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 6, no.
9, pp. 3461-3472, 2007.
[6] C. C. Wu, W. B. Lee, and W. J. Tsaur, “A secure authentication scheme
with anonymity for wireless communications,” IEEE Commun. Lett, vol. 12,
no. 10, pp. 722-723, 2008.
[7] G. Yang, Q. Huang, D. S. Wong, and X. Deng, “Universal authentication
protocols for anonymous wireless communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 168-174, 2010.
[8] D. He, M. Ma, Y. Zhang, C. Chen, and J. Bu, “A strong user
authentication scheme with smart cards for wireless communications,”
Computer Commun., 2010, doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2010.02.031.
[9] D. Boneh and H. Shacham, “Group signatures with verifier-local
revocation,” in Proc. ACM CCS’04, pp. 168-177, 2004.

Survey of universal authentication protocol for mobile communication

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Survey of universal authentication protocol for mobile communication (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Survey of universal authentication protocol for mobile communication