Intercepting Mobile Communications

From: Masaharu Kobashi (mkbsh@cs.washington.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 23 2004 - 20:38:57 PST

  • Next message: Shobhit Raj Mathur: "review of paper 26"

    1. Main result of the paper

       This paper reveals critical flaws of WEP in the 802.11 standard,
       which can lead to failure to achieve all of the three goals of WEP,
       confidentiality, access control, and data integrity. The paper
       presents the argument clearly and suggests improvements to WEP.

    2. Strengths in this paper

       The paper has made great contribution to all the network users across
       the world, since it detected vital flaws of the widely used protocol.

       The presentation of the argument is clear, concise and convincing.
       In addition it proposes remedies to the protocol to make it safer and
       to enable it to achieve the original three goals.

       The paper is also very good and unusual in pointing out the
       sociological problems in the current practice of standardizing
       security related protocols, stressing the importance of public review
       and raising the problem of financial burden on the researchers.

    3. Limitations and suggested improvements

       It focuses on the reuse of IV (initialization vector) as the major
       cause of the troubles. It is correct reuse of IV is a big problem.
       But the authors do not go beyond it to finding other common causes.

       I find the property of XOR (e.g. linearity) is also a great cause of
       the problems raised in the paper. If XOR operation were not used or
       it did not have the property of linearity, all of the problems would
       be eliminated regardless of any reuse of IV, since without the
       linearity of XOR, all the derivations listed on pages 182 and 184
       would not be possible. Without those derivations, the eavesdropping
       would be impossible. Even the checksum related attacks and the
       injection of new traffic would not be possible since those attacks
       are also based, although indirectly, upon the keystream related
       properties made available by the XOR's linearity.

       Therefore, I would suggest not just focusing only on the reuse of IV,
       the authors should broaden their scope of thinking to include the
       possibility of eliminating other great common causes such as the use
       of XOR. XOR is great in terms of speed. But we can use other methods
       such as reordering of bits, etc., although they may need more
       computing power. (The cost of computing power is rapidly decreasing.)

    4. Relevance today and future
     
       It is quite relevant today and it is vitally important to incorporate
       the authors' suggestions and lessons into the future protocols.
       (I guess it has already. If not, I would be curious to know why not.)
      


  • Next message: Shobhit Raj Mathur: "review of paper 26"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Tue Nov 23 2004 - 20:38:58 PST