Documents have long been subject to tampering and forgery, such as when multi-page documents are subjected to page substitution. In a multi-page document with a signature appearing on fewer than all of the pages, a potential forger may be able to create one or more pages that appear to belong in the document, but yet have different content than is contained in the original pages. The forger may then remove one or more valid pages and substitute the newly-created ones. For example, in a multi-page will, where the testator and notary sign only on the final page, a forger may substitute one of the previous pages with one containing plausible, yet different content. The movie Changing Lanes, released in 2002, demonstrates the concept of forgery by page substitution, although in that story line the document content was not changed, but merely reformatted to be associated with a signature page from a different original document. The forged document was then submitted to a court by an unethical attorney, as a piece of evidence.
Some efforts to combat document tampering include having the signer initial each page and drafting the document such that sentences span page breaks. However, neither method provides complete security. Many forgers are able to falsely generate initials easily, generally more easily than forging entire signatures. Widespread acceptance of photocopied versions of documents opens forgery to an even wider set of people lacking talent for duplicating signatures, since a small cut-out from a valid page containing the signer's initials on an intermediate page may be attached to a forged page prior to photocopying. Spanning sentences across page breaks merely requires that the forged content on the substituted page take up approximately the same printed space as the valid content that is replaced.
A drastic solution of notarizing each page individually may not be practical. Further, notarizing each page merely indicates that each page had been signed by the proper person, but without further measures, notarizing each page may not ensure that all the pages were necessarily intended to belong to the same document. That is, pages of different documents, even if all individually notarized, could potentially be combined to produce a new document that the author did not intend to endorse as a single, complete document.
There has thus been a long-felt need for a system and method for rendering printed documents tamper evident, such that tampering and forgery may be easily detected. However, there has been a failure by others to solve the problem without requiring special inks and/or paper or the use of secret information not available to an independent reviewer of the document. If an obvious, workable solution were available, authors of important documents, such as wills and other documents presenting attractive targets for forgery, would likely have already adopted a solution in order to mitigate risk, thus freeing the signer from the tedium of signing or initialing each page of a long, multi-page document and other document generators from the need for using expensive printing materials.
Solutions do exist for rendering digital computer files, such as electronic document files, tamper evident. These computer-oriented solutions predominantly use hash functions or other integrity verification functions. A hash function, which is an example of a one-way integrity verification function, provides a way to verify that a computer file, such as a program, data file or electronic document, has not changed between two separate times that the file has been hashed. One-way integrity functions generally perform one-way mathematical operations on a digital computer file in order to generate an integrity verification code (IVC), such as a hash value or message digest. This value may then be stored for later reference and comparison with a subsequently calculated IVC, but is generally insufficient to enable determination of the file contents. A difference between two IVCs may then provide an indication that the file contents had been altered between the calculations. Hash functions are currently widely-used in electronic signatures, for example in pretty good privacy (PGP) electronic signatures, in order to render digitally signed files tamper evident.
For example, if a file is created and hashed, anyone receiving a copy of that file at a later time may use a hash function and compare the resulting second hash value against the first hash value. For this to method to identify tampering, the same hash function must be used both times, and the person comparing the hash values may insist on receiving the first hash value through some other delivery channel than the one through which the file to be verified was received. One way to do this would be for an author of a digital file to hash the file, store the result, and mail the file to a receiving party on a computer readable medium such as optical media, including a compact disk (CD) or a digital versatile disk (DVD) or magnetic media, or non-volatile random access memory (RAM). The receiving party hashes the file, stores the result, and waits for a telephone call from the author to discuss the two hash values. If, during transit, the media had been intercepted and substituted with one containing an altered file, the telephone conversation discussing the hash values would reveal that the received file was different than the one sent.
Secure hash functions, such as MD5, secure hash algorithm 1 (SHA-1) and SHA-2 family of hash functions, including SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384 and SHA 512, have certain desirable attributes. For example, they are one-way, the chances of a collision are low, and the hash value changes drastically for even minor file alterations. The one-way feature means that it is exceptionally unlikely that the contents of a file could be recreated using only the hash value. The low chance of a collision means that it is unlikely that two different files could produce the same value. Drastic changes in the hash value, for even minor alterations, make any alteration, even the slightest, easily detectable.
This final feature has significant consequences when attempting to use hash functions to verify the integrity of printed documents. For example, an author may type “a b c” as the entirety of an electronic document file and then hash it. If the file were merely ASCII text, that is, it was not a proprietary word processor file, it could contain ASCII values {97 32 98 32 99} in decimal, which would be {0x61 0x20 0x62 0x20 0x63} in hexadecimal (hex). The message digest using the SHA-1 would then be {0xA9993A36 0x4706816A 0xBA3E2571 0x7850C26C 0x9CD0D89D}.
However, the printed version of the document would not reliably indicate whether the letters were separated by simple spaces or hard tabs. For example, another author may type “a[Tab]b[Tab]c” as an electronic document file which, if it were a simple ASCII text file instead of a word-processing file, would contain ASCII values {97 9 98 9 99} in decimal and {0x61 0x09 0x62 0x09 0x63} in hex. Based on the horizontal spacing of the [Tab] during printing, the two example documents might be indistinguishable in printed form. The message digest of the tabbed file using the SHA-1 would be {0x816EBDB3 0xE5E1d603 0x41402A18 0x09E2F409 0xD53C3742}. This is a drastically altered value for differences that may have no significance regarding the substantive content or the intended plain-language meaning.
A printed document that is scanned by an optical character recognition (OCR) system, or even carefully retyped by a second person, can be expected to fail verification with standard hash algorithms when the hash value of the recreated file is compared against the hash value of an electronic file originally used in the creation of the document. This can happen even if the document is recreated exactly word-for-word, because printing is a lossy process. That is, unprinted information, such as formatting commands, metadata and embedded data, is included in the hash value of the original electronic document file, but is entirely unknown when converting a printed version of the document back into another electronic file that can be hashed.
Even if a file is distributed electronically, the presence of formatting commands and a proprietary file format may still present a problem. For example, if a document is hashed, and then scrubbed to remove metadata or other data, the hash value will be different, even if the substantive content is not altered. Or possibly, a file could be opened without the content being altered, but the metadata might change to reflect that the document had been accessed. In such a case, a standard hash function would be useless for detecting changes to the document content, because the hash value can be expected to be significantly different, even if not a single change were made to the printed portion of the document.
Using a standard hash algorithm, therefore, would be useless when only a printed version of a document is available, because the hash value verification would be expected to fail, even if the printed document was completely intact and free from any changes. Thus, despite the long-felt need for a system and method for rendering printed documents tamper evident, even widespread use of highly-secure digital file integrity verification systems has not yet produced a solution for documents printed on paper. The systems and methods widely used for digital files are simply inapplicable to printed documents, and prior art systems and methods fail to address the problem, even partially.
Unfortunately, a problem exists even for the use of hash functions with computer files. Recent advances in computational capability have created the possibility that collisions may be found for hash algorithms that are trusted today. For example, the SHA-1 produces a 160-bit message digest as the hash value, no matter what the length of the hashed file may be. Thus, the SHA-1 has a vulnerability, which is shared by all hash algorithms that produce a fixed-length message digest.
If a first set of changes is made to a file, a second set of changes, if determinable, may be made to compensate for the first set of changes, such that a hash value calculated after both sets of changes are made is identical to the hash value calculated prior to any changes being made. This renders the use of the hash function unable to identify the alteration. There is, however, a requirement for exploiting this vulnerability: The altered file needs to contain enough bits to include both the first set of changes and a second set of compensating changes. The theoretical limit for the maximum number of bits necessarily affected by the second set of changes is the length of the message digest, although in practice, a second set may be found in some situations that requires fewer than this number. For the SHA-1, the second set of changes does not need to exceed 160 bits in order to force the SHA-1 to return any desired value, such as the pre-tampered value. 160 bits is not a large number, and is far exceeded by unused space in typical word processing, audio, video and executable files. Therefore, if a file is hashed with the SHA-1 to determine an original hash value, and a first set of changes is then made, a second set of changes is possible that will cause the SHA-1 to return the same message digest as the original message digest for the unaltered file. Thus, the second set of changes is a compensating set, because it compensates for the first set of changes by rendering the SHA-1 blind to the alterations. The second set of changes may include appending bits to the file, changing bits within the file, or a combination of the two. The compensating set of changes, however, may affect a set of bits larger than the message digest, and in some cases, this may ease the computational burden and/or make the compensating set of changes harder to detect.
There are two typical prior art responses to the suggestion of this vulnerability: The first is that the SHA-1 and other hash algorithms have been specifically designed to make calculation of a compensating set of changes computationally infeasible. However, due to advances in computational power and widespread study of hash algorithms, such calculations may not remain computationally infeasible indefinitely. A secondary response is that the compensating set of changes should be easily detectable, because they may introduce patterns or other features that do not comport with the remainder of the file.
Unfortunately, though, the secondary assumption, even if true, is not entirely useful. This is because a primary use of hash functions is for integrity verification of computer files intended for computer execution and as data sets for other programs. Both types of files typically use predetermined formats that contain plenty of surplus capacity for concealing the compensating set of changes. For example, executable programs typically contain slack space, which are regions of no instructions or data. Slack space is common, and occurs when a software compiler reserves space for data or instructions, but does not use the reserved space. Often slack space is jumped over during execution. Thus, changes made to some sections of slack space, including the introduction of arbitrary bits, may not affect execution, and therefore will remain undetectable.
A software program may potentially be altered using a first set of changes to the executable instructions, such as adding virus-type behavior or other malicious logic, and a compensating set of changes may be made in the slack space. The compensating set of changes renders the first set of changes undetectable to the hash algorithm, while the compensating set itself remains undetectable because it is in the slack space, and is neither executed nor operated on to produce anomalous results. A covertly altered program may therefore be run, mistakenly trusted by the user, because it produces the correct hash value but does not exhibit any blatantly anomalous behavior.
Similarly, word processing, audio and video files typically have surplus capacity that exceeds the minimum needed for human understanding of their contents. For example, proprietary word processing files, such as *.DOC files, contain fields for metadata, formatting commands, and other information that is typically not viewed or viewable by a human during editing or printing. This surplus capacity often exceeds the message digest length of even the currently-trusted set of hash functions. Thus, a first set of changes could be made to the portion of the file having content that is to be printed, heard or viewed, while the compensating set of changes could be made within the surplus capacity.
Another issue, which could use improvement, is version control of documents for reducing wasted space in file systems on storage media. During the course of computer usage, multiple identical copies of some files may be stored on a file storage system in different logical directories. When backing up, compressing, or otherwise maintaining the storage system, such as copying a hard drive to optical media or purging unneeded files, it may be desirable to avoid copying or retaining duplicate files that waste media space.
For example, if a computer user faces the prospect of running out of storage space, the user may wish to delete duplicates of large files. If a single file is present in many directories, a user may create a search that spans the multiple directories, and look through the resulting list for duplicated names and dates. If storage space is low, it may be preferable to copy or retain only one of the files. Unfortunately, such a plan suffers from multiple challenges, including search time for duplicates, and missed opportunities for using shortcuts. Further, if two files having identical content, but different names, and which were put on the storage medium at different times, common name and date search methods would not identify them as identical. Thus, storage space would be unnecessarily wasted.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds