This application claims the benefit of priority, under 35 U.S.C. Section 119, to French Application No. 03/13507 filed on Nov. 18, 2003, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
The invention relates to arithmetic processing and calculating, especially for use in cryptography applications. The invention relates in particular to residue arithmetic involving modular reduction, especially computations derived from the Barrett reduction method.
Numerous cryptographic algorithms make use of large-integer multiplication (or exponentiation) and reduction of the product to a residue value that is congruent for a specified modulus that is related to the cryptographic key. Such computations may be susceptible to power analysis and timing attacks. Therefore, it is important that computations be secured so that information about the key cannot be obtained.
At the same time, it is important that these computations be fast and accurate. The large integer multiplication and reduction is usually the most computationally intensive portion of a cryptographic algorithm. Several distinct computational techniques have been developed for efficient modular reduction, including those known as the Quisquater method, the Barrett method and the Montgomery method, along with modifications involving precomputation and table look-up. These well-known techniques are described and compared in the prior art. See, for example: (1) A. Bosselaers et al., “Comparison of three modular reduction functions”, Advances in Cryptology/Crypto '93, LNCS 773, Springer-Verlag, 1994, pp. 175-186. (2) Jean François Dhem, “Design of an efficient public-key cryptographic library for RISC-based smart cards”, doctoral dissertation, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, May 1998. (3) C. H. Lim et al., “Fast Modular Reduction With Precomputation”, preprint, 1999 (available from CiteSeer Scientific Literature Digital Library, citeseer.nj.nec.com/109504.html). (4) Hollmann et al., “Method and Device for Executing a Decrypting Mechanism through Calculating a Standardized Modular Exponentiation for Thwarting Timing Attacks”, U.S. Pat. No. 6,366,673 B1, Apr. 2, 2002 (based on application filed Sep. 15, 1998).
An objective of the present invention is to provide an improvement of the Barrett modular reduction method and computing apparatus therefor, which is more secure against cryptoanalysis attacks, while still providing fast and accurate results.
Another objective of the present invention is to provide the aforementioned improved method and apparatus which speeds up quotient estimation.
These objects are met by a computer-implemented modular reduction method in which a quotient used for the computation is systematically underestimated with a randomized error of a few bits, e.g., less than one-half word. The resulting remainder is always congruent to the corresponding intermediate product relative to the specified modulus, but is larger than the residue value and differs in a random manner for each execution. Because the quotient needs only be approximated, its estimation is faster. Because the estimation error is deliberately randomized, the method is more secure against cryptoanalysis. Yet the intermediate results are mathematically equivalent (congruent to the true results), and the final result (after a final set of subtractions by the modulus) is the exactly the same, thus achieving the accuracy needed for the invertibility of cryptographic operations.
The hardware used to execute the method steps of the invention includes a random number generator to inject random error into the quotient estimation. A computation unit with memory access and carry injection operates under the control of an operation sequencer executing firmware to carry out the word-wide multiply-accumulate steps of large integer multiplication and modular reduction.
With reference to
Unlike prior hardware of this type, the hardware in
With reference to
Modular reduction generally solves R≡X mod M≡X−└X/M┘M, where R is the residue value to be found which is congruent to X for modulus M, and the symbol └a┘ represents the floor function (the largest integer≦a) so that └X/M┘ corresponds to an integer division. The number X to be reduced is typically a product of two large (usually prime) integers, X=A·B, i.e., where one or both of the integers A and B are of multi-word size (e.g., A and B might be 1024 bits each, i.e. 32 32-bit words long). In any case, the basic problem in any modular reduction method is in evaluating the quotient q=└X/M┘ in an efficient way for large (multi-word) numbers X and M. In the present invention, an additional problem is in performing the reduction in a way that is secure from power analysis attacks in cryptographic applications.
Barrett's method involves precalculating and storing a scaled estimate of the modulus' reciprocal, U, and replacing the long division with multiplications and word shifts (dividing by b) in order to estimate the quotient. With appropriate choice of parameters, the error in the quotient estimate is at most two. The present invention improves upon Barrett's method by only approximating the quotient with a less precise but faster estimation, and by intentionally injecting a random error into the quotient prior to computing the remainder. The resulting remainder will be slightly larger than, but congruent with, the residue value.
Let w represent the word size (e.g., w=32 for 32-bit processors), b=2w represent the radix, n be the length of the modulus M in words, where
M=Σi=0n−1 mibi,
0<mn−1<b,
0≦mi<b, for i=0 to n−2,
bn−1≦M<bn,
and X be the number to be reduced, which is up to 2n+1 words in length, i.e., where
X=Σi=02n xibi,
0≦xi<b, for i=0 to 2n,
0≦X<b2n+1 (or M≦X<b2n+1 in certain circumstances)
We begin by precomputing and storing (step 30 in
U=└b2n+1/M┘=└22nw+w/M┘
This stored value is then subsequently used in all reduction operations for this particular modulus M. U is always n+1 words long for every modulus M which is not a power of b.
To perform a modulo reduction of X, we estimate a quotient q (step 32) using the stored value U:
q=└(└X/bn┘·U)/bn+2┘=└(└X/2nw┘·U)/2nw+2w┘
This requires only multiplications and word-size shifts for the computation. The floor functions tend to ensure that the quotient q is consistently underestimated (never overestimated) although it is possible that the quotient estimate will happen to be exact. A supplemental subtraction by one could be included if underestimation is required. Both the constant U and the quotient estimation differ from that of Barrett by an extra shift each of one word. (Barrett uses U=└b2n/M┘ and q=└(└X/bn−1┘·U)/bn+1.) The estimated quotient q≧0 will be a maximum of n+1 words long.
At this stage, it is preferable to inject (step 36) a random error E into the computed quotient to obtain a randomized quotient, q′=q−E. In this case, we must have M·2w/2≦X<b2n+1 to avoid having negative numbers. The random error E may be generated (step 34) by any known random or pseudo-random number generator (hardware or software). The only constraint is that the error fall within a specified range, such as
0≦E<(2w/2−1)
This limits the potential error contributed by the random generator to a specified number of bits, e.g. half a word, in addition to any error arising from the quotient estimation itself.
Next, we compute (step 38) the remainder R′, which will be congruent (modulo M) with the residue value R:
R′=X−q′M
Because the quotient q is underestimated, and a random error E is introduced, the remainder R′≧R, i.e. the calculated remainder will be larger than or equal to the residue by some small random multiple of the modulus M.
The randomized remainder R′ can be used in further calculations (step 48), such as multiply or add, with another remainder R″ (randomized or not), which if necessary is again reduced (returning to step 32) for consistency. (The error remains bounded.) Alternatively, if randomization is not required, we can choose to keep the near quotient q (step 44). In this case, we can have 0≦X<b2n+1. Keeping near the quotient will permit one to get the true remainder (steps 46 and 40).
Finally, depending upon the needs of the particular application, the residue R can be calculated from the remainder R′ by applying subtractions of the modulus M (step 40) until the number is smaller than M. The residue value R which equals R′ after the final subtraction can then be returned for use in the remainder of the cryptography system (step 42).
Randomizing the modular reduction provides security against various cryptoanalytic attacks that rely upon consistency in power usage to determine the modulus. Here, the reduction of X modulo M varies randomly from one execution to the next, while still producing an intermediate remainder R′ that is congruent. The number of subtractions at the end to generate a final residue value R also varies randomly from one execution to the next. The number X to be reduced in this way can be obtained from a variety of different arithmetic operations, including multiplication, squaring, exponentiation, addition, etc. Likewise, the modulus M to be used can be derived in a variety of ways, most usually in cryptography from a key. The randomized modular reduction method of the present invention is useful in many cryptographic algorithms that rely upon such reduction, including both large prime (e.g. RSA) and elliptic curve-based public-key cryptography systems.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
03 13507 | Nov 2003 | FR | national |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5077793 | Falk et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5144574 | Morita | Sep 1992 | A |
5185711 | Hattori | Feb 1993 | A |
5210710 | Omura | May 1993 | A |
5373560 | Schlafly | Dec 1994 | A |
5479511 | Naccache | Dec 1995 | A |
5513133 | Cressel et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5724279 | Benaloh et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5764554 | Monier | Jun 1998 | A |
5793659 | Chen et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5870478 | Kawamura | Feb 1999 | A |
5954788 | Suh et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5999627 | Lee et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6049815 | Lambert et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6088453 | Shimbo | Jul 2000 | A |
6091819 | Venkatesan et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6175850 | Ishii et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6366673 | Hollmann et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6466668 | Miyazaki et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
7073072 | Salle | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7164765 | Nishioka et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
20020039418 | Dror et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020055962 | Schroeppel | May 2002 | A1 |
20020143836 | Ebergen et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020161810 | Mellott et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030044014 | Liardet et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030079139 | Drexler et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030206629 | Eberle et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030208518 | Gura et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030212729 | Eberle et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040019622 | Elbe et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040066934 | Chen | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20060282491 | Joye | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20080109501 | Douguet | May 2008 | A1 |
20100023572 | Dupaquis et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO-2004111831 | Dec 2004 | WO |
WO-2006124160 | Nov 2006 | WO |
WO-2006124160 | Nov 2006 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20050105723 A1 | May 2005 | US |