Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Session key

A session key is a symmetric cryptographic key used to protect data during a single communication session or a group of related sessions, providing confidentiality, integrity, and sometimes authentication for the exchanged information.^[1] These keys are essential in cryptographic protocols to secure transient communications, such as those in secure web browsing or email transmission, where they encrypt bulk data while minimizing long-term risk through their temporary nature.^[1] Session keys are generated randomly using approved bit generators within validated cryptographic modules, often via key agreement methods like Diffie-Hellman (as specified in NIST SP 800-56A or SP 800-56B) or key transport protocols, ensuring they are unique and unpredictable.^[1] Their cryptoperiod is limited to the duration of the session to reduce exposure if compromised, after which they are discarded and replaced for subsequent sessions.^[1] In practice, session keys play a central role in protocols like Transport Layer Security (TLS) version 1.3, where they are derived from shared secrets—such as those from ephemeral Diffie-Hellman key exchanges or pre-shared keys—using a key derivation function like HKDF during the handshake process.^[2] This derivation produces specific traffic keys (e.g., for client and server write keys and initialization vectors) that protect both handshake and application data with authenticated encryption, supporting features like forward secrecy and optional key updates mid-session to further enhance security.^[2] Management of session keys follows strict guidelines, including secure distribution, integrity checks before use, and rapid revocation if a compromise is detected, to maintain overall system protection.^[1]

Overview

Definition

A session key is a temporary symmetric cryptographic key used to protect data exchanged during a single communication session between two parties, providing confidentiality, integrity, and/or authentication.^[1] This key provides confidentiality, integrity, and/or authentication for the duration of the session, after which it is discarded to minimize the risk of compromise.^[1] Unlike long-term keys such as master keys or public/private key pairs, which persist across multiple sessions, session keys are short-lived and unique to each individual session, thereby limiting potential exposure if intercepted.^[3] They operate within symmetric encryption frameworks, where the same key is used for both encryption and decryption by the communicating parties.^[1] Session keys must possess key properties to ensure security: they are kept secret from unauthorized parties, generated with high randomness to prevent predictability, and have sufficient bit length—typically 128 to 256 bits when used with algorithms like the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)—to withstand brute-force attacks.^[1]^[4] For instance, in a secure web browsing session using Transport Layer Security (TLS), a unique session key is derived to encrypt Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) traffic between the client and server until the session terminates.^[5]

Purpose and Advantages

Session keys serve as temporary cryptographic keys designed to secure data exchanges during individual communication sessions, thereby enabling efficient and protected transmission of information between parties. Their primary purpose is to restrict the volume of data encrypted under any single key, which significantly curtails the potential damage from key compromise by isolating the impact to the affected session alone.^[6] This approach minimizes the exposure of long-term secrets and ensures that each session operates with a unique, short-lived key, promoting secure and scalable communications in dynamic environments.^[7] A key advantage of session keys lies in their ability to mitigate cryptanalytic risks, such as known-plaintext or statistical attacks, by employing fresh keys for each session and thereby limiting the amount of ciphertext available for analysis.^[6] This per-session renewal reduces the feasibility of attackers exploiting patterns across multiple communications, as the ephemeral nature of these keys confines any breach to a narrow scope without affecting prior or subsequent sessions.^[6] Furthermore, session keys facilitate hybrid cryptographic systems, where computationally intensive asymmetric methods are used solely for initial key establishment, while the faster symmetric encryption handles the bulk of data transfer, optimizing performance for high-volume applications like real-time streaming.^[7] In terms of efficiency, symmetric operations with session keys are substantially less resource-intensive than repeated applications of asymmetric encryption, allowing systems to support demanding workloads without prohibitive computational overhead.^[7] By avoiding the need for long-term storage of numerous distinct keys, session keys also simplify key management, enhancing overall system resilience and operational speed.^[6]

Cryptographic Foundations

Relation to Symmetric and Asymmetric Encryption

Session keys serve as symmetric cryptographic keys employed in algorithms such as the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), a block cipher, or ChaCha20, a stream cipher, where the identical key is utilized for both encrypting and decrypting data in a bidirectional manner during a communication session. Block ciphers like AES operate on fixed blocks of data—typically 128 bits—enabling efficient bulk encryption that is computationally lightweight compared to alternatives. In contrast, asymmetric encryption, also known as public-key cryptography, relies on pairs of mathematically related keys: a public key for encryption and a private key for decryption. Systems like RSA or elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) are primarily used to securely exchange or derive the session key over an insecure channel, rather than for direct bulk data encryption, due to their significantly higher computational demands—often orders of magnitude slower than symmetric methods for equivalent security levels. Session keys thus bridge symmetric and asymmetric encryption by leveraging the strengths of each: asymmetric techniques handle initial authentication and key agreement to establish the shared session key securely, after which symmetric encryption protects the ongoing session data for performance reasons.^[8] For instance, a sender might generate a symmetric session key, encrypt the bulk message with it, then use the recipient's public key to encrypt and transmit the session key itself, allowing the recipient to decrypt both using their private key.^[8] This hybrid approach originated in the 1970s to overcome the performance limitations of early public-key systems, with foundational work by Diffie and Hellman proposing public-key methods for key distribution to enable efficient symmetric encryption of messages.^[9]

Role in Hybrid Cryptographic Systems

Hybrid cryptographic systems integrate asymmetric cryptography for secure key establishment with symmetric cryptography for efficient data protection, addressing the limitations of each approach in isolation. Asymmetric methods, such as RSA or Diffie-Hellman, provide robust authentication and key exchange but are computationally intensive and slow for large data volumes, while symmetric encryption offers high-speed performance but requires a pre-shared secret key, which is challenging to distribute securely without prior trust. In hybrid setups, the session key—a temporary symmetric key—serves as the bridge, enabling the system to leverage asymmetric operations only once per session for key derivation or exchange, after which symmetric encryption handles all subsequent data traffic.^[10]^[11] The session key plays a central role as the "workhorse" in these systems, encapsulating the efficiency of symmetric algorithms like AES while relying on asymmetric mechanisms to ensure its secure delivery. Typically generated randomly by one party (e.g., using entropy sources like keystrokes or hardware random number generators), the session key is encrypted with the recipient's public key before transmission, preventing eavesdroppers from accessing it without the corresponding private key. Once exchanged, the session key is used to encrypt and decrypt session data, avoiding the need for repeated asymmetric computations that would degrade performance in bandwidth-constrained or resource-limited environments. This design not only optimizes throughput—symmetric encryption can be up to 1000 times faster than asymmetric for bulk data—but also maintains end-to-end confidentiality without exposing long-term keys to session-specific risks.^[12]^[11]^[10] In a typical client-server architecture, the process begins with the client authenticating the server using asymmetric keys (e.g., via digital certificates) and deriving the session key through a key agreement protocol. The server verifies the client's identity similarly, and both parties compute the same session key independently. This shared session key then encrypts all application-layer data exchanged during the session, such as web requests or file transfers, ensuring scalability for high-volume communications. For instance, in early implementations like PGP (introduced in 1991), a random session key encrypts the message body with a symmetric cipher like IDEA, while the key itself is wrapped in the recipient's public key for secure delivery.^[11]^[13] The adoption of session keys in hybrid systems has evolved since the late 1970s, with foundational concepts appearing in early proposals for combining public-key distribution with symmetric ciphers like DES, and becoming standardized in protocols by the 1990s to balance security and performance. Modern standards, such as Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE) defined in RFC 9180 (2022), formalize this by using a Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) to derive the symmetric encryption key from an asymmetric shared secret, supporting flexible combinations of algorithms for contemporary applications like secure messaging. This evolution reflects a shift toward resource-efficient designs, particularly in constrained devices, where hybrid approaches minimize computational overhead while upholding cryptographic strength.^[12]^[14]

Usage in Protocols

In Transport Layer Security (TLS)

