On Some Weak Extensions of AES and BES
- 694 Downloads
In 2002, Murphy and Robshaw introduced an extension BES of AES and argued this could compromise the security of AES. We introduce here two block-ciphers CES and Big-BES that are some extensions of the AES and BES respectively in the spirit of Hensel lifting extensions. They are defined similarly to the AES respectively BES except that every operations are performed in a ring structure including the field GF(28). We show that the AES and BES can be embedded in their extensions. More precisely, by restricting these extensions on a given subset, we obtain a fully equivalent description of the AES and BES. Furthermore, we show that these natural extensions are trivially weak by describing a cryptanalysis of them despite it leads to no consequence about the security of AES or BES. This shows that (except the nice mathematical construction) the Murphy-Robshaw extension might be pointless.
KeywordsAES BES Rijndael
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Aoki, K., Vaudenay, S.: On the Use of GF-Inversion as a Cryptographic Primitive. Selected Areas in Cryptography (2003)Google Scholar
- 8.Lidl, R., Niederreiter, H.: Finite Fields. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 20. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
- 9.Matsui, M.: Linear Cryptanalysis method for DES Cipher. In: Helleseth, T. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1993. LNCS, vol. 765, pp. 386–397. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
- 10.Murphy, S., Robshaw, M.J.B.: New Observations on Rijndael, NISTAES website csrc.nist.gov/encryption/aes (August 2000)Google Scholar
- 12.National Institute of Standards and Technology, Advanced Encryption Standard, FIPS 197 (November 26, 2001)Google Scholar