Misplaced Pages

#850149

69-559: Security properties of MLS include message confidentiality, message integrity and authentication, membership authentication, asynchronicity, forward secrecy , post-compromise security, and scalability. The idea was born in 2016 and first discussed in an unofficial meeting during IETF 96 in Berlin with attendees from Wire , Mozilla and Cisco . Initial ideas were based on pairwise encryption for secure 1:1 and group communication. In 2017, an academic paper introducing Asynchronous Ratcheting Trees

138-457: A Sophie Germain prime q is sometimes used to calculate p = 2 q + 1 , called a safe prime , since the order of G is then only divisible by 2 and q . Sometimes g is chosen to generate the order q subgroup of G , rather than G , so that the Legendre symbol of g never reveals the low order bit of a . A protocol using such a choice is for example IKEv2 . The generator g is often

207-625: A and b respectively, with public keys A and B , as well as the ephemeral key pairs x, X and y, Y . Then protocol is: The long term public keys need to be transferred somehow. That can be done beforehand in a separate, trusted channel, or the public keys can be encrypted using some partial key agreement to preserve anonymity. For more of such details as well as other improvements like side channel protection or explicit key confirmation , as well as early messages and additional password authentication, see e.g. US patent "Advanced modular handshake for key agreement and optional authentication". X3DH

276-720: A denial-of-service attack (DoS) against the protocol variants use ephemeral keys, called D(HE)at attack. The attack exploits that the Diffie–Hellman key exchange allows attackers to send arbitrary numbers that are actually not public keys, triggering expensive modular exponentiation calculations on the victim's side. Another CVEs released disclosed that the Diffie–Hellman key exchange implementations may use long private exponents ( CVE-2022-40735 ) that arguably make modular exponentiation calculations unnecessarily expensive or may unnecessary check peer's public key ( CVE-2024-41996 ) has similar resource requirement as key calculation using

345-443: A given only g , p and g mod p . Such a problem is called the discrete logarithm problem . The computation of g mod p is known as modular exponentiation and can be done efficiently even for large numbers. Note that g need not be large at all, and in practice is usually a small integer (like 2, 3, ...). The chart below depicts who knows what, again with non-secret values in blue , and secret values in red . Here Eve

414-417: A malicious key exhaustion attack, the attacker sends many messages to the recipient and exhausts the private key material, forcing a protocol to choose between failing closed (and enabling denial of service attacks) or failing open (and giving up some amount of forward secrecy). Most key exchange protocols are interactive , requiring bidirectional communication between the parties. A protocol that permits

483-426: A message suppression attack, an attacker in control of the network may itself store messages while preventing them from reaching the intended recipient; as the messages are never received, the corresponding private keys may not be destroyed or punctured, so a compromise of the private key can lead to successful decryption. Proactively retiring private keys on a schedule mitigates, but does not eliminate, this attack. In

552-475: A shared secret key over an insecure channel . This key can then be used to encrypt subsequent communications using a symmetric-key cipher . Diffie–Hellman is used to secure a variety of Internet services. However, research published in October 2015 suggests that the parameters in use for many DH Internet applications at that time are not strong enough to prevent compromise by very well-funded attackers, such as

621-410: A 0-RTT forward secure and replay-resistant key exchange implemented with puncturable encryption incurred significantly increased resource usage, but not so much as to make practical use infeasible. Weak perfect forward secrecy (Wpfs) is the weaker property whereby when agents' long-term keys are compromised, the secrecy of previously established session-keys is guaranteed, but only for sessions in which

690-553: A Diffie–Hellman agreement as follows, with all operations taken to be modulo p : An eavesdropper has been able to see g mod p , g mod p , g mod p , g mod p , g mod p , and g mod p , but cannot use any combination of these to efficiently reproduce g mod p . To extend this mechanism to larger groups, two basic principles must be followed: These principles leave open various options for choosing in which order participants contribute to keys. The simplest and most obvious solution

759-483: A conversation whose confidentiality is protected through the use of public-key cryptography and wait until the underlying cipher is broken (e.g. large quantum computers could be created which allow the discrete logarithm problem to be computed quickly). This would allow the recovery of old plaintexts even in a system employing forward secrecy. Non-interactive forward-secure key exchange protocols face additional threats that are not relevant to interactive protocols. In

SECTION 10

#1733093300851

828-579: A feature which enforces the use of HTTPS transmission. Specifically, ATS requires the use of an encryption cipher that provides forward secrecy. ATS became mandatory for apps on January 1, 2017. The Signal messaging application employs forward secrecy in its protocol, notably differentiating it from messaging protocols based on PGP . Forward secrecy is supported on 92.6% of websites on modern browsers, while 0.3% of websites do not support forward secrecy at all as of May 2024. Diffie%E2%80%93Hellman key exchange Diffie–Hellman ( DH ) key exchange

897-410: A handful of groups that are of order 1024 bits or less. By precomputing the first three steps of the number field sieve for the most common groups, an attacker need only carry out the last step, which is much less computationally expensive than the first three steps, to obtain a specific logarithm. The Logjam attack used this vulnerability to compromise a variety of Internet services that allowed

966-403: A long exponent. An attacker can exploit both vulnerabilities together. The number field sieve algorithm, which is generally the most effective in solving the discrete logarithm problem , consists of four computational steps. The first three steps only depend on the order of the group G, not on the specific number whose finite log is desired. It turns out that much Internet traffic uses one of

1035-402: A long-term key, but the compromise is detected and the long-term key is revoked and updated, relatively little information is leaked in a forward secure system. The value of forward secrecy depends on the assumed capabilities of an adversary. Forward secrecy has value if an adversary is assumed to be able to obtain secret keys from a device (read access) but is either detected or unable to modify

1104-702: A point on an elliptic curve instead of as an integer modulo n. Variants using hyperelliptic curves have also been proposed. The supersingular isogeny key exchange is a Diffie–Hellman variant that was designed to be secure against quantum computers , but it was broken in July 2022. The used keys can either be ephemeral or static (long term) key, but could even be mixed, so called semi-static DH. These variants have different properties and hence different use cases. An overview over many variants and some also discussions can for example be found in NIST SP 800-56A. A basic list: It

1173-465: A server, which Alice downloads and verifies the signature on. Alice then initiates the exchange to Bob. The OPK is optional. Diffie–Hellman key agreement is not limited to negotiating a key shared by only two participants. Any number of users can take part in an agreement by performing iterations of the agreement protocol and exchanging intermediate data (which does not itself need to be kept secret). For example, Alice, Bob, and Carol could participate in

1242-444: A small integer such as 2. Because of the random self-reducibility of the discrete logarithm problem a small g is equally secure as any other generator of the same group. If Alice and Bob use random number generators whose outputs are not completely random and can be predicted to some extent, then it is much easier to eavesdrop. In the original description, the Diffie–Hellman exchange by itself does not provide authentication of

1311-409: Is prime , and g is a primitive root modulo p . These two values are chosen in this way to ensure that the resulting shared secret can take on any value from 1 to p –1. Here is an example of the protocol, with non-secret values in blue , and secret values in red . Both Alice and Bob have arrived at the same values because under mod p, More specifically, Only a and b are kept secret. All

1380-451: Is a mathematical method of securely generating a symmetric cryptographic key over a public channel and was one of the first public-key protocols as conceived by Ralph Merkle and named after Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman . DH is one of the earliest practical examples of public key exchange implemented within the field of cryptography. Published in 1976 by Diffie and Hellman, this

1449-440: Is a more general description of the protocol: Both Alice and Bob are now in possession of the group element g = g , which can serve as the shared secret key. The group G satisfies the requisite condition for secure communication as long as there is no efficient algorithm for determining g given g , g , and g . For example, the elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman protocol is a variant that represents an element of G as

SECTION 20

#1733093300851

1518-434: Is an eavesdropper – she watches what is sent between Alice and Bob, but she does not alter the contents of their communications. Now s is the shared secret key and it is known to both Alice and Bob, but not to Eve. Note that it is not helpful for Eve to compute AB , which equals g mod p . Note: It should be difficult for Alice to solve for Bob's private key or for Bob to solve for Alice's private key. If it

1587-434: Is designed to prevent the compromise of a long-term secret key from affecting the confidentiality of past conversations. However, forward secrecy cannot defend against a successful cryptanalysis of the underlying ciphers being used, since a cryptanalysis consists of finding a way to decrypt an encrypted message without the key, and forward secrecy only protects keys, not the ciphers themselves. A patient attacker can capture

1656-472: Is large enough. An efficient algorithm to solve the discrete logarithm problem would make it easy to compute a or b and solve the Diffie–Hellman problem, making this and many other public key cryptosystems insecure. Fields of small characteristic may be less secure. The order of G should have a large prime factor to prevent use of the Pohlig–Hellman algorithm to obtain a or b . For this reason,

1725-489: Is limited not only by the assumption that an adversary will attack a server by only stealing keys and not modifying the random number generator used by the server but it is also limited by the assumption that the adversary will only passively collect traffic on the communications link and not be active using a man-in-the-middle attack. Forward secrecy typically uses an ephemeral Diffie–Hellman key exchange to prevent reading past traffic. The ephemeral Diffie–Hellman key exchange

1794-525: Is no longer the case with TLS 1.3, which ensures forward secrecy by leaving ephemeral Diffie–Hellman (finite field and elliptic curve variants) as the only remaining key exchange mechanism. OpenSSL supports forward secrecy using elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman since version 1.0, with a computational overhead of approximately 15% for the initial handshake. The Signal Protocol uses the Double Ratchet Algorithm to provide forward secrecy. On

1863-447: Is not difficult for Alice to solve for Bob's private key (or vice versa), then an eavesdropper, Eve , may simply substitute her own private / public key pair, plug Bob's public key into her private key, produce a fake shared secret key, and solve for Bob's private key (and use that to solve for the shared secret key). Eve may attempt to choose a public / private key pair that will make it easy for her to solve for Bob's private key. Here

1932-454: Is not sufficient for forward secrecy which additionally requires that a long-term secret compromise does not affect the security of past session keys. Forward secrecy protects data on the transport layer of a network that uses common transport layer security protocols, including OpenSSL , when its long-term secret keys are compromised, as with the Heartbleed security bug. If forward secrecy

2001-478: Is often signed by the server using a static signing key. If an adversary can steal (or obtain through a court order) this static (long term) signing key, the adversary can masquerade as the server to the client and as the client to the server and implement a classic man-in-the-middle attack. The term "perfect forward secrecy" was coined by C. G. Günther in 1990 and further discussed by Whitfield Diffie , Paul van Oorschot , and Michael James Wiener in 1992 where it

2070-487: Is possible to use ephemeral and static keys in one key agreement to provide more security as for example shown in NIST SP 800-56A, but it is also possible to combine those in a single DH key exchange, which is then called triple DH (3-DH). In 1997 a kind of triple DH was proposed by Simon Blake-Wilson, Don Johnson, Alfred Menezes in 1997, which was improved by C. Kudla and K. G. Paterson in 2005 and shown to be secure. The long term secret keys of Alice and Bob are denoted by

2139-839: Is present in several major protocol implementations, such as SSH and as an optional feature in IPsec (RFC 2412). Off-the-Record Messaging , a cryptography protocol and library for many instant messaging clients, as well as OMEMO which provides additional features such as multi-user functionality in such clients, both provide forward secrecy as well as deniable encryption . In Transport Layer Security (TLS), cipher suites based on Diffie–Hellman key exchange (DHE- RSA , DHE- DSA ) and elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman key exchange (ECDHE- RSA , ECDHE- ECDSA ) are available. In theory, TLS could choose appropriate ciphers since SSLv3, but in everyday practice many implementations refused to offer forward secrecy or only provided it with very low encryption grade. This

Messaging Layer Security - Misplaced Pages Continue

2208-623: Is the ElGamal encryption . A more modern variant is the Integrated Encryption Scheme . Protocols that achieve forward secrecy generate new key pairs for each session and discard them at the end of the session. The Diffie–Hellman key exchange is a frequent choice for such protocols, because of its fast key generation. When Alice and Bob share a password, they may use a password-authenticated key agreement (PK) form of Diffie–Hellman to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks. One simple scheme

2277-427: Is the earliest publicly known work that proposed the idea of a private key and a corresponding public key. Traditionally, secure encrypted communication between two parties required that they first exchange keys by some secure physical means, such as paper key lists transported by a trusted courier . The Diffie–Hellman key exchange method allows two parties that have no prior knowledge of each other to jointly establish

2346-399: Is to arrange the N participants in a circle and have N keys rotate around the circle, until eventually every key has been contributed to by all N participants (ending with its owner) and each participant has contributed to N keys (ending with their own). However, this requires that every participant perform N modular exponentiations. By choosing a more desirable order, and relying on

2415-508: Is to compare the hash of s concatenated with the password calculated independently on both ends of channel. A feature of these schemes is that an attacker can only test one specific password on each iteration with the other party, and so the system provides good security with relatively weak passwords. This approach is described in ITU-T Recommendation X.1035 , which is used by the G.hn home networking standard. An example of such

2484-438: Is used, encrypted communications and sessions recorded in the past cannot be retrieved and decrypted should long-term secret keys or passwords be compromised in the future, even if the adversary actively interfered, for example via a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack . The value of forward secrecy is that it protects past communication. This reduces the motivation for attackers to compromise keys. For instance, if an attacker learns

2553-455: The Signal protocol . In puncturable encryption, the recipient modifies their private key after receiving a message in such a way that the new private key cannot read the message but the public key is unchanged. Ross J. Anderson informally described a puncturable encryption scheme for forward secure key exchange in 1997, and Green & Miers (2015) formally described such a system, building on

2622-758: The Wikimedia Foundation have all provided forward secrecy to users since July 2014 and are requiring the use of forward secrecy since August 2018. Facebook reported as part of an investigation into email encryption that, as of May 2014, 74% of hosts that support STARTTLS also provide forward secrecy. TLS 1.3, published in August 2018, dropped support for ciphers without forward secrecy. As of February 2019 , 96.6% of web servers surveyed support some form of forward secrecy, and 52.1% will use forward secrecy with most browsers. At WWDC 2016, Apple announced that all iOS apps would need to use App Transport Security (ATS),

2691-505: The Logjam authors recommend use of elliptic curve cryptography , for which no similar attack is known. Failing that, they recommend that the order, p , of the Diffie–Hellman group should be at least 2048 bits. They estimate that the pre-computation required for a 2048-bit prime is 10 times more difficult than for 1024-bit primes. Public key encryption schemes based on the Diffie–Hellman key exchange have been proposed. The first such scheme

2760-419: The adversary did not actively interfere. This new notion, and the distinction between this and forward secrecy was introduced by Hugo Krawczyk in 2005. This weaker definition implicitly requires that full (perfect) forward secrecy maintains the secrecy of previously established session keys even in sessions where the adversary did actively interfere, or attempted to act as a man in the middle. Forward secrecy

2829-588: The algorithm be called Diffie–Hellman–Merkle key exchange in recognition of Ralph Merkle 's contribution to the invention of public-key cryptography (Hellman, 2006), writing: The system...has since become known as Diffie–Hellman key exchange. While that system was first described in a paper by Diffie and me, it is a public key distribution system, a concept developed by Merkle, and hence should be called 'Diffie–Hellman–Merkle key exchange' if names are to be associated with it. I hope this small pulpit might help in that endeavor to recognize Merkle's equal contribution to

Messaging Layer Security - Misplaced Pages Continue

2898-464: The analogy back to a real-life exchange using large numbers rather than colors, this determination is computationally expensive. It is impossible to compute in a practical amount of time even for modern supercomputers . The simplest and the original implementation, later formalized as Finite Field Diffie–Hellman in RFC 7919 , of the protocol uses the multiplicative group of integers modulo p , where p

2967-566: The basis for a variety of authenticated protocols, and is used to provide forward secrecy in Transport Layer Security 's ephemeral modes (referred to as EDH or DHE depending on the cipher suite ). The method was followed shortly afterwards by RSA , an implementation of public-key cryptography using asymmetric algorithms. Expired US patent 4,200,770 from 1977 describes the now public-domain algorithm. It credits Hellman, Diffie, and Merkle as inventors. In 2006, Hellman suggested

3036-454: The beginning and continuing to be so, actively decrypting and re-encrypting messages every time Alice and Bob communicate. If she arrives after the keys have been generated and the encrypted conversation between Alice and Bob has already begun, the attack cannot succeed. If she is ever absent, her previous presence is then revealed to Alice and Bob. They will know that all of their private conversations had been intercepted and decoded by someone in

3105-585: The bidirectionality requirement can also improve performance even where it is not a strict requirement, for example at connection establishment or resumption. These use cases have stimulated interest in non-interactive key exchange, and, as forward security is a desirable property in a key exchange protocol, in non-interactive forward secrecy. This combination has been identified as desirable since at least 1996. However, combining forward secrecy and non-interactivity has proven challenging; it had been suspected that forward secrecy with protection against replay attacks

3174-407: The channel. In most cases it will not help them get Mallory's private key, even if she used the same key for both exchanges. A method to authenticate the communicating parties to each other is generally needed to prevent this type of attack. Variants of Diffie–Hellman, such as STS protocol , may be used instead to avoid these types of attacks. A CVE released in 2021 ( CVE-2002-20001 ) disclosed

3243-416: The color is yellow. Each person also selects a secret color that they keep to themselves – in this case, red and cyan. The crucial part of the process is that Alice and Bob each mix their own secret color together with their mutually shared color, resulting in orange-tan and light-blue mixtures respectively, and then publicly exchange the two mixed colors. Finally, each of them mixes the color they received from

3312-408: The communicating parties and can be vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack . Mallory (an active attacker executing the man-in-the-middle attack) may establish two distinct key exchanges, one with Alice and the other with Bob, effectively masquerading as Alice to Bob, and vice versa, allowing her to decrypt, then re-encrypt, the messages passed between them. Note that Mallory must be in the middle from

3381-426: The discrete log problem for a 1024-bit prime would cost on the order of $ 100 million, well within the budget of a large national intelligence agency such as the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The Logjam authors speculate that precomputation against widely reused 1024-bit DH primes is behind claims in leaked NSA documents that NSA is able to break much of current cryptography. To avoid these vulnerabilities,

3450-462: The eight implied by a simple circular arrangement. The protocol is considered secure against eavesdroppers if G and g are chosen properly. In particular, the order of the group G must be large, particularly if the same group is used for large amounts of traffic. The eavesdropper has to solve the Diffie–Hellman problem to obtain g . This is currently considered difficult for groups whose order

3519-412: The fact that keys can be duplicated, it is possible to reduce the number of modular exponentiations performed by each participant to log 2 ( N ) + 1 using a divide-and-conquer-style approach, given here for eight participants: Once this operation has been completed all participants will possess the secret g , but each participant will have performed only four modular exponentiations, rather than

SECTION 50

#1733093300851

3588-475: The invention of public key cryptography. Diffie–Hellman key exchange establishes a shared secret between two parties that can be used for secret communication for exchanging data over a public network. An analogy illustrates the concept of public key exchange by using colors instead of very large numbers: The process begins by having the two parties, Alice and Bob , publicly agree on an arbitrary starting color that does not need to be kept secret. In this example,

3657-401: The keys generated in an iteration of step 2 is compromised, since such a key is only used to encrypt a single message. Forward secrecy also ensures that past communications cannot be decrypted if the long-term private keys from step 1 are compromised. However, masquerading as Alice or Bob would be possible going forward if this occurred, possibly compromising all future messages. Forward secrecy

3726-482: The other hand, among popular protocols currently in use, WPA Personal did not support forward secrecy before WPA3. Forward secrecy is seen as an important security feature by several large Internet information providers. Since late 2011, Google provided forward secrecy with TLS by default to users of its Gmail service, Google Docs service, and encrypted search services. Since November 2013, Twitter provided forward secrecy with TLS to its users. Wikis hosted by

3795-411: The other values – p , g , g mod p , and g mod p – are sent in the clear. The strength of the scheme comes from the fact that g mod p = g mod p take extremely long times to compute by any known algorithm just from the knowledge of p , g , g mod p , and g mod p . Such a function that is easy to compute but hard to invert is called a one-way function . Once Alice and Bob compute

3864-406: The partner with their own private color. The result is a final color mixture (yellow-brown in this case) that is identical to their partner's final color mixture. If a third party listened to the exchange, they would only know the common color (yellow) and the first mixed colors (orange-tan and light-blue), but it would be very hard for them to find out the final secret color (yellow-brown). Bringing

3933-480: The property of forward secrecy if plain-text (decrypted) inspection of the data exchange that occurs during key agreement phase of session initiation does not reveal the key that was used to encrypt the remainder of the session. The following is a hypothetical example of a simple instant messaging protocol that employs forward secrecy: Forward secrecy (achieved by generating new session keys for each message) ensures that past communications cannot be decrypted if one of

4002-524: The related scheme of Canetti, Halevi & Katz (2003) , which modifies the private key according to a schedule so that messages sent in previous periods cannot be read with the private key from a later period. Green & Miers (2015) make use of hierarchical identity-based encryption and attribute-based encryption , while Günther et al. (2017) use a different construction that can be based on any hierarchical identity-based scheme. Dallmeier et al. (2020) experimentally found that modifying QUIC to use

4071-502: The security services of some countries. The scheme was published by Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman in 1976, but in 1997 it was revealed that James H. Ellis , Clifford Cocks , and Malcolm J. Williamson of GCHQ , the British signals intelligence agency, had previously shown in 1969 how public-key cryptography could be achieved. Although Diffie–Hellman key exchange itself is a non-authenticated key-agreement protocol , it provides

4140-423: The sender to transmit data without first needing to receive any replies from the recipient may be called non-interactive , or asynchronous , or zero round trip (0-RTT). Interactivity is onerous for some applications—for example, in a secure messaging system, it may be desirable to have a store-and-forward implementation, rather than requiring sender and recipient to be online at the same time; loosening

4209-460: The session key exchange are compromised, limiting damage. For HTTPS , the long-term secret is typically the private key of the server. Forward secrecy protects past sessions against future compromises of keys or passwords. By generating a unique session key for every session a user initiates, the compromise of a single session key will not affect any data other than that exchanged in the specific session protected by that particular key. This by itself

SECTION 60

#1733093300851

4278-431: The shared secret they can use it as an encryption key, known only to them, for sending messages across the same open communications channel. Of course, much larger values of a , b , and p would be needed to make this example secure, since there are only 23 possible results of n mod 23. However, if p is a prime of at least 600 digits, then even the fastest modern computers using the fastest known algorithm cannot find

4347-410: The use of groups whose order was a 512-bit prime number, so called export grade . The authors needed several thousand CPU cores for a week to precompute data for a single 512-bit prime. Once that was done, individual logarithms could be solved in about a minute using two 18-core Intel Xeon CPUs. As estimated by the authors behind the Logjam attack, the much more difficult precomputation needed to solve

4416-466: The way session keys are generated in the device (full compromise). In some cases an adversary who can read long-term keys from a device may also be able to modify the functioning of the session key generator, as in the backdoored Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generator . If an adversary can make the random number generator predictable, then past traffic will be protected but all future traffic will be compromised. The value of forward secrecy

4485-462: Was impossible non-interactively, but it has been shown to be possible to achieve all three desiderata. Broadly, two approaches to non-interactive forward secrecy have been explored, pre-computed keys and puncturable encryption . With pre-computed keys, many key pairs are created and the public keys shared, with the private keys destroyed after a message has been received using the corresponding public key. This approach has been deployed as part of

4554-486: Was initially proposed as part of the Double Ratchet Algorithm used in the Signal Protocol . The protocol offers forward secrecy and cryptographic deniability. It operates on an elliptic curve. The protocol uses five public keys. Alice has an identity key IK A and an ephemeral key EK A . Bob has an identity key IK B , a signed prekey SPK B , and a one-time prekey OPK B . Bob first publishes his three keys to

4623-470: Was officially published on July 19, 2023. Matrix is one of the protocols declaring migration to MLS. This cryptography-related article is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Forward secrecy In cryptography , forward secrecy ( FS ), also known as perfect forward secrecy ( PFS ), is a feature of specific key-agreement protocols that gives assurances that session keys will not be compromised even if long-term secrets used in

4692-607: Was published by the University of Oxford and Facebook setting the focus on more efficient encryption schemes. The first BoF took place in February 2018 at IETF 101 in London. The founding members are Mozilla , Facebook , Wire , Google , Twitter , University of Oxford , and INRIA . As of March 29, 2023, the IETF has approved publication of Messaging Layer Security (MLS) as a new standard. It

4761-554: Was used to describe a property of the Station-to-Station protocol. Forward secrecy has also been used to describe the analogous property of password-authenticated key agreement protocols where the long-term secret is a (shared) password . In 2000 the IEEE first ratified IEEE 1363 , which establishes the related one-party and two-party forward secrecy properties of various standard key agreement schemes. An encryption system has

#850149