Nowadays, almost anyone can produce a practically unbreakable "cipher," simply by repeatedly enciphering under various different well-known ciphers. Similarly, almost anyone can "cut down" or weaken a well-known design to run faster in software. So the modern practice of cryptography is thus not about strength or speed in the abstract, but instead about tradeoffs between strength, speed, and other cipher features. In particular, scalability supports experimental analysis of cipher strength which is simply impossible on full-size ciphers. And flexibility can improve system performance in ways not anticipated in typical cipher-speed tests.
Everyone wants a practical cipher which is proven "absolutely secure," but such a cipher does not exist, and probably never will. Even the famed "unbreakable" one-time pad (OTP) is mainly a theoretical concept: The OTP which is proven "unconditionally secure" is not the realized OTP which is used in practice, but instead the theoretical OTP which has an ideal theoretical-class random keying source. We cannot build such a source, but even if we could, we could not prove it, and absolute proof is required for mathematical-level guarantees. None of this prevents a cipher from being effectively unbreakable, of course, it just means that we cannot expect to attain theoretical ideals in the real world.
There is NO theory of cipher strength such that, if we only follow the rules, we are guaranteed a strong cipher. Nobody who will talk can even measure the strength of an arbitrary cipher. This means that cipher construction is fundamentally art instead of science, despite the fact that strength is argued in excruciating technical detail. Unfortunately, these arguments will be quite unintelligible to the average customer or cipher user.
The real truth about strength is that even two decades of mathematical analysis have NOT produced a particular strength for the U.S. Data Encryption Standard (DES). Indeed, the analysis continues to find somewhat weaker strengths associated with new and more effective attacks. And this analysis may never be complete, mainly because DES does not scale to a useful experimental size. Since there is no constructive theory of practical strength, experimental analysis is just about the only general tool we have to anticipate unknown attacks. Few cipher designs scale down to experimental size; ours do.
Our ciphers generally use substitution tables which are keyed or constructed from among all possible tables. While random tables do have some chance of being "weak," in tables of reasonable size that chance is extraordinarily small: For tiny 4-bit tables like those used in DES, about 1 percent are actually linear (which is weak). But for the 8-bit tables used here, only about 1 in 1072 (that is, 1 in 2239) are linear, and this is about like finding a random cipher key by chance, twice in a row. Our designs make each output bit depend upon multiple tables, which should cover any similar risk.
Some other block cipher designs, like DES, use pre-defined tables, which turn out to be the basis for modern Differential Cryptanalysis and Linear Cryptanalysis attacks. But our ciphers have no fixed tables. We expect that the unique internal structure of one or more tables must somehow be exposed before our ciphers can be broken. Our designs hide our table structures, while designs with pre-defined tables simply give this information away.
In the VSBC design, the particular table used at each position is also selected by the data being ciphered. This means that few if any blocks of a message will use the same ciphering structure. This makes it hard for an Opponent to find blocks with common structure so the internal features can be attacked.
In file ciphering and similar applications, the VSBC design can add strength beyond what we normally consider the cipher proper. By ciphering a file in blocks which each have a random size, we can hide the extent of each block. This means that The Opponent cannot know where any particular block starts or ends, which is knowledge assumed by every known block cipher attack. So by ciphering a file as a sequence of different-size blocks, we gain an entirely new and separate level of strength, beyond what we normally call "the cipher," and also beyond what we would normally think of as a strength analysis. For some details of this sort of design, see: Variable Size Block Cipher Designs (Realized Prototypes) (13K).
Yet another strength opportunity, applicable to both Mixing and VSBC designs, is the use of a dynamic keying or homophonic field. This is just a random value which is placed in the block along with plaintext data. When enciphering, the homophonic value selects among a huge number of different ciphertexts for the exact same plaintext. Beyond providing additional keying, this field also assures that The Opponent can only have part of the plaintext block needed to perform known-plaintext or defined-plaintext attacks. Again, this is strength beyond what we normally call "the cipher," and also beyond what we would normally think of as a strength analysis. This is a strength opportunity which favors large blocks and block size flexibility.
It is easy to make a fast weak cipher, but making a fast strong cipher is something else again. Most simple (and thus fast) ciphers have already been tried and found wanting, at least as general solutions. Because a cipher designer cannot measure strength, it is all too easy to make a wrong design decision and end up with a surprisingly weak cipher. As attack technology improves, we need more strength -- and thus generally more computation and comparatively less speed -- just to stay ahead.
On a 100 MHz processor, with 64-byte blocks, current software implementations of the Mixing cipher process about 600,000 bytes per second, while the VSBC ciphers about 1,000,000 bytes per second.
Sometimes, our ciphering computations can do double duty. For example, a VSBC design can produce an automatic hash of up to 40 bits across all ciphered data in no extra time. If we send this value with the ciphertext, the deciphering process should produce exactly the same result, provided the message was unchanged. This is a form of authentication which is essentially free.
