Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A Practical Key-Recovery Attack on LWE-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism Schemes Using Rowhammer

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Applied Cryptography and Network Security (ACNS 2024)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14585))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 620 Accesses

Abstract

Physical attacks are serious threats to cryptosystems deployed in the real world. In this work, we propose a microarchitectural end-to-end attack methodology on generic lattice-based post-quantum key encapsulation mechanisms to recover the long-term secret key. Our attack targets a critical component of a Fujisaki-Okamoto transform that is used in the construction of almost all lattice-based key encapsulation mechanisms. We demonstrate our attack model on practical schemes such as Kyber and Saber by using Rowhammer. We show that our attack is highly practical and imposes little preconditions on the attacker to succeed. As an additional contribution, we propose an improved version of the plaintext checking oracle, which is used by almost all physical attack strategies on lattice-based key-encapsulation mechanisms. Our improvement reduces the number of queries to the plaintext checking oracle by as much as \(39\%\) for Saber and approximately \(23\%\) for Kyber768. This can be of independent interest and can also be used to reduce the complexity of other attacks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    “https://github.com/vusec/hammertime.git”.

References

  1. Alagic, G., et al.: Status Report on the third round of the nist post-quantum cryptography standardization process (2022). https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2022/NIST.IR.8413-upd1.pdf. Accessed 26 Jun 2023

  2. Albrecht, M.R., Player, R., Scott, S.: On the concrete hardness of Learning with Errors. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2015/046 (2015). https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/046

  3. Alkim, E., Ducas, L., Pöppelmann, T., Schwabe, P.: Post-quantum key exchange - a new hope. In: Holz, T., Savage, S. (eds.) 25th USENIX Security Symposium, USENIX Security 16, Austin, TX, USA, August 10–12, 2016, pp. 327–343. USENIX Association (2016). https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity16/technical-sessions/presentation/alkim

  4. Aranha, D.F., Fouque, P.-A., Gérard, B., Kammerer, J.-G., Tibouchi, M., Zapalowicz, J.-C.: GLV/gls decomposition, power analysis, and attacks on ECDSA signatures with single-bit nonce bias. In: Sarkar, P., Iwata, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8873, pp. 262–281. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45611-8_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Aranha, D.F., Novaes, F.R., Takahashi, A., Tibouchi, M., Yarom, Y.: LadderLeak: breaking ECDSA with less than one bit of nonce leakage. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. CCS 2020, New York, NY, USA, pp. 225–242, Association for Computing Machinery (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3372297.3417268

  6. Aumasson, J.P., et al.: SPHINCS+: stateless hash-based signatures. https://sphincs.org/. Accessed 28 Jun 2023

  7. Aumüller, C., Bier, P., Fischer, W., Hofreiter, P., Seifert, J.-P.: Fault attacks on RSA with CRT: concrete results and practical countermeasures. In: Kaliski, B.S., Koç, K., Paar, C. (eds.) CHES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2523, pp. 260–275. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36400-5_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Aweke, Z.B., et al.: ANVIL: software-based protection against next-generation rowhammer attacks. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 51(4), 743–755 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Baan, H., Bhattacharya, S., Fluhrer, S., Garcia-Morchon, O., Laarhoven, T., Rietman, R., Saarinen, M.-J.O., Tolhuizen, L., Zhang, Z.: Round5: compact and fast post-quantum public-key encryption. In: Ding, J., Steinwandt, R. (eds.) PQCrypto 2019. LNCS, vol. 11505, pp. 83–102. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25510-7_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Banerjee, A., Peikert, C., Rosen, A.: Pseudorandom functions and lattices. In: Pointcheval, D., Johansson, T. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7237, pp. 719–737. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29011-4_42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Berthet, P., Tavernier, C., Danger, J., Sauvage, L.: Quasi-linear Masking to Protect Kyber against both SCA and FIA. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. p. 1220 (2023). https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/1220

