1. A Methodology for Evaluating Wireless Network Security Protocols David Rager Kandaraj Piamrat

2. Outline ► Introduction ► Explanation of Terms ► Evaluation Methodology ► Analysis of WEP, WPA, and RSN ► Graphical Results ► Conclusion

3. Introduction ► Difference properties of wireless network comparing to wired network ► Two lines of defense in wireless network security  Preventive approach  Intrusion Detection and Response approach ► WEP WPA RSN

4. Explanation of Terms ► WEP – Wired Equivalent Protocol (attempt #1) ► WPA – Wi-Fi Protected Access (attempt #2) ► RSN – Robust Secure Network (attempt #3) ► ► EAP – Extensible Authentication Protocol ► ► TKIP – Temporal Key Integrity Protocol ► ► AES – Advanced Encryption Standard

5. Explanation of Terms (cont.) ► ► CCMP – Counter mode with Cipher block Chaining Message authentication code Protocol ► ► ICV – Integrity Check Value ► ► MIC – Message Integrity Check ► ► RADIUS – Remote Authentication Dial in User Service ► ► IV – Initialization Vector

6. Evaluation Methodology ► Authentication Capability ► Encryption Strength ► Integrity Guarantees ► Prevention of Attacks ► Identity Protection ► Ease and Cost of Implementation ► Power Consumption ► Novel Ideas

7. Authentication capability Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Type of authentication Key with challenge response Key with challenge response and MAC address Credentials based Number of authentication servers OneThree(# faults permitted) * 3 + 1 Use of new authentication mechanisms None-Use of EAP (802.11X)[tec h-faq] Known MITM attacks One or more-None

8. Encryption Strength Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Key typeStatic key-Dynamic key Cipher key typeRC4-AES Cipher key length40 or 104 bit encryption 128 bit encryption128 bit encryption + 64 bit authentication Key lifetime24-bit IV-48-bit IV Time used to crackFew hoursFew daysCenturies Encrypted packet needed to crack Few millions-Few trillions Can be recovered by cryptanalysis Yes-No Key management used NoneStaticEAP

9. Integrity Guarantees Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Integrity of message header NoneMichaelCCM Integrity of the data CRC-32MichaelCCM

10. Prevention of Attacks Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Replay attack prevention None-IV sequence, Per- packet key mixing DoS cookieNo-Yes Number of known attacks prevented NoneSome of themAll of them Minimizes damageNo-Yes

11. Identity Protection Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Group identity revealed to Entire networkAll partiesSpecific parties Specific identity revealed to Entire networkAll partiesSpecific parties

12. Ease and Cost of Implementation Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Computation costHighMediumLow Incremental installationNo-Yes Number of messages exchanged 300303 Number of actors involved Many actors-Few actors Packet keyMixing functionConcatenatedNo need Additional server hardware Yes-No Additional network infrastructure Yes-No Number of gates in client device High-Low Lines of CodeHigh-Low

13. Power Consumption Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Clients use low power No-Yes Client can detect attacks and enter low- power mode No-Yes

14. Novel Ideas Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Determines physical location No-Yes

15. Analysis of WEP

16. Authentication capability Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Type of authentication Key with challenge response Key with challenge response and MAC address Credentials based Number of authentication servers OneThree(# faults permitted) * 3 + 1 Use of new authentication mechanisms None-Use of EAP (802.11X)[tech- faq] Known MITM attacks One or more-None

17. Encryption Strength Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Key typeStatic key-Dynamic key Cipher key typeRC4-AES Cipher key length40 or 104 bit encryption 128 bit encryption128 bit encryption + 64 bit authentication Key lifetime24-bit IV-48-bit IV Time used to crackFew hoursFew daysCenturies Encrypted packet needed to crack Few millions-Few trillions Can be recovered by cryptanalysis Yes-No Key management used NoneStaticEAP

18. Integrity Guarantees Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Integrity of message header NoneMichaelCCM Integrity of the data CRC-32MichaelCCM

19. Prevention of Attacks Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Replay attack prevention None-IV sequence, Per- packet key mixing DoS cookieNo-Yes Number of known attacks prevented NoneSome of themAll of them

20. Identity Protection Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Group identity revealed to Entire networkAll partiesSpecific parties Specific identity revealed to Entire networkAll partiesSpecific parties

21. Ease and Cost of Implementation Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Computation costHighMediumLow Incremental installationNo-Yes Number of messages exchanged 300303 Number of actors involved Many actors-Few actors Packet keyMixing functionConcatenatedNo need Additional server hardware Yes-No Additional network infrastructure Yes-No Number of gates in client device High-Low Lines of CodeHigh-Low

22. Power Consumption Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Clients use low power No-Yes Client can detect attacks and enter low-power mode No-Yes

23. Novel Ideas Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Determines physical location No-Yes

24. Scores of WEP ► Authentication Capability (0/8) ► Encryption Strength (0/16) ► Integrity Guarantees (0/4) ► Prevention of Attacks (0/6) ► Identity Protection (4/4) ► Ease and Cost of Implementation (17/18) ► Power Consumption (2/4) ► Novel Ideas (0/2) Total Score = 2.44/8 = 30.56 %

25. Analysis of WPA

26. Authentication capability Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Type of authentication Key with challenge response Key with challenge response and MAC address Credentials based Number of authentication servers OneThree(# faults permitted) * 3 + 1 Use of new authentication mechanisms None-Use of EAP (802.11X)[tech- faq] Known MITM attacks One or more-None

27. Encryption Strength Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Key typeStatic key-Dynamic key Cipher key typeRC4-AES Cipher key length40 or 104 bit encryption 128 bit encryption128 bit encryption + 64 bit authentication Key lifetime24-bit IV-48-bit IV Time used to crackFew hoursFew daysCenturies Encrypted packet needed to crack Few millions-Few trillions Can be recovered by cryptanalysis Yes-No Key management used NoneStaticEAP

28. Integrity Guarantees Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Integrity of message header NoneMichaelCCM Integrity of the data CRC-32MichaelCCM

29. Prevention of Attacks Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Replay attack prevention None-IV sequence, Per- packet key mixing DoS cookieNo-Yes Number of known attacks prevented NoneSome of themAll of them

30. Identity Protection Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Group identity revealed to Entire networkAll partiesSpecific parties Specific identity revealed to Entire networkAll partiesSpecific parties

31. Ease and Cost of Implementation Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Computation costHighMediumLow Incremental installationNo-Yes Number of messages exchanged 300303 Number of actors involved Many actors-Few actors Packet keyMixing functionConcatenatedNo need Additional server hardware Yes-No Additional network infrastructure Yes-No Number of gates in client device High-Low Lines of CodeHigh-Low

32. Power Consumption Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Clients use low power No-Yes Client can detect attacks and enter low-power mode No-Yes

33. Novel Ideas Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Determines physical location No-Yes

34. Scores of WPA ► Authentication Capability (6/8) ► Encryption Strength (14/16) ► Integrity Guarantees (2/4) ► Prevention of Attacks (4/6) ► Identity Protection (0/4) ► Ease and Cost of Implementation (5/18) ► Power Consumption (1/4) ► Novel Ideas (0/2) Total Score = 3.32/8 = 41.49 %

35. Analysis of RSN

36. Authentication capability Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Type of authentication Key with challenge response Key with challenge response and MAC address Credentials based Number of authentication servers OneThree(# faults permitted) * 3 + 1 Use of new authentication mechanisms None-Use of EAP (802.11X)[tech- faq] Known MITM attacks One or more-None

37. Encryption Strength Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Key typeStatic key-Dynamic key Cipher key typeRC4-AES Cipher key length40 or 104 bit encryption 128 bit encryption128 bit encryption + 64 bit authentication Key lifetime24-bit IV-48-bit IV Time used to crackFew hoursFew daysCenturies Encrypted packet needed to crack Few millions-Few trillions Can be recovered by cryptanalysis Yes-No Key management used NoneStaticEAP

38. Integrity Guarantees Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Integrity of message header NoneMichaelCCM Integrity of the data CRC-32MichaelCCM

39. Prevention of Attacks Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Replay attack prevention None-IV sequence, Per- packet key mixing DoS cookieNo-Yes Number of known attacks prevented NoneSome of themAll of them

40. Identity Protection Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Group identity revealed to Entire networkAll partiesSpecific parties Specific identity revealed to Entire networkAll partiesSpecific parties

41. Ease and Cost of Implementation Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Computation costHighMediumLow Incremental installationNo-Yes Number of messages exchanged 300303 Number of actors involved Many actors-Few actors Packet keyMixing functionConcatenatedNo need Additional server hardware Yes-No Additional network infrastructure Yes-No Number of gates in client device High-Low Lines of CodeHigh-Low

42. Power Consumption Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Clients use low power No-Yes Client can detect attacks and enter low-power mode No-Yes

43. Novel Ideas Consideration0(bad)1(fair)2(good) Determines physical location No-Yes

44. Scores of RSN ► Authentication Capability (6/8) ► Encryption Strength (15/16) ► Integrity Guarantees (4/4) ► Prevention of Attacks (4/6) ► Identity Protection (0/4) ► Ease and Cost of Implementation (4/18) ► Power Consumption (2/4) ► Novel Ideas (0/2) Total Score = 4.08/8 = 50.95 %

45. Graphical Results

46. Comparison of categorical performance

47. Main contributors to each protocol’s success

48. Conclusion ► We have defined specific metrics for protocol evaluation. ► We evaluate different wireless security protocol based on these metrics. ► Questions ?