Alternately, both the Mixing and VSBC designs have the large blocks which support an authentication field. This is just a random value, known at both ends, which shows that the block has been properly deciphered. This does reduce the amount of data in a block, and so the effective data rate; if we use 40 bits of a 64-byte (512-bit) block, the cost is about 8 percent of throughput. But either authentication approach can avoid the need for a separate and expensive authentication scan across the data, and so can deliver higher system throughput than that implied by cipher timing results.
Similarly, the flexibility of both the Mixing and VSBC designs may avoid the need for re-blocking the data or other processing needed with other ciphers. This also may deliver higher system throughput which will not show up in cipher timing results.
The Mixing design has a unique speed advantage in hardware. Even though we expect hardware implementations to be fast, Mixing ciphers are special in that most of the computation can be performed in parallel in hardware. This has the potential to support gigabyte processing rates in present technology, see: Extreme Hardware Speed in Large Block Mixing Ciphers (8K).
Both Mixing and VSBC designs move as much of the computation as possible out of ciphering-time block operations and into the start-up initialization of keyed substitution tables. The amount of table storage is selected at initialization time, but 16K bytes (64 tables) might be typical.
Both the Mixing and VSBC designs can directly cipher large data blocks, and this is the opportunity to use Electronic Codebook (ECB) mode instead of (say) Cipher Block Chain (CBC) mode: When the block size is large enough (say, 64 bytes) so that amount of uniqueness in a typical block exceeds a searchable amount (say, 64 bits), there may be no need to randomize the plaintext, and so no need for chaining, and so no need for the random-like IV which starts it off and causes the ciphertext to be larger than the plaintext.
Once we get rid of the need to change the IV, we can start to talk about ciphering wholly within existing data structures. Secure ciphertext can take exactly the same amount of space as the original plaintext. There is no reason to store or transmit a changed IV.
Both the Mixing and VSBC designs can directly cipher entire 512-byte disk sectors, for example, without needing to also save or somehow construct an IV for each sector.
By avoiding chaining, we also avoid problems applying the cipher to environments where blocks need to be ciphered independently. These might include low-level network ciphering (since packets may appear out of sequence), and database access.
Large blocks also provide room for authentication and dynamic keying fields. An authentication field can avoid a separate, time-consuming authentication pass across the data at a higher level. And, when needed, a dynamic keying field can reduce keying latency to zero.
Both the Mixing and VSBC designs support any type of key (text, binary, picture data, whatever), of arbitrary length. In these ciphers, there is no need for each applications designer to develop appropriate key processing for every application.
Both designs are block ciphers which directly support modern 128-bit blocks, legacy 64-bit blocks, and independent 64-BYTE blocks, in the exact same unchanged cipher. Both of these ciphers support blocks of dynamically variable size at ciphering time. The Mixing design supports blocks of dynamically-variable power-of-2 size in bytes (e.g., 8 bytes, 16, 32, 64, ..., 512 bytes and larger). The VSBC design supports blocks of dynamically-variable size to the byte, which could be ideal for variable-size database fields (when necessary, accumulated to at least 8 bytes).
Both Mixing and VSBC designs can directly replace plaintext with ciphertext, and so cipher wholly within existing data structures. When a cipher does not expand ciphertext, ciphering can be introduced between existing hardware or software layers. In this way, ciphering can be added without changing the design of the existing system. One interesting approach might be to cipher at the data-transport level; this could avoid the need to separately re-engineer every communications application for cryptography.
Both the Mixing and VSBC designs are scalable ciphers. That is, these cipher descriptions are size-independent. Not only do our ciphers support blocks of dynamically-variable size, the designs also support tiny versions with smaller tables. These tiny versions are models of ciphers, rather than ciphers themselves. While full-size ciphers can never be exhaustively tested, the models can be approached experimentally,and any flaws we see in them probably will be present in the full-scale versions we propose to use.
A scalable cipher design can produce a large or small cipher from the exact same construction rules. Just as we believe that mathematics works the same for numbers large or small, a backdoor cipher built from fixed construction rules must have the same sort of backdoor, whether built large or small. With a scalable cipher we can construct small versions which can be exhaustively tested. See, for example: Measured Boolean Function Nonlinearity in Mixing Cipher Constructions (24K), and Measured Boolean Function Nonlinearity in Variable Size Block Ciphers (29K).
Scalability does far more than just simplify testing: Scalability is an enabling technology that supports experimental analysis which is otherwise impossible. Because there is no cookbook of cipher strength, the ability to actually measure small versions of big ciphers can hardly be overemphasized. We deserve more than an incomplete analysis that takes two decades, and the way to get more is to use scalable cipher designs.
Last updated: 2001 May 28