“Cold-wallets can be attacked.” Behind that excited headline turns out to be a case of superficial journalism and missing the real story. Referring back to the original paper covered in the article, the attack is premised on a cold-wallet implementation that has been already subverted by an attacker. Now that may sound tautological: “if your wallet has been compromised, then it can be compromised.” But there is a subtlety the authors are careful to point out: offline Bitcoin storage is supposed to be truly incommunicado. Even if an attacker has managed to get full control and execute arbitrary code- perhaps by corrupting the system ahead of time, before it was placed into service- there is still no way for that malicious software to communicate with the outside world and disclose sensitive information. Here we give designers the benefit of the doubt, assuming they have taken steps to physically disable/remove networking hardware and place the device in a Faraday cage at the bottom of a missile silo. Such counter-measures foreclose the obvious communication channels to the outside world. The attacker may have full control of the wallet system, including knowledge of the cryptographic keys associated with Bitcoin funds, but how does she exfiltrate those keys?
There is always the possibility of covert channels, ways of communicating information in a stealth way. For example the time taken for a system to respond could be a hidden signal: operate quickly to signal 0, introduce artificial delays to communicate 1. But such side-channels are not readily available here either; the workings of offline Bitcoin storage are not directly observable to attackers in the typical threat model. Only the legitimate owners have direct physical access to the system. Our attacker sits some place on the other side of the world, while those authorized users walk in to generate signed transactions.
But there is one piece of information that must be communicated out of that offline wallet and inevitably become visible to everyone— the digital signature on Bitcoin transactions signed by that wallet. Because transactions are broadcast to the network, those signatures are public knowledge. Within those signatures is an easy covert channel. Credit goes to ECDSA, the digital-signature algorithm chosen by Satoshi for the Bitcoin protocol. ECDSA is a probabilistic algorithm. For any given message, there is a large number of signatures that would be considered “valid” according to the verification algorithm; in fact for the specific elliptic-curve used by Bitcoin, an extraordinarily large number in the same ballpark as estimated number of particles in the observable universe. An “honest” implementation of ECDSA is expected to choose a nonce at random and construct the signature based on that random choice. But that same freedom offers a malicious ECDSA implementation to covertly send messages by carefully “cooking” the nonce to produce a specific pattern in the final signature output. For example successive key-bits can be leaked by choosing the signature to have same parity as the bit being exfiltrated.
But the channel present within ECDSA is far more sophisticated. Building on the work of Moti Yung and Adam Young, it is an example of a kleptographic system. It is efficient: two back-to-back signatures are sufficient to output the entire key. It is also deniable: without the additional secret value injected by the attacker, it is not possible for other observers with access to same outputs—recall that everyone gets to see transactions posted on the blockchain— to pull-off that key-recovery feat. That includes the legitimate owner of the wallet. To everyone else these signatures looks indistinguishable from those output by an “honest” cold-storage implementation.
There is a notion of deterministic ECDSA where nonces are generated as a function of the message, instead of chosen randomly. This variant was designed to solve a slightly different problem, namely that each ECDSA signature requires a fresh unpredictable nonce. Reusing one from a different message or even generating a partially predictable nonce leads to private-key recovery. While this looks like a promising way to close the covert channel, the problem is there is no way for an outside observer to verify that the signature was generated deterministically. (Recall that we posit attacker has introduced malware subverting the operation of the cold-storage system, including its cryptographic implementation.) Checking that a signature was generated deterministically requires knowing the private key- which defeats the point of only entrusting private keys to the cold-storage itself.
This same problem also applies to other black-box implementations of ECDSA where the underlying system is not even open to inspection, namely special-purpose cryptographic hardware such as smart-cards and hardware security modules (HSM.) An HSM manufacturer could use a similar kleptographic technique to disclose keys in a way that only that manufacturer can recover. In all other aspects, including statistical randomness tests run against those nonces, the system is indistinguishable from a properly functioning device.
[continued from part III]
In addition to the login screen and screen-saver, elevation prompts for sensitive operations will also work with smart-cards:
As before, the dialog can adjust for credential type in real-time. On detecting presence of a smart-card (more precisely, a card for which an appropriate tokend module exists and contains valid credentials) the dialog will change in two subtle ways:
- Username field is hard-coded to the account mapped from the certificate on the card, and this entry is grayed out to prevent edits
- Password field is replaced by PIN
If the card is removed before PIN entry is completed, UI reverts back to the original username/password collection model.
