Analysis and comparison of electronic digital signature state standards GOST R 34.10-1994, GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R 34.10-2012
Antonina Komarova, Alexander Menshchikov, T. K. Klyaus, Anatoly Grigorevich Korobeynikov, Yurij Gatchin, Nina Tishukova · 2017
These days information systems that use asymmetric cryptography or public key cryptography are widely spread all over the world. The reason of this fact is a rather high reliability of existing algorithms. In terms of information security, we can distinguish the following important tasks: ensuring the availability of information, its authenticity and confidentiality. All these problems can be solved with the help of electronic digital signature (hereinafter-EDS). It ensures the integrity of information, its confidentiality, authenticity and the origin. EDS is widely used in various commercial and governmental organizations that are obliged to follow the state standard GOST R 34.10-2012 "Information technology. Cryptographic protection of information. The processes of forming and checking electronic digital signature". In the view of the above we perform a comparative analysis of the state standard GOST R 34.10-2012 with the state standards GOST R 34.10-2001 and R 34.10-1994 to find their relevance, reliability and complexity. Due to the fact that EDS is based on a special hash function, the authors of this article have also reviewed the state standards GOST R 34.11-2012 and GOST R 34.11-1994. To estimate hash function generation time, the Python Code which uses the Pygost Library has been written. Furthermore, hacking complexity assessments of the algorithms themselves have been realized. Therefore, estimations of speed and performance procedures generation and signature verification have been made and the hacking complexity assessments of the Russian state standards are realized. The approximate durations of forced entry are calculated and the advantage of the new state standard GOST R 34.10-2012 is justified. As a result of the analysis the relevance, the reliability and the complexity of the state standard GOST R 34.10-2012 have been turned out. In spite of all the strength benefits the new standard requires more time effort for hash-function formation and for the digital signature formation.