  12. Biehl, I., Meyer, B., Müller, V.: Differential fault attacks on elliptic curve cryptosystems. In: Bellare, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2000. LNCS, vol. 1880, pp. 131–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44598-6_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Bos, J.W., et al.: Frodo: take off the ring! practical, quantum-secure key exchange from LWE. In: Weippl, E.R., Katzenbeisser, S., Kruegel, C., Myers, A.C., Halevi, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Vienna, Austria, October 24–28, 2016, pp. 1006–1018. ACM (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2976749.2978425

  14. Bos, J.W., et al.: CRYSTALS - Kyber: a CCA-secure module-lattice-based KEM (2017). http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/634

  15. Bos, J.W., Gourjon, M., Renes, J., Schneider, T., van Vredendaal, C.: Masking kyber: first- and higher-order implementations. IACR Trans. Cryptogr. Hardw. Embed. Syst. 2021(4), 173–214 (2021). https://doi.org/10.46586/tches.v2021.i4.173-214

  16. Chakraborty, A., Bhattacharya, S., Saha, S., Mukhopadhyay, D.: ExplFrame: exploiting page frame cache for fault analysis of block ciphers. In: 2020 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition, DATE 2020, Grenoble, France, March 9–13, 2020, pp. 1303–1306. IEEE (2020). https://doi.org/10.23919/DATE48585.2020.9116219

  17. Chakraborty, A., Bhattacharya, S., Saha, S., Mukhopdhyay, D.: Rowhammer Induced Intermittent Fault Attack on ECC-hardened memory (2020). https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/380

  18. Cheon, J.H., Choe, H., Hong, D., Yi, M.: SMAUG: Pushing Lattice-based Key Encapsulation Mechanisms to the Limits. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2023/739 (2023). https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/739

  19. Dachman-Soled, D., Ducas, L., Gong, H., Rossi, M.: LWE with Side Information: Attacks and Concrete Security Estimation. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2020/292 (2020). https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/292

  20. Daemen, J., Rijmen, V.: Rijndael for AES. In: The Third Advanced Encryption Standard Candidate Conference, April 13–14, 2000, New York, New York, USA, pp. 343–348. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  21. D’Anvers, J., Karmakar, A., Roy, S.S., Vercauteren, F.: Saber: module-LWR based key exchange, CPA-secure encryption and CCA-secure KEM (2018). http://eprint.iacr.org/2018/230

  22. Ducas, L., Lepoint, T., Lyubashevsky, V., Schwabe, P., Seiler, G., Stehlé, D.: CRYSTALS - Dilithium: Digital Signatures from Module Lattices (2017). http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/633

  23. Fahr, M., et al.: When frodo flips: end-to-end key recovery on frodokem via rowhammer. In: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. CCS 2022, New York, NY, USA, pp. 979–993. Association for Computing Machinery (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3548606.3560673

  24. Fan, H., Wang, W., Wang, Y.: Cache attack on MISTY1. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. p. 723 (2021). https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/723

  25. Fouque, P.A., et al.: Falcon: fast-fourier lattice-based compact signatures over NTRU (2018). https://falcon-sign.info/falcon.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2023

  26. Frigo, P., et al.: TRRespass: exploiting the many sides of target row refresh. In: 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2020, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 18–21, 2020, pp. 747–762. IEEE (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/SP40000.2020.00090

  27. Fujisaki, E., Okamoto, T.: Secure integration of asymmetric and symmetric encryption schemes. J. Cryptol. 26(1), 80–101 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-011-9114-1

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Gama, N., Nguyen, P.Q.: Predicting lattice reduction. In: Smart, N. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 31–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78967-3_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Guo, Q., Johansson, T., Nilsson, A.: A key-recovery timing attack on post-quantum primitives using the Fujisaki-Okamoto transformation and its application on FrodoKEM. In: Micciancio, D., Ristenpart, T. (eds.) CRYPTO 2020. LNCS, vol. 12171, pp. 359–386. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56880-1_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Hermelink, J., Pessl, P., Pöppelmann, T.: Fault-enabled chosen-ciphertext attacks on Kyber. In: Adhikari, A., Küsters, R., Preneel, B. (eds.) INDOCRYPT 2021. LNCS, vol. 13143, pp. 311–334. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92518-5_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Islam, S., Mus, K., Singh, R., Schaumont, P., Sunar, B.: Signature correction attack on Dilithium signature scheme. In: 7th IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, EuroS &P 2022, Genoa, Italy, June 6–10, 2022, pp. 647–663. IEEE (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/EuroSP53844.2022.00046, https://doi.org/10.1109/EuroSP53844.2022.00046