One might expect that elevation in command line with “sudo” would similarly pick up the presence of smart-card but that is not the case. su and sudo still require a password. One heavy-weight solution involves installing the PKCS#11 PAM (pluggable authentication module) since OS X does support the PAM extensibility mechanism. A simpler work-around is to substitute an osascript wrapper for sudo. This wrapper can invoke the GUI credential collection which is already smart-card aware:
(Downside is that the elevation request is attributed to osascript, instead of the specific binary to be executed with root privileges. But presumably the user who typed out the command knows the intended target.)
Before discussing the trust-model and comparing it to Windows implementation, here is a quick overview of steps to enable smart-card logon with OS X:
- Install tokend modules for the specific type of card you plan to use. For the US government PIV standard, OpenSC project installer contains one out of the box.
- Enable smart-card login using the security command to modify authorization database.
$ sudo security authorizationdb smartcard enable YES (0) $ sudo security authorizationdb smartcard status Current smartcard login state: enabled (system.login.console enabled, authentication rule enabled) YES (0)
(Side-note: prior to Mavericks the authorization “database” was a plain text-file at /etc/authorization and it could be edited manually with a text editor— this is why some early OSX smart-card tutorials suggest tinkering with the file directly. In Mavericks it is a true SQLite database and best manipulated with the security utility.)
- Associate one or more certificate mappings to the local account, using sc_auth command.
Because certificate hashes are tied to a public-key, this mapping does not survive the reissuance of the certificate under a different key. That defeats the point of using PKI in the first place. OSX is effectively using X509 as a glorified public-key container, no different from SSH in the trusting specific keys rather than the generalized concept of an identity (“subject”) whose key at any given time is vouched for by a third-party. Contrast that with how Active Directory does certificate mapping, adding a level of indirection by using fields in the certificate. If the certificate expires or the user loses their token, they can be issued a new certificate from the same CA. Because the replacement has the same subject and/or same UPN, it provides continuity of identity: different certificate, same user. There is no need to let every endpoint know that a new certificate has been issued for that user.
A series of future posts will look at how the same problem is solved on Linux using a PAM tailored for digital certificates. Concrete implementations such as PAM PKCS#11 have same two-stage design: verify ownership of private key corresponding to a certificate, followed by mapping the certificate to local account. Its main differentiating factor is the choice of sophisticated mapping schemes. These can accommodate everything from the primitive single-certificate approach in OSX to the Windows design that relies on UPN/email, and other alternatives that build on existing Linux trust structures such as ssh authorized keys.
[continued from part II]
Managing the mapping for smart-card logon
OS X supports two options for mapping a certificate to a local user account:
- Perform look-up in enterprise directory
- Decide based on hash of the public-key in the certificate
For local login on stand-alone computers without Active Directory or equivalent, only the second, very basic option is available. As described by several sources [Feitian, PIV focused guides, blog posts], sc_auth command in OS X— which is just a Bash script— is used to manage that mapping via various sub-commands. sc_auth hash purports to display keys on currently present smart-cards, but in fact outputs a kitchen sink of certificates including those coming from the local keychain. It can be scoped to specific key by passing an identifier. For example to get PIV authentication key out of a PIV card when using OpenSC tokend modules:
$ sc_auth hash -k "PIV" 67081F01CB1AAA07EF2B19648D0FD5A89F5FAFB8 PIV AUTH key
The displayed value is a SHA1 hash derived from the public-key. (Keep in mind that key names such “PIV AUTH key” above are manufactured by the tokend middleware; your mileage may vary when using different one.)
To convince OS X into accepting that certificate for local logon, sc_auth accept must be invoked with root privileges.
$ sudo sc_auth accept -u Alice -k "PIV"
This instructs the system to accept the PIV certificate on presently connected smart-card for authenticating local user Alice. There is another option to specify the key using its hash:
$ sudo sc_auth accept -u Alice -h 67081F01CB1AAA07EF2B19648D0FD5A89F5FAFB8
More than one certificate can be mapped to a single account by repeating that process. sc_auth list will display all currently trusted public-key hashes for a specified user:
$ sc_auth list -u Alice 67081F01CB1AAA07EF2B19648D0FD5A89F5FAFB8
Finally sc_auth remove deletes all certificates currently mapped to a local user account:
$ sudo sc_auth remove -u Alice
Smart-card user experience on OS X
So what does the user experience look like once the mapping is configured?
First the bad news: don’t throw away your password just yet. The boot/reboot process remains unchanged. FileVault II full-disk encryption still requires typing in the password to unlock the disk.** Interestingly, its predecessor the original FileVault did support smart-cards because it was decrypting a container in the file-system after enough of the OS had been loaded to support tokend. New variant operates at a much lower level. Because OS X does not ask for the password a second time after the FileVault prompt, there is no opportunity to use smart-card in this scenario.
Good news is that subsequent authentication and screen unlocking can be done using a smart-card. The system recognizes the presence of a card and modifies its UI to switch authentication mode on the fly. For example, here is what the Yosemite login screen usually looks like after signing out:**
After a card is connected to the system, the UI updates automatically:
Local account mapped to the certificate from the card is chosen, and any other avatars that may have been present disappear from the UI. More subtly the password prompt changes into a PIN prompt. After entering the correct PIN, the system will communicate with the card to verify its possession of the private-key and continue with login as before.
- On failed PIN entry, the system does not display the number of remaining tries left before the card is locked. It is common for card standards to return this information as part of the error; PIV specification specifically mandates that. Windows will display the count after incorrect attempts as a gentle nudge to be careful with next try; a locked card typically requires costly intervention by enterprise IT.
- After logging in, it is not uncommon to see another prompt coming from the keychain, lest the user is lulled to a false sense of freedom from passwords:
Keychain entries previously protected by the password still need to be unlocked using the same credential. If authentication took place using a smart-card, that password is not available after login. So the first application trying to retrieve something out of the key-chain will trigger on-demand collection. (As the dialog from Messages Agent demonstrates, that does not take very long.)
Unlocking the screen works in a similar fashion, reacting to the presence of a card. Here is example UI when coming out of screen-saver that requires password:
After detecting card presence:
This is arguably the main usability improvement to using smart-cards. Instead of typing a complex passphrase to bring the system out of sleep or unlock after walking away (responsible individuals lock their screen before leaving their computer unattended, one would hope) one need only type in a short numeric PIN.
* In other words OS X places the burden of security on users to choose a random pass-phrase, instead of offloading that problem to specialized hardware. Similarly Apple has never managed to leverage TPMs for disk encryption, despite a half-hearted attempt circa 2006, keeping with the company tradition of failing to grok enterprise technologies.
** MacWorld has a helpful guide for capturing these screenshots, which involve SSH from another machine.
[continued from part I]
Local vs domain logon
In keeping with the Windows example from 2013, this post will also look at local smart-card logon, as opposed to directory based. That is, the credentials on the card correspond to a user account that is defined on the local machine, as opposed to a centralized identity management service such as Active Directory. A directory-based approach would allow similar authentication to any domain-joined machine using a smart-card, while the local case only works for a user account recognized by one machine. For example, it would not be possible to use these credentials to access a remote file-share afterwards, while that would be supported for the AD scenario because the logon in that case results in Kerberos credentials recognized by all other domain participants.
Interestingly that local logon case is natively supported by the remnants of smart-card infrastructure in OS X. By contrast Windows only ships with domain logon, using PKINIT extension to Kerberos. Third-party solutions such as eIDAuthenticate are required to get local scenario working on Windows. (In the same way that Apple can’t seem to grok enterprise requirements, MSFT errs in the other direction of enabling certain functionality only for enterprise. One can imagine a confused program manager in Redmond asking “why would an average user ever want to login with a smart-card?”)
At a high-level there are two pieces to smart-card logon, which is to say authenticating with a digital certificate where the private key happens to reside on a “smart card.” (Increasingly the card is not an actual card but could be a USB token or even virtual-card emulated by the TPM on the local machine.)
- Target machine decides which user account that certificate represents
- The card proves possession of the private-key corresponding to the public-key found in the certificate
The second part is a relatively straightforward cryptographic problem that has many precedents in the literature, including SSH public-key authentication and TLS client authentication. Typically both sides jointly generate a challenge, the card performs a private-key operation using that challenge and machine verifies the result using the public-key. Exact details vary based on key-type and allowed key-usage attributes in the certificate. For example if the certificate had an RSA key, the machine could encrypt some data and ask the card to respond with proof that it can recover the original plaintext. If the certificate instead had an ECDSA key which is only usable for signatures but not encryption (or it has an RSA key but the key-usage constraints on the certificate rule out encryption) the protocol may involve signing a jointly generated challenge.