In the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol, session keys are established during the handshake phase to enable secure symmetric encryption for subsequent data exchange. The process begins with asymmetric cryptography to securely derive a shared secret: for example, in RSA-based exchanges, the client generates a premaster secret and encrypts it with the server's public key, while in Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral (DHE) exchanges, both parties contribute ephemeral public values to compute a shared premaster secret. This premaster secret is then used to derive a 48-byte master secret through a pseudorandom function (PRF), incorporating client and server random values to ensure uniqueness per session.^[15]^[16] From the master secret, TLS derives specific session key materials using the PRF in earlier versions like TLS 1.2, or HKDF in TLS 1.3. These include client and server write keys for symmetric encryption (e.g., AES), initialization vectors (IVs) for modes like CBC or GCM, and message authentication code (MAC) keys for integrity protection (e.g., HMAC-SHA). The derivation expands the master secret into a key block, which is partitioned sequentially: for instance, in TLS 1.2, the PRF is applied as PRF(master_secret, "key expansion", server_random + client_random) to generate these components in order of client MAC key, server MAC key, client encryption key, server encryption key, client IV, and server IV, with lengths determined by the negotiated cipher suite.^[17]^[18] Session resumption in TLS optimizes reconnections by allowing reuse of previously derived keys through abbreviated handshakes, avoiding a full renegotiation. In TLS 1.2, this is achieved via session tickets (RFC 5077), where the server encrypts session state—including the master secret and cipher suite—into a ticket sent to the client post-handshake; the client presents this ticket in a subsequent ClientHello, enabling the server to decrypt and restore keys for rapid resumption without server-side state storage. TLS 1.3 extends this with pre-shared keys (PSKs) derived from prior handshakes, issued via NewSessionTicket messages, supporting zero-round-trip time (0-RTT) data while maintaining security through binders and optional (EC)DHE hybridization.^[19] TLS 1.3, standardized in 2018, mandates ephemeral Diffie-Hellman (including ECDHE) for all handshakes, ensuring forward secrecy by deriving session keys from ephemeral shared secrets that are discarded after use, thereby protecting past sessions even if long-term private keys are compromised later. Key derivation shifts to HKDF-Extract and HKDF-Expand-Label functions applied to a hierarchy of secrets—starting from the (EC)DHE shared secret to produce handshake secrets, then traffic secrets for client/server application data—using the handshake transcript as context to bind keys to the session. This design eliminates legacy vulnerabilities like static RSA while enhancing post-compromise security through integrated forward secrecy.^[20]^[18]

In Other Security Protocols

In the Secure Shell (SSH) protocol, session keys are generated during the transport layer key exchange using Diffie-Hellman, enabling secure remote login by protecting command streams, file transfers via SFTP, and other interactive sessions against eavesdropping and tampering.^[21] These keys, derived from a shared secret and exchange hash, provide encryption for packet payloads and integrity via message authentication codes (MACs).^[21] The IPsec protocol suite employs session keys within Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH) modes to secure virtual private networks (VPNs), where Internet Key Exchange (IKE) handles authenticated key negotiation.^[22] In ESP, session keys support both confidentiality through symmetric encryption (e.g., AES-CBC) and integrity (e.g., HMAC-SHA1), while AH focuses on authentication and anti-replay protection without encryption; IKEv2 derives these keys from a SKEYSEED using nonces and optional Diffie-Hellman exchanges.^[22] Perfect forward secrecy is achieved by mandating ephemeral Diffie-Hellman during rekeying, ensuring that compromised long-term keys do not expose past sessions.^[22] In Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) and the OpenPGP standard, session keys are randomly generated for each message to perform symmetric encryption of payloads, such as emails or files, using algorithms like AES in cipher feedback (CFB) mode.^[23] The session key itself is then asymmetrically encrypted with the recipient's public key (e.g., via RSA or ElGamal) and included in a Public-Key Encrypted Session Key packet, allowing secure distribution without revealing the symmetric key to intermediaries.^[23] This hybrid approach balances efficiency for large data with the security of public-key wrapping. Wireless protocols like WPA3 derive session keys from authentication mechanisms to protect Wi-Fi communications, with WPA3-Personal using Simultaneous Authentication of Equals (SAE) on a pre-shared key for pairwise transient keys, and WPA3-Enterprise leveraging 802.1X/EAP methods for per-user derivation.^[24] These keys enable individualized data encryption (e.g., AES-GCM-256) and forward secrecy via Diffie-Hellman in Opportunistic Wireless Encryption (OWE) for open networks, mitigating risks from shared credentials in prior standards.^[24] Across these protocols, a common pattern is the use of unique session keys per connection or message to limit the blast radius of breaches, as each key's ephemerality isolates compromised sessions from affecting others.^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]

Generation and Management

Key Generation Methods

Session keys must be generated using sources of high entropy to ensure their unpredictability and resistance to cryptanalytic attacks. High-quality entropy is typically obtained from hardware random number generators (RNGs), such as those leveraging thermal noise or ring oscillators, or from software interfaces like /dev/urandom on Unix-like systems, which aggregate entropy from system events including disk I/O timing and network packets. These sources aim to provide at least as much entropy as the desired security strength of the key, with modern symmetric session keys requiring a minimum of 128 bits but typically 256 bits or more to align with ciphers like AES-256. Insufficient entropy can lead to predictable keys, compromising session security. To expand short seeds or low-entropy inputs into full-length session keys, key derivation functions (KDFs) are commonly applied. PBKDF2 (Password-Based Key Derivation Function 2) iteratively applies a pseudorandom function, such as HMAC-SHA-256, to a password and salt, producing a derived key through multiple iterations to resist brute-force attacks; it is specified in PKCS #5 v2.0 and widely used for deriving keys from user-provided secrets. HKDF (HMAC-based Key Derivation Function) employs an extract-then-expand paradigm: it first extracts a pseudorandom key from the input keying material using HMAC, then expands it into multiple keys of specified lengths, making it suitable for deriving session keys from key exchange outputs like Diffie-Hellman shared secrets. Scrypt, a memory-hard KDF, incorporates sequential memory access to hinder parallel hardware attacks, deriving keys from passwords or seeds while enforcing high computational and memory costs. In cryptographic protocols, session keys are frequently generated ephemerally, meaning they are created temporarily for each session using one-time key pairs, such as ephemeral Diffie-Hellman pairs, to guarantee forward secrecy and uniqueness without reusing material across sessions. This on-the-fly generation ensures that even if long-term keys are compromised, past session keys remain secure. Standards like NIST SP 800-90A provide guidelines for deterministic random bit generators (DRBGs), which produce sequences of random bits from an initial high-entropy seed using approved algorithms based on hash functions, HMAC, or block ciphers; these DRBGs enable efficient, reproducible generation of secure key material while maintaining cryptographic strength.

Distribution and Lifecycle Management

Session keys are distributed using secure key exchange protocols to establish a shared secret between communicating parties without prior shared knowledge. The Diffie-Hellman (DH) key exchange allows two parties to jointly compute a shared session key over an insecure channel by exchanging public parameters, providing a foundation for ephemeral key agreement that enhances security.^[5] Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) extends this approach using elliptic curve cryptography for more efficient computation and smaller key sizes while maintaining equivalent security levels. In contrast, RSA can be employed for direct encryption of the session key, where one party encrypts the key using the recipient's public RSA key for transmission, though this method does not inherently provide forward secrecy unless combined with ephemeral elements.^[5] The lifecycle of a session key encompasses several distinct stages to ensure its secure handling from inception to disposal. Following generation, the key undergoes secure transmission via encrypted channels compliant with standards such as those outlined in NIST SP 800-133, which specifies mechanisms for protecting keys during distribution to prevent interception or tampering. Upon receipt, the key is activated for use in symmetric encryption and decryption operations during the active session, limiting its exposure to the duration of communication. At session termination, the key expires and is destroyed through zeroization, a process that overwrites the key material in memory to render it irrecoverable and mitigate risks from residual data.^[25] Effective management practices further safeguard session keys throughout their brief lifespan. Keys are typically stored exclusively in volatile memory, such as RAM, to avoid persistence on disk and reduce the attack surface from physical or forensic threats; hardware security modules (HSMs) may be used for added protection in high-security environments.^[26] For extended sessions, automatic key rotation involves deriving and switching to new session keys periodically, thereby limiting the impact of any potential compromise and aligning with recommendations to bound key usage for risk reduction.^[26] A critical aspect of session key management is achieving forward secrecy, which protects past communications even if long-term private keys are later compromised. This is realized through ephemeral key exchanges, such as DH or ECDH, where temporary key pairs are generated for each session and discarded afterward, ensuring that session keys remain independent of persistent credentials.^[27] NIST guidelines emphasize preferring ephemeral over static keys in protocols to enable perfect forward secrecy, as static methods like pure RSA key transport can link session keys to long-term secrets, amplifying risks from future breaches.^[26]

Security Considerations

Potential Vulnerabilities

Session keys are susceptible to reuse attacks, where the same key is employed across multiple sessions, facilitating cryptanalytic techniques such as pattern analysis or the decryption of aggregated data from various communications. This vulnerability arises because reusing keys can leak information about plaintext structures, enabling attackers to correlate ciphertexts and recover sensitive data more efficiently than with unique keys per session. For instance, in protocols relying on symmetric encryption, key reuse undermines the semantic security provided by fresh keys, potentially allowing replay or chosen-plaintext attacks.^[28]^[29] Weak key generation poses another significant risk, particularly when pseudorandom number generators (PRNGs) draw from low-entropy sources, producing predictable session keys that are vulnerable to brute-force or dictionary attacks. A notable historical case is the Dual_EC_DRBG algorithm, standardized by NIST in 2006 but revealed in 2013 to contain a backdoor likely inserted by the NSA, which allowed prediction of output sequences and thus compromised keys derived from it. This flaw highlighted how biased or insufficiently random seeds in key generation can reduce the effective key space, making exhaustive searches feasible for adversaries with computational resources.^[30]^[31]^[32] Man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks target the session key exchange phase, where an interceptor impersonates legitimate parties to derive or substitute the key if the underlying asymmetric mechanisms, such as Diffie-Hellman, lack proper authentication. In such scenarios, the attacker can relay modified messages during the handshake, capturing the ephemeral parameters and computing the shared session key without detection, thereby gaining access to all subsequent encrypted traffic. This exploitation is particularly effective against unauthenticated key agreement protocols, where the absence of entity verification allows seamless interception and key compromise.^[33]^[34]^[35] Side-channel attacks exploit physical implementations of session key operations, using measurements like timing variations or power consumption to infer key bits during encryption or decryption processes. Timing attacks, for example, analyze execution durations of cryptographic primitives to deduce key-dependent branches, while power analysis examines fluctuations in device energy usage correlated with key manipulations. These non-invasive methods can recover full session keys from hardware devices without direct access to the algorithm's internals, as demonstrated in attacks on AES implementations where intermediate values leak through observable side effects.^[36]^[37]^[38] Quantum computing introduces threats via Grover's algorithm, which provides a quadratic speedup for unstructured search problems, effectively halving the security of symmetric session keys by reducing the complexity of brute-force attacks from $2^n to $2^{n/2} operations for an n-bit key. Consequently, a 128-bit session key would offer only 64 bits of quantum resistance, necessitating at least 256-bit keys to maintain comparable post-quantum security levels against such adversaries. This impact underscores the need for longer key lengths in symmetric cryptography to withstand quantum-accelerated exhaustive searches.^[39]^[40]^[41]

Mitigation Strategies

To ensure the randomness and security strength of session keys, cryptographic systems must employ approved random bit generators (RBGs) that meet entropy requirements, such as those specified in NIST SP 800-90A for deterministic RBG constructions. These RBGs should be implemented within FIPS 140-validated cryptographic modules to provide assurance against predictable outputs, with entropy sources validated per NIST SP 800-90B to minimize bias. Mixing multiple entropy sources, such as hardware noise and system events, enhances robustness, while regular audits of implementations detect flaws like insufficient seeding.^[1] Perfect forward secrecy (PFS) protects past communications by using ephemeral keys for each session, ensuring that compromise of long-term keys does not retroactively expose session data.^[1] Protocols should mandate ephemeral key exchanges, such as Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral (ECDHE) in TLS, to generate unique session keys per connection, with keys destroyed immediately after use.^[42] Limiting the lifespan of session keys reduces exposure risk, with best practices recommending short cryptoperiods—such as a maximum of one hour for active sessions—to confine potential breaches.^[1] For extended interactions, automated key rotation should occur frequently using independent derivation methods, transitioning to new keys without reusing material from prior sessions.^[1] Compliance with established standards fortifies session key handling; cryptographic modules must adhere to FIPS 140-3 requirements for secure generation, storage, and zeroization of keys. As quantum threats emerge, migration to post-quantum algorithms like ML-KEM (based on Kyber) for key exchange ensures long-term resilience, integrating hybrid schemes with classical methods during transition. Effective monitoring involves logging key establishment failures, such as unsuccessful exchanges or confirmation errors, to detect anomalies without logging sensitive key material itself.^[1] Audit logs should track state transitions and access attempts in accordance with NIST SP 800-92 guidelines for secure log management.^[43]

References

[1]
[PDF] Recommendation for Key Management: Part 1 - General
May 5, 2020 · National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-57 Part 1, Revision 5 ... NIST SP 800-57 PART 1 REV. 5. RECOMMENDATION FOR ...
[2]
RFC 8446 - The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3
This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet.
[3]
[PDF] Key Establishment Protocols - Introduction to Cryptography CS 355
Session key: temporary key, used for a short time period. • Long-term key: used for a long term period, sometimes public and secret key pairs used to.
[4]
[PDF] Transitioning of Cryptographic Algorithms and Key Sizes
It has three approved key sizes: 128, 192 and 256 bits. AES-128 is assessed at a security strength of 128 bits, AES 192 at a security strength of 192 bits, and ...
[5]
RFC 5246 - The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2
This document specifies Version 1.2 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet.
[6]
[PDF] Key Establishment - Centre For Applied Cryptographic Research
Handbook of Applied Cryptography by A. Menezes, P. van Oorschot and S ... derived session key is based on per-session random input provided by one party.
[7]
[PDF] KEY DISTRIBUTION: PKI and SESSION-KEY EXCHANGE
Why session keys? • In public-key setting, efficient cryptography compared to direct use of long-lived keys.
[8]
RFC 4949: Internet Security Glossary, Version 2
Below is a merged summary of the "Session Key" definition from RFC 4949, consolidating all information from the provided segments into a single, comprehensive response. To maximize density and clarity, I will use a table format in CSV style for key details, followed by a narrative summary that integrates additional context, examples, and relationships to encryption. This ensures all information is retained while being concise and structured.
[9]
[PDF] New Directions in Cryptography - Stanford University
[5] W. Diffie and M. E. Hellman, “Multiuser cryptographic techniques,” presented at National Computer Conference, New York, June 7-10,. 1976 ...Missing: hybrid | Show results with:hybrid
[10]
Network security: 4.6 Hybrid systems | OpenLearn - Open University
This system is based on the use of a session key – a temporary key used only ... Encryption and decryption can be performed much faster using symmetric keys ...
[11]
[PDF] An Introduction to Cryptography - Stony Brook Computer Science
PGP is a hybrid cryptosystem. When a user encrypts plaintext with PGP, PGP ... This public key-encrypted session key is transmitted along with the ciphertext to ...
[12]
[PDF] Symmetric and Asymmetric Encryption - GUSTAVUS J. SIMMONS
Moreover, the enemy cannot imper- sonate the commander's messages because it knows only a receiver's key. Now, suppose that a hybrid cryptosystem is used.
[13]
How PGP works
This key is a random number generated from the random movements of your mouse and the keystrokes you type. This session key works with a very secure, fast ...
[14]
RFC 9180: Hybrid Public Key Encryption
Feb 13, 2022 · This document describes a scheme for hybrid public key encryption (HPKE). This scheme provides a variant of public key encryption of arbitrary-sized plaintexts.Missing: cryptosystem | Show results with:cryptosystem
[15]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5246#section-8.1
[16]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5246#section-7.4.7
[17]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5246#section-6.3
[18]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8446#section-7.1
[19]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8446#section-4.6.1
[20]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8446#section-1.2
[21]
RFC 4253 - The Secure Shell (SSH) Transport Layer Protocol
Key Exchange Methods The key exchange method specifies how one-time session keys ... Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange The Diffie-Hellman (DH) key exchange provides a ...
[22]
RFC 7296 - Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)
This document describes version 2 of the Internet Key Exchange (IKE) protocol. IKE is a component of IPsec used for performing mutual authentication.
[23]
RFC 4880 - OpenPGP Message Format - IETF Datatracker
RFC 4880 specifies the OpenPGP message format for interoperable applications, describing how to read, check, generate, and write conforming packets.
[24]
[PDF] CYBERSECURITY REPORT
OWE uses an unauthenticated Diffie-Hellman key exchange during association, resulting in a Pairwise Master Key (PMK) used to derive the session keys. There ...
[25]
