Because data, such as human readable data, is readily accessible to individuals over a public transport media such as the Internet, various techniques have been devised to protect unauthorized use of human readable data and to insure proper functioning of cryptographic applications. One or more algorithms may be employed to encrypt the data prior to its transmission or storage. The encrypted data may be read by the desired individual(s) by using a corresponding encryption key or seed value. The encryption key may be generated by a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG). If the encryption key is provided only to authorized parties and if the encryption algorithm is sufficiently complex, unauthorized access may be prevented. Often, however, the encryption key may be deciphered by a hacker or cryptanalyst.
One drawback in generating secure encryption keys relates to the statistical properties of the pseudo-random number generator (PRNG). Often enough, the generated key space is too small allowing a cryptanalyst to successfully determine an appropriate key using one or more search algorithms.
Another drawback relates to the relative ease in determining an encryption key based on deciphering one or more parameters of an algorithm. For example, a cryptanalyst may often find it easier to examine the smaller space of algorithm parameters. Often, one or more internal parameters may be deciphered and used to formulate the algorithm. Many key encryption algorithms are prone to being easily deciphered by a cryptanalyst's observation of the behavior of one or more internal parameters. For example, a periodic occurrence of a particular outcome within a sample space may allow a cryptanalyst to decode one or more parameters contributory to the design of the algorithm.
Another area of concern relates to the difficulty required in implementing a desirably secure PRNG. Because of its simplicity, PRNGs are often implemented using linear feedback shift registers (LFSRs); however, such implementations are very vulnerable to attack. Direct application of a LFSR to generate pseudo-random numbers would implement an algorithm that is vulnerable to attack.
Further limitations and disadvantages of conventional and traditional approaches will become apparent to one of skill in the art, through comparison of such systems with some aspects of the present invention as set forth in the remainder of the present application with reference to the drawings.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds