NIST’s running a Lightweight Cryptography project in order to standardize symmetric encryption primitives that are lighter than the established NIST standards (read: AES and its modes of operations). NIST claims that “[because] the majority of current cryptographic algorithms were designed for desktop/server environments, many of these algorithms do not fit into constrained devices.” This is good motivation for the competition, however it’s factually incorrect: AES today fits in almost all IoT-ish chips and has even been used for bus and memory encryption.
But that’s not the point of this post—for more on that subject, come hear our talk at NIST’s Lightweight Cryptography Workshop in about 10 days, a talk derived from one of our previous posts, and based on a multitude of real examples. (See also this recent Twitter thread.)
Sorry NIST, this post is not about you, but about another standardization body: ISO, and specifically its ISO/IEC 29192 class of lightweight standards within the 35.030 category (“IT Security – including encryption”). This category includes no less than 9 standards relating to lightweight cryptography, which are (copying verbatim from the ISO page, links included):
|ISO/IEC 29192-1:2012Information technology — Security techniques — Lightweight cryptography — Part 1: General||90.93||ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27|
|ISO/IEC 29192-2IT security techniques — Lightweight cryptography — Part 2: Block ciphers||60.00||ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27|
|ISO/IEC 29192-2:2012Information technology — Security techniques — Lightweight cryptography — Part 2: Block ciphers||90.92||ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27|
|ISO/IEC 29192-3:2012Information technology — Security techniques — Lightweight cryptography — Part 3: Stream ciphers||90.93||ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27|
|ISO/IEC 29192-4:2013Information technology — Security techniques — Lightweight cryptography — Part 4: Mechanisms using asymmetric techniques||90.93||ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27|
|ISO/IEC 29192-4:2013/AMD 1:2016Information technology — Security techniques — Lightweight cryptography — Part 4: Mechanisms using asymmetric techniques — Amendment 1||60.60||ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27|
|ISO/IEC 29192-5:2016Information technology — Security techniques — Lightweight cryptography — Part 5: Hash-functions||60.60||ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27|
|ISO/IEC 29192-6:2019Information technology — Lightweight cryptography — Part 6: Message authentication codes (MACs)||60.60||ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27|
|ISO/IEC 29192-7:2019Information security — Lightweight cryptography — Part 7: Broadcast authentication protocols||60.60||ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27|
Granted, few people and industries care about ISO/IEC standards, and you probably don’t, neither do we really to be honest—the fee around $100 to access the ISO standard documents probably doesn’t help in making ISO algorithms more popular.
We nonetheless think that it would be worthwhile to have a list of lightweight symmetric algorithms (whatever your weight metric) that received the blessing of allegedly some competent cryptographers, and therefore that are presumably safe to use. We’ve therefore reviewed what ISO has to offer so that you don’t have to, and summarize the fruit of our research in the remainder of this post:
ISO/IEC 29192-2:2012 (thus, from 2012) standardizes these two block ciphers (literally just the block ciphers, and not any mode, which are covered in another ISO standard [nothing surprising here: ECB, CBC, OFB, CFB, CTR]):
- PRESENT, anagram and little sister of SERPENT, designed in 2007, and the least Google-friendly cipher ever. Then marketed as ultra-lightweight, PRESENT is a simple substitution-permutation network with 4-bit S-boxes, which is more hardware-friendly than it is software-friendly, but will perform well enough almost everywhere. It has 64-bit blocks and a key of 80 or 128 bits.
- CLEFIA, also designed in 2007, from Sony, initially aimed for DRM applications, is a boring Feistel scheme with 128-bit blocks and a key of 128, 192, or 256 bits. CLEFIA isn’t really more lightweight than AES, and I guess Sony lobbied for its standardization.
ISO/IEC 29192-3:2012 standardizes these two stream ciphers (again, one bit-oriented and one byte-oriented):
- Trivium, one of the winners of the eSTREAM project, the favorite cipher of the DEF CON conference, is a minimalistic, bit-oriented stream cipher that is a simple combination of shift registers. Trivium is arguably the lightweightest algorithm in this post.
- Enocoro, whose existence I had completely forgotten until writing this post. Designed by the Japanese firm Hitachi, Enocoro was submitted to the CRYPTREC contest in 2010 (see this cryptanalysis evaluation), yet ended up not being selected. Enocoro is a byte-oriented feedback shift register with a conservative design. It supports 80- and 128-bit keys, and is most probably safe (and safer with 128-bit keys).
This time not two but three algorithms, as defined in ISO/IEC 29192-5:2016:
- PHOTON, designed in 2011, combines the simplicity of the sponge construction and the security guarantees of the AES permutation (no, Joan Daemen is not a designer of PHOTON). The permutation is optimized for low-end platforms, so you can’t directly reuse AES code/silicon. PHOTON comes in multiple versions, depending on the security level you want (the higher the security, the bigger the state).
- SPONGENT, also from 2011, is to PRESENT what PHOTON is to AES. Nuff said.
- Lesamnta-LW is different. It’s not a sponge but has a SHA-like round function and targets 120-bit security with a single version. It’s also less light than the above two.
- LightMAC, which is actually a MAC construction rather than strictly speaking an algorithm. And since I didn’t pay the 118 CHF to read the full document, I don’t really know what ISO standardized here (the mode itself? an instantiation with a specific block cipher? Help please.)
- “Tsudik’s keymode”, apparently from this 1992 paper by Gene Tsudik, which discussed the secret-prefix and secret-suffix MACs and proposes the hybrid version, which may or may not be what this “keymode” is about. I’ve no idea why it ended up being standardized in 2019.
Nothing here, ISO hasn’t standardized authenticated ciphers.
All these algorithms are okay, but their being ISO standards doesn’t say much and doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily superior to others, just that some people bothered submitting them and lobbying for their standardization.