Key Management - OWASP Cheat Sheet Series
NIST SP 800-57 Part 1 recognizes three basic classes of approved cryptographic algorithms: hash functions, symmetric- key algorithms and asymmetric-key ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[26]
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-57pt1r5.pdf
[27]
[PDF] NIST.SP.800-52r2.pdf
Aug 2, 2019 · Prefer ephemeral keys over static keys (i.e., prefer DHE over DH, and prefer ECDHE over ECDH). Ephemeral keys provide perfect forward secrecy.
[28]
CWE-323: Reusing a Nonce, Key Pair in Encryption
Potentially a replay attack, in which an attacker could send the same data twice, could be crafted if nonces are allowed to be reused.
[29]
Exploring CWE-323 Reusing a Nonce, Key Pair in Encryption - Ubiq
Jul 7, 2022 · Nonce reuse makes messages vulnerable to replay attacks and can also undermine the confidentiality of identical messages sent encrypted with the same key and ...
[30]
How a Crypto 'Backdoor' Pitted the Tech World Against the NSA
Sep 24, 2013 · ... Dual_EC_DRBG algorithm was indeed a backdoor. The Times story implies that the backdoor was intentionally put there by the NSA as part of a ...
[31]
[PDF] Dual EC: A Standardized Back Door - Cryptology ePrint Archive
Jul 31, 2015 · Abstract. Dual EC is an algorithm to compute pseudorandom num- bers starting from some random input. Dual EC was standardized by.
[32]
The Many Flaws of Dual_EC_DRBG
Sep 18, 2013 · This backdoor may allow the NSA to break nearly any cryptographic system that uses it. If you're still with me, strap in. Here goes the long ...
[33]
Defending MITM attacks during key exchange
Nov 11, 2022 · Defending MITM attacks during key exchange ... As far as I know, key exchanging algorithms are vulnerable to an active MITM attack. ... In this case ...Diffie-Hellman and man-in-the-middle attacksAttack on a key-exchange,symmetric-key cryptography protocolMore results from crypto.stackexchange.com<|control11|><|separator|>
[34]
What is a Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) Attack? - Rapid7
Learn how man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks work, common techniques and attack types, and the best ways to detect and prevent them across your network.
[35]
Man in the Middle attack in Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange
Jul 23, 2025 · Man in the Middle attack in Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange · One-time setup: We define some public parameters that are used by everyone forever.
[36]
Side-channel attacks explained: All you need to know - Rambus
Oct 14, 2021 · What attacks use side channel analysis? · Timing attack: Analyzes the time a system spends executing cryptographic algorithms. · Electromagnetic ( ...How does a side channel... · What attacks use side channel... · DPA & Paul Kocher
[37]
An Introduction to Power Analysis Side Channel Attacks
Mar 26, 2023 · Learn the basics of how power-based side-channel attacks work and the different types of power analysis attacks.
[38]
[PDF] Side-Channel Attacks: Ten Years After Its Publication and the ...
The principle of this attack is very simple: to exploit the timing variance in the operation. The basic assumptions of timing analysis are:
[39]
Grover's Algorithm and Its Impact on Cybersecurity - PostQuantum.com
In summary, the impact on symmetric encryption is serious but manageable: Grover's algorithm means that 128-bit keys will no longer be sufficient in the long ...Cybersecurity Implications of... · Mitigation Strategies Against...
[40]
[PDF] On the practical cost of Grover for AES key recovery
Mar 22, 2024 · There is a commonly cited rule of thumb that 'the existence of Grover implies symmetric key lengths should be doubled'. While individual use ...
[41]
Does Grover's algorithm really threaten symmetric security proofs?
Oct 16, 2023 · Despite the classical security proof, Grover's algorithm threatens symmetric key cryptography. The main reason is that classical security proof assumes that ...Does Grover's algorithm effect block size or only key size?How does Grover's algorithm affect the MAC birthday bound and ...More results from crypto.stackexchange.com
[42]
RFC 9325 - Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer ...
Rationale: Forward secrecy (sometimes called "perfect forward secrecy") prevents the recovery of information that was encrypted with older session keys ...
[43]
[PDF] Guide to Computer Security Log Management
For example, if a log server fails or a network failure prevents logging hosts from contacting it, logging to the system helps to ensure that the log data is ...