Modern messengers use advanced end-to-end encryption protocols to protect message content even if user secrets are ever temporarily exposed. Yet, encryption alone does not prevent user tracking, as protocols often attach metadata, such as sequence numbers, public keys, or even plain user identifiers. This metadata reveals the social network as well as communication patterns between users. Existing protocols that hide metadata in Signal (i.e., Sealed Sender), for MLS-like constructions (Hashimoto et al., CCS 2022), or in mesh networks (Bienstock et al., CCS 2023) are relatively inefficient or specially tailored for only particular settings. Moreover, all existing practical solutions reveal crucial metadata upon exposures of user secrets.

The majority of secure messengers have single, centralized service providers that relay ciphertexts between users to enable asynchronous communication. However, in some scenarios such as mass protests in censored networks, relying on a centralized provider is fatal. Mesh messengers attempt to solve this problem by building ad hoc networks in which user clients perform the ciphertext-relaying task. Yet, recent analyses of widely deployed mesh messengers discover severe security weaknesses (Albrecht et al. CT-RSA'21 & USENIX Security'22).

Many digital signature schemes rely on random numbers that are unique and non-predictable per signature. Failures of random number generators may have catastrophic effects such as compromising private signature keys. In recent years, many widely-used cryptographic technologies adopted deterministic signature schemes because they are presumed to be safer to implement. In this paper, we analyze the security of deterministic ECDSA and EdDSA signature schemes and show that the elimination of random number generators in these schemes enables new kinds of fault attacks. We formalize these attacks and introduce practical attack scenarios against EdDSA using the Rowhammer fault attack. EdDSA