Tangent: PKINIT in reality
Reality of PKINIT specification is a lot messier— not to mention the quirks of how Windows has implemented it historically. Authentication of user is achieved indirectly in two steps. First client sends the Kerberos domain-controller (KDC) a request signed with its own key-pair, then receives a Kerberos ticket-granting-ticket (TGT) from KDC encoded in one of two different ways:
- Encrypted in the same RSA key used by the client when signing— this was the only option supported in early implementations of PKINIT in Windows
- Using a Diffie-Hellman key exchange, with DH parameter and client input authenticated by the signature sent in the original request
Mapping from any CA
The good news is local logon does not involve a KDC, there is no reason for implementations to worry about idiosyncrasies of RFC4556 or interop with Kerberos. Instead they have a different problem in mapping a certificate to user accounts. This is relatively straightforward in the enterprise: user certificates are issued by an internal certificate authority that is either part of Active Directory domain controller using the certificate services role (in the common case of an all-Windows shop) or some stand-alone internal CA that has been configured for this purpose and marked as trusted by AD. The certificates are based on a fixed template with username encoded in specific X509 fields such as email address or UPN, universal principal name. That takes the guesswork out of deciding which user is involved. The UPN “firstname.lastname@example.org” or that same value in email field unambiguously indicates this is user Alice logging into Acme enterprise domain.
By contrast local smart-card logon is typically designed to work with any existing certificates the user may have, including self-signed ones; this approach might be called “bring-your-own-certificate” or BYOC. No assumptions can be made about the template that certificate follows, other than conforming to X509. It may not have any fields that would allow obvious linking with the local account. For example there may be no UPN and email address might point to Alice’s corporate account, while the machine in question is a stand-alone home PC with personal account nicknamed “sunshine.” Main design challenge then is devising a flexible and secure way to choose which certificates are permitted to login to which account.
OS X in the enterprise
Apple is not exactly known for an enthusiastic enterprise scenarios, which is surprising considering the company’s steady rise in popularity as standard issue IT equipment at large companies. It was common for Mac-operations team at Google to frequently report bugs that made it difficult to manage the enterprise fleet— and Google has thousands of Macbooks company wide. These were routinely ignored and under-prioritized by a culture more focused on designing shiny objects than pedestrian tasks like enterprise controls. So one would expect that a decidedly enterprise-oriented security feature along the lines of smart-card logon could not possibly work on OS X. But the real surprise is it can be made to work using only open source software and in spite of Apple’s best attempts to deprecate all things smart-card related.
Market pressure: it works
Back-tracking we have the first riddle: why did a consumer-oriented platform known more for flashy graphics than high-security scenarios even bother implementing smart-card support in the first place? The credit for that goes to the US government—indirectly. Presidential directive HSPD-12 called for a common identification standard for federal employees and contractors. In response, NIST developed FIPS 201 as a comprehensive standard encompassing hardware/software for employee badges, PKI-based credentials on those badges and framework for identity management built around those credentials. The vision was ambitious, encompassing both physical access- say getting into restricted areas inside an airport- and logical access such as authenticating to a server in the cloud. Lynchpin of this vision was the CAC (Common Access Card), later replaced by PIV or Personal Identity Verification card. Compliance with CAC and PIV became baseline requirement for certain product sales to the federal government.
That same demand got Windows Vista playing well with CAC and PIV. (Not that it mattered, as Vista never succeeded in the marketplace.) Much better out-of-the-box support carried over into Windows 7. Apple was not immune to that pressure either. OS X had its own proprietary tokend stack for interacting with smart-cards, comparable to the Windows smart-card mini driver architecture. A tokend module for PIV was provide starting with 10.5 to enable standard PIV scenarios such as email encryption or authenticating to websites in a browser.
Deprecated in favor of?
“There are 2 ways to do anything at Google: the deprecated one and the one that does not yet work.” — inside joke at Google
This is where the paths between Apple and MSFT diverged. MSFT continued to invest in improving the smart-card stack, introducing new mini-driver models and better PIV integration. OS X Lion removed support for tokend, no longer shipping the modules in the core OS image. This was the culminating act of Apple washing its hands clean off this pesky security technology, which had started earlier by open-sourcing the smart-card services component earlier and handing off development to a group of volunteers clustered around an open-source project.
In principle punting all development work to an open-source community does not sound too bad. Building blocks are freely available, if anyone cares to compile from sources and install the components manually. In practice most companies do not want to deal with the complexity of maintaining their own packages or watching updates from the upstream open-source project. Third-party vendors [this, that, others] stepped into the void to provide complete solutions going beyond tokend modules, offering additional utilities for administering the card that missing from OS X.
Apple may eventually define a new cryptography architecture with feature parity to CDSA. At the moment nothing ships in the box for enabling smart-card support, not even for PIV. But relics of the supposedly deprecated architecture still survive even in Mavericks. That foundation combined with tokend modules shipping in OpenSC installer- derived from that original open-source release- allow implementing smart-card logon using only free software.
Instead of adopting one of the standardized narrow block cipher modes for Bitlocker, Windows 8 removed the diffuser and reverted to plain CBC mode. This bizarre change greatly simplifies crafting controlled changes to binaries to obtain arbitrary code execution. Suppose we know the sectors on disk where a particular application resides and we know exactly which version of that application it is. Now the PE format for Windows executables contains many sections- some of them meta-data/headers, others resources such as strings and icons. More interestingly, there are the portions which are truly “executable;” they contain the stream of instructions that will run when this application is invoked. Being able to manipulate even a small number of instructions in that stream achieves code execution.
There are several practical difficulties along the way. As pointed out, CBC mode does not permit changes with surgical precision- we can control one full block of 16 bytes but only at the expense of having no say over the preceding one. But one can repeat the same trick with the next two adjacent blocks, getting to control one out of two blocks in each sector. That calls for an unusual way to organize shell code: divide it into small fragments of 14 bytes or less, with 2-byte relative forward jumps at the end to skip over the next block that is outside our control. (As the analog of return-oriented programming, this could be jump-oriented programming.) We also need to locate a candidate block that can be used as entry point into the shell code. Recall that controlling block N requires that we modify block N-1; that means code linearly executing through block N-1 may crash or do strange things before reaching block N. Instead we need to find a point in the binary where a branch or call target lands at the beginning of a nicely aligned 16-byte block. Considering that most functions will be aligned at 8 or 16 byte addresses, this is not a significant hurdle.
Exploiting this against a local Bitlocker-protected boot volume is straightforward, as demonstrated in the iSEC research: choose a binary that is guaranteed to be executed automatically on boot without user action- such as winlogon- along with a code path in that binary that is guaranteed to be hit. For removable drives and cloud storage, it is less clear whether these conditions will arise in practice. Such volumes typically contain “data”- documents, presentations, music, photography etc. instead of executable files that can be readily infected with shellcode. (Exception being whole-system images meant for recovering from an OS corruption.) But one can not rule out more sophisticated attacks; the definition of what counts as “executable” is itself encoded in the filesystem metadata, which can be modified with the same technique for modifying file contents. For example the user may have uploaded a Word document with “doc” extension to the cloud. But if we change the extension to “bat” and modify the contents appropriately to create a valid batch file, we get code execution.
There is another challenge that makes exploitation harder for the cloud case: knowing exactly where on disk the file targeted for modifications resides. This is easier to determine for local attacks where disk layout is based on a fixed template. If we know the victim is using a particular Dell laptop with factory-installed Windows image, we can order an identical laptop with same size disk and examine which sectors the target binary occupies on that Window installation. (This will not work for files that are replaced. For example if an OS update brings in a new version of some system binary, chances are it will not be updated in place. Instead it will be recreated by assigning new sectors from unused space— sectors whose locations are unpredictable because they are based on the pattern disk usage up until that point.) By contrast volumes synced to the cloud do not have a fixed structure, directory pattern or naming convention that can be used to estimate where interesting data may have ended up.
Still, none of these problems qualify as a systemic mitigation. If anything the remote storage scenario illustrates why it is necessary to move beyond the core assumption in FDE, namely that each sector must encrypt to exactly one sector, with no room for expansion to accommodate integrity checks. That is a reasonable assumption for local disk encryption for reasons articulated in the Elephant diffuser whitepaper: compatibility when encrypting existing volumes, performance overhead from having to read/write multiple sectors if integrity checks were stored separately and resulting requirement for transactional updates. None of these constraints apply to cloud storage. It may be possible to retrofit required data expansion into protocols such as iSCSI to salvage full-disk encryption. A more pessimistic conclusion is that FDE is not the right framework for creating private storage in the cloud, and different file-system level approaches may be necessary.
Interesting research from iSEC Partners on attacking the weakened Bitlocker design in Windows 8 has corollaries for the problem of trying to apply full-disk encryption to protect cloud storage. Last year we sketched out a series of experiments on trying to create private storage by combining existing full-disk encryption (FDE) scheme with standard cloud storage providers such as Dropbox or Google Drive. The simplest design is creating a virtual disk image (VHD) backed by an ordinary file, syncing that file to the cloud, mounting the VHD as drive and enabling Bitlocker-To-Go on the volume same way one could enable it on a USB thumb-drive.
As noted these prototypes suffer from an intrinsic problem: FDE provides confidentiality but not integrity. Encryption alone stops the cloud storage service from finding out what is stored, but will not prevent them from being able to make changes. (Or for that matter, unauthorized changes by adversaries on the network path between user and cloud provider. That attack vector was more clear with an alternative design involving iSCSI targets stored in the cloud. iSCSI has no transport level security, unlike the SSL-based sync used by most cloud storage services.) Because there is no redundancy in FDE, any ciphertext will decrypt to something even after it has been tampered with. Granted, the resulting garbled plaintext may cause trouble further up in the application layer. For example in the case of an encrypted VHD, if the file-system structures stored on disk have been corrupted, the VHD will no longer mount correctly as an NTFS volume. Perhaps the file-system is intact but the first few hundred bytes for a particular file have been scrambled, with the result that it is no longer recognized as the correct type, because file formats typically have a fixed preamble. Other file formats such as text are more resilient, but they could end up with corrupted data in the middle resulting from incorrect decryption.
It’s clear such attacks can result in random data corruption. Less clear is whether controlled changes can be made to an encrypted volume to achieve more dangerous outcomes. iSEC research demonstrates such an outcome against Bitlocker in Windows 8. While their proof-of-concept works against a local boot volume, the same techniques would apply to disk images stored in the cloud, although it will be more difficult to reproduce the attack for reasons described in the next post.
Critical to this exploit is a weakening of Bitlocker in Windows 8. Recall that block ciphers are designed to encrypt a fixed amount of data at a time. For example AES operates on 16 bytes at a time. To encrypt larger amounts of plaintext requires choosing a mode of operation—a way to invoke that single-block encryption repeatedly as a blackbox until all of the data has been processed. The naive way of doing this, namely encrypting each block independently, is known as electronic codebook or ECB mode. It has significant drawbacks, dramatically illustrated with the penguin pictures. Cipher-block chaining or CBC mode does a better job of hiding patterns in plaintext such as repeated blocks by mixing one block into the encryption of the next one. But CBC still does not provide integrity. In fact it becomes easier to modify ciphertext to get desired changes. With ECB mode attackers are usually limited to replacing blocks with other known plaintext blocks. By contrast CBC mode allows getting full control over any block by making changes to the preceding one. More specifically, any difference XORed into the preceding block will result in the same difference XORed into the plaintext when current block is decrypted. This capability comes with a caveat: the decryption of that preceding block is corrupted and replaced with junk that we can not control in the general case.
For these reasons simple block cipher modes are combined with a separate integrity check. Alternatively one can use authenticated encryption modes such as GCM, which also compute an integrity check along the way while processing plaintext blocks. Because disk-encryption schemes can not add an integrity check— encryption of one disk sector must fit in exactly one sector— they have to defend against these risks by alternative means. The original version of Bitlocker in Vista used a reversible diffuser dubbed Elephant to “mix” the contents of a sector before encryption, such that errors introduced in decryption will be amplified across the entire sector unpredictably, instead of being neatly confined to single blocks. While Elephant was an ad hoc design, later theoretical treatments of the subject in the literature introduced the notion of narrow-block ciphers and “wide-block ciphers to properly capture this intuitive notion: difficult to make controlled changes across a large chunk of plaintext, much larger than the block size of the underlying primitive such as AES. IEEE Security in Storage Working Group then standardized a number of modes such as XTS that have provable security properties based on assumptions about the underlying block cipher.