  32. Jiang, H., Zhang, Z., Chen, L., Wang, H., Ma, Z.: Post-quantum IND-CCA-secure KEM without Additional Hash. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/1096 (2017). https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1096

  33. Kim, Y., et al.: Flipping bits in memory without accessing them: an experimental study of DRAM disturbance errors. ACM SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News 42(3), 361–372 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. KpqC: Korean post-quantum cryptography competition (2022). https://www.kpqc.or.kr/competition.html. Accessed 28 Jun 2023

  35. Kundu, S., D’Anvers, J., Beirendonck, M.V., Karmakar, A., Verbauwhede, I.: Higher-order masked saber. In: Galdi, C., Jarecki, S. (eds.) SCN 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 13409, pp. 93–116. Springer, Cham (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kwong, A., Genkin, D., Gruss, D., Yarom, Y.: Rambleed: reading bits in memory without accessing them (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/SP40000.2020.00020

  37. Langlois, A., Stehlé, D.: Worst-case to average-case reductions for module lattices. Des. Codes Cryptogr. 75(3), 565–599 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10623-014-9938-4

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Lyubashevsky, V., Peikert, C., Regev, O.: On ideal lattices and learning with errors over rings. In: Gilbert, H. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6110, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13190-5_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Micron: DDR4 SDRAM Datasheet (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Miller, V.S.: Use of elliptic curves in cryptography. In: Williams, H.C. (ed.) CRYPTO 1985. LNCS, vol. 218, pp. 417–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-39799-X_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Mujdei, C., Beckers, A., Bermundo, J., Karmakar, A., Wouters, L., Verbauwhede, I.: Side-Channel Analysis of Lattice-Based Post-Quantum Cryptography: Exploiting Polynomial Multiplication. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. p. 474 (2022). https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/474

  42. Mus, K., Islam, S., Sunar, B.: QuantumHammer: a practical hybrid attack on the luov signature scheme. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. CCS 2020, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1071–1084. Association for Computing Machinery (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3372297.3417272

  43. Mutlu, O., Kim, J.S.: RowHammer: A Retrospective. IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 39(8), 1555–1571 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/TCAD.2019.2915318

  44. Osvik, D.A., Shamir, A., Tromer, E.: Cache attacks and countermeasures: the case of AES. In: Pointcheval, D. (ed.) CT-RSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 3860, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11605805_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Pessl, P., Prokop, L.: Fault attacks on CCA-secure lattice KEMs. IACR Trans. Cryptogr. Hardw. Embed. Syst. 2021(2), 37–60 (2021). https://doi.org/10.46586/tches.v2021.i2.37-60

  46. Proos, J., Zalka, C.: Shor’s discrete logarithm quantum algorithm for elliptic curves. Quantum Inf. Comput. 3(4), 317–344 (2003). https://doi.org/10.26421/QIC3.4-3

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Rajendran, G., Ravi, P., D’Anvers, J., Bhasin, S., Chattopadhyay, A.: Pushing the limits of generic side-channel attacks on LWE-based KEMs - parallel PC oracle attacks on Kyber KEM and beyond. IACR Trans. Cryptogr. Hardw. Embed. Syst. 2023(2), 418–446 (2023). https://doi.org/10.46586/tches.v2023.i2.418-446

  48. Ravi, P., Chattopadhyay, A., Baksi, A.: Side-channel and Fault-injection attacks over Lattice-based Post-quantum Schemes (Kyber, Dilithium): Survey and New Results. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. p. 737 (2022). https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/737

  49. Ravi, P., Roy, S.S., Chattopadhyay, A., Bhasin, S.: Generic Side-channel attacks on CCA-secure lattice-based PKE and KEMs. IACR Trans. Cryptogr. Hardw. Embed. Syst. 2020(3), 307–335 (2020), https://doi.org/10.13154/tches.v2020.i3.307-335

