Conventional Cryptographic Primitives

  • Vincent Rijmen


Modern network security systems contain cryptographic primitives as an essential building block. In this chapter, we discuss conventional cryptographic primitives, which are also known as symmetric primitives. The term “symmetric” stems from the fact that in order to use conventional primitives, all parties need to share the same set of secret keys. Hence, all parties have the same capabilities. This is not the case with asymmetric primitives, where some keys are known to one party only.


Hash Function Block Cipher Advance Encryption Standard Stream Cipher Message Authentication Code 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    M. Bellare, A. Desai, E. Jokipii, and P. Rogaway. “A concrete security treatment of symmetric encryption: Analysis of the DES modes of operation,” Proceedings of the 38th IEEE FOCS, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Bellare, A. Desai, E. Jokipii, and P. Rogaway. “A concrete security treatment of symmetric encryption,” Proceedings of the 38th symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, IEEE, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Canvel, A. Hiltgen, S. Vaudenay, and M. Vuagnoux. “Password interception in a SSL/TLS channel,” Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO’03, LNCS 2729, Springer, 2003, pp. 583–599.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. Courtois, and J. Pieprzyk. “Cryptanalysis of block ciphers with overdefined systems of equations,” Proceedings of Asiacrypt 2002, LNCS 2501, Springer, 2002, pp. 267–287.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Daemen, and V. Rijmen. The design of Rijndael; AES – Advanced Encryption Standard, ISBN 3-540-42580-2, Springer, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A.W. Dent, and C.J. Mitchell. User’s guide to cryptography and standards, Artech House, 2005.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. Diffie, and M.E. Hellman. “Exhaustive cryptanalysis of the NBS Data Encryption Standard,” Computer, 10, 1977, pp. 644–654.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Dobbertin. “Cryptanalysis of MD4,” Journal of Cryptology, 11(4):253–271, Springer, 1998.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Dworkin. “Recommendation for block cipher modes of operation,” NIST Special Publication 800-38A, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Cracking DES, ISBN: 1-56592-520-3, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Ferguson, D. Whiting, B. Schneier, J. Kelsey, S. Lucks, and T. Kohno. “Helix: fast encryption and authentication in a single cryptographi primitive,” Fast Software Encryption 2003, LNCS 2887, pp. 330–346, Springer, 2003,Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S.R. Fluhrer, and D.A. McGrew. “Statistical analysis of the alleged RC4 key stream generator,” Fast Software Encryption 2000, LNCS 1978, pp. 19–30, Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S.R. Fluhrer, I. Mantin, and A. Shamir. “Weaknesses in the key scheduling algorithm of RC4,” Selected Areas in Cryptography SAC2001, LNCS 2259, pp. 1–24, Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    V. Gligor, and P. Donescu. “Fast encryption and authentication: XCBC encryption and XECB authentication modes,” Fast Software Encryption 2001, LNCS 2355, pp. 92–108, Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Golic. “Linear statistical weakness of alleged RC4 key stream generator,” Advances in Cryptology – Proceedings of Eurocrypt 1997, LNCS 1233, pp. 226–238, Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Halevi, D. Coppersmith, and C.S. Jutla. “Scream: a software-efficient stream cipher,” Fast Software Encryption 2002, LNCS 2365, pp. 195–209, Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Jutla. “Encryption modes with almost free message integrity,” Advances in Cryptology Eurocrypt 2001, LNCS 2045, pp. 529–544, Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Joux, P. Carribault, W. Jalby, and C. Lemuet. “Full iterative differential collisions in SHA-0,” preprint.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    L.R. Knudsen, W. Meier, B. Preneel, V. Rijmen, and S. Verdoolaege. “Analysis methods for (alleged) RC4,” Advances in Cryptology – Proceedings of Asiacrypt 1998, LNCS 1514, pp. 327–341, Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. Mangard, T. Popp, and B.M. Gammel, “Side-Channel Leakage of Masked CMOS Gates,” Proceedings of CT-RSA 2005, LNCS 3376, Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    I. Mantin, and A. Shamir, “A practical attack on broadcast RC4,” Fast Software Encryption 2001, LNCS 2355, pp. 152–164, Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S.M. Matyas, C.H. Meyer, and J. Oseas. “Generating strong one-way functions with cryptographic algorithm,” IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, 27:5658–5659, 1985.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R.C. Merkle. “One-way hash functions and DES,” Advances in Cryptology – Proceedings of Crypto 1989, LNCS 435, pp. 428–446, Springer, 1990.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R.C. Merkle, and M.E. Hellman. “On the security of multiple encryption,” Communications of the ACM, 24:465–467, 1981.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Mister, and S.E. Tavares. “Cryptanalysis of RC4-like ciphers,” Selected Areas in Cryptography SAC 1998, LNCS 1556, pp. 131–143, Springer.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Murphy, and M.J.B. Robshaw. “Essential algebraic structure within the AES,” Proceedings of CRYPTO 2002, LNCS 2442, pp. 1–16, Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Peleg, and A. Rosenfeld. “Breaking substitution ciphers using a relaxation algorithm,” Communications of the ACM, 22(11):598–603, 1979.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    B. Preneel. “Cryptographic hash functions,” European Transactions on Telecommunications, 5:431–448, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    V. Rijmen, and E. Oswald. “Update on SHA-1,” Proceedings of CT-RSA 2005, LNCS 3376, pp. 58–71, Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R.L. Rivest. “The MD4 message digest algorithm,” Advances in Cryptology – Proceedings of Crypto 1990, LNCS 537, pp. 303-311, Springer, 1991.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    P. Rogaway, M. Bellare, J. Black, and T. Krovetz. “OCB: a block-cipher mode of operation for efficient authenticated encryption,” ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC), 6(3):365–403, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    P. Rogaway, and D. Coppersmith. “A software-optimised encryption algorithm,” Fast Software Encryption 1993, LNCS 809, pp. 56–63, Springer, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. Vaudenay. “Security flaws induced by CBC padding - applications to SSL, IPSEC, WTLS,” Advances in Cryptology – Proceedings of Eurocrypt 2002, LNCS 2332, pp. 534–545, Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    X. Wang, D. Feng, X. Lai, and H. Deng. “Collisions for hash functions MD4, MD5, HAVAL-128 and RIPEMD,” Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2004/199,
  35. 35.
    M.J. Wiener. “Efficient DES key search,” Technical Report TR-244, School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, 1994. Presented at the rump session of Crypto’93.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Wegmann, and J. Carter. “New hash functions and their use in authentication and set equality,” Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 22:265–279, 1981.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    ISO/IEC 10118-3:2003. Information technology – Security techniques – Hash-functions – Part 3: Dedicated hash-functions, 2003.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    LAN/MAN Standard Comittee. IEEE Standard for Information Technology - Telecommunications and Information Exchange between Systems - Local and Metropolitan Area Network - Specific Requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer specifications, (1999 edition), IEEE standard 802.11, 1999.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    US National Bureau of Standards. Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 46, Data Encryption Standard, 1977.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Federal Information Processing Standard 81, DES modes of operation, 1980.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    US National Institute of Standards and Technology. Federal Information Processing Standard 197, Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), 2001.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Federal Information Processing Standard 198, The keyed-hash message authentication code (HMAC), 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering/ESATKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations