Informatica

The paper presents a secure and usable variant of the Game Changer Password System, first proposed by McLennan, Manning, and Tuft. Unlike the initial proposal based on inadequately secure Monopoly and Chess, we propose an improved version based on a layered “Battleship” game resilient against brute force and dictionary attacks. Since the initially proposed scheme did not check for the memorability and usability of a layered version, we conducted an experiment on the usability and memorability aspects. Surprisingly, layered passwords are just as memorable as single ones and, with an 80% recall rate, comparable to other graphical password systems. The claim that memorability is the most vital aspect of game-based password systems cannot be disproved. However, the experiment revealed that the usability decreased to such a low level that users felt less inclined to use such a system daily or recommend it to others.

Hwang et al. proposed an ElGamal-like scheme for encrypting large messages, which is more efficient than its predecessor in terms of computational complexity and the amount of data transformation. They declared that the resulting scheme is semantically secure against chosen-plaintext attacks under the assumptions that the decision Diffie–Hellman problem is intractable. Later, Wang et al. pointed out that the security level of Hwang et al.'s ElGamal-like scheme is not equivalent to the original ElGamal scheme and brings about the disadvantage of possible unsuccessful decryption. At the same time, they proposed an improvement on Hwang et al.'s ElGamal-like scheme to repair the weakness and reduce the probability of unsuccessful decryption. However, in this paper, we show that their improved scheme is still insecure against chosen-plaintext attacks whether the system is operated in the quadratic residue modulus or not. Furthermore, we propose a new ElGamal-like scheme to withstand the adaptive chosen-ciphertext attacks. The security of the proposed scheme is based solely on the decision Diffie–Hellman problem in the random oracle model.

Secure communication between set-top boxes (STBs) and smart cards is directly related to the benefit of the service providers and the legal rights of users, while key exchange is the essential part of a secure communication. In 2004, Jiang et al. proposed a key exchange protocol for STBs and smart cards based upon Schnorr's digital signature protocol and a one-way hash function. This paper, however, demonstrates that Jiang et al.'s protocol is vulnerable to an impersonation attack and does not provide perfect forward secrecy. In addition, in order to isolate such problems, we present a new secure key exchange protocol based on a one-way hash function and Diffie–Hellman key exchange algorithm.

Smart card has been adopted to various applications. In 2000, Hwang and Li proposed a remote user authentication scheme, which is also using smart card. Nine months later, Chan and Cheng pointed out that there is a weakness in the remote authentication scheme proposed by Hwang and Li. In this paper, we show that Chan and Cheng's attack does not work well because they did not consider the format of user's identity. In addition, we propose several ways to solve the problem of Chan and Cheng's attack.

In an internet environment, such as UNIX, a remote user has to obtain the access right from a server before doing any job. The procedure of obtaining acess right is called a user authentication protocol. User authentication via user memorable password provides convenience without needing any auxiliary devices, such as smart card. A user authentication protocol via username and password should basically withstand the off‐line password guessing attack, the stolen verifier attack, and the DoS attack. Recently, Peyravian and Zunic proposed one password transmission protocol and one password change protocol. Later, Tseng et al. (2001) pointed out that Peyravian and Zunic's protocols can not withstand the off‐line password guessing attack, and therefore proposed an improved protocol to defeat the attack. Independently, Hwang and Yeh also showed that Peyravian and Zunic's protocols suffer from some secury flaws, and an improved protocol was also presented. In this paper, we show that both Peyravian and Zunic's protocols and Tseng et al.'s improved protocol are insecure against the stolen verifier attack. Moreover, we show that all Peyravian and Zunic's, Tseng et al.'s, and Hwang and Yeh's protocols are insecure against DoS attack.