  50. Razavi, K., Gras, B., Bosman, E., Preneel, B., Giuffrida, C., Bos, H.: Flip feng shui: hammering a needle in the software stack. In: Proceedings of the 25th USENIX Conference on Security Symposium. SEC 2016, pp. 1–18. USENIX Association, USA (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Regev, O.: Lecture notes: Lattices in computer science. https://cims.nyu.edu/ regev/teaching/lattices_fall_2009

  52. Rivest, R.L., Shamir, A., Adleman, L.M.: A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems. Commun. ACM 21(2), 120–126 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1145/359340.359342

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  53. Seaborn, M., Dullien, T.: Exploiting the DRAM rowhammer bug to gain kernel privileges. Black Hat 15, 71 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Settana, M., Naila, A., Yaseen, H., Huwaida, T.: Cache-timing attack against AES crypto-systems countermeasure using weighted average masking time algorithm. J. Inf. Warfare 15(1), 104–114 (2016). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26487484

  55. Shor, P.W.: Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In: 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, 20–22 November 1994, pp. 124–134. IEEE Computer Society (1994). https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700

  56. Tanaka, Y., Ueno, R., Xagawa, K., Ito, A., Takahashi, J., Homma, N.: Multiple-valued plaintext-checking side-channel attacks on post-quantum KEMs (2022). https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/940

  57. Tatar, A., Giuffrida, C., Bos, H., Razavi, K.: Defeating software mitigations against rowhammer: a surgical precision hammer. In: Bailey, M., Holz, T., Stamatogiannakis, M., Ioannidis, S. (eds.) RAID 2018. LNCS, vol. 11050, pp. 47–66. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00470-5_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  58. Veyrat-Charvillon, N., Medwed, M., Kerckhof, S., Standaert, F.-X.: Shuffling against side-channel attacks: a comprehensive study with cautionary note. In: Wang, X., Sako, K. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7658, pp. 740–757. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34961-4_44

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  59. Xiao, Y., Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Teodorescu, R.: One bit flips, one cloud flops: cross-VM row hammer attacks and privilege escalation. In: Holz, T., Savage, S. (eds.) 25th USENIX Security Symposium, USENIX Security 16, Austin, TX, USA, August 10–12, 2016, pp. 19–35. USENIX Association (2016). https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity16/technical-sessions/presentation/xiao

  60. Yarom, Y., Falkner, K.: FLUSH+RELOAD: a high resolution, low noise, L3 cache side-channel attack. In: Fu, K., Jung, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd USENIX Security Symposium, San Diego, CA, USA, August 20–22, 2014, pp. 719–732. USENIX Association (2014). https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity14/technical-sessions/presentation/yarom

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by Horizon 2020 ERC Advanced Grant (101020005 Belfort), CyberSecurity Research Flanders with reference number VR20192203, BE QCI: Belgian-QCI (3E230370) (see beqci.eu), and Intel Corporation.

Angshuman Karmakar is funded by FWO (Research Foundation - Flanders) as a junior post-doctoral fellow (contract number 203056/1241722N LV). Puja Mondal and Angshuman Karmakar are also supported by C3iHub, IIT Kanpur.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Kanpur, Kanpur, India

    Puja Mondal & Angshuman Karmakar

  2. COSIC, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 10, BUS, 2452, B-3001, Leuven-Heverlee, Belgium

    Suparna Kundu, Angshuman Karmakar & Ingrid Verbauwhede

  3. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Kanpur, Kharagpur, India

    Sarani Bhattacharya

Authors
  1. Puja Mondal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suparna Kundu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarani Bhattacharya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Angshuman Karmakar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ingrid Verbauwhede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Puja Mondal .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Christina Pöpper

  2. Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Lejla Batina

1 Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 198 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Mondal, P., Kundu, S., Bhattacharya, S., Karmakar, A., Verbauwhede, I. (2024). A Practical Key-Recovery Attack on LWE-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism Schemes Using Rowhammer. In: Pöpper, C., Batina, L. (eds) Applied Cryptography and Network Security. ACNS 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14585. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54776-8_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54776-8_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-54775-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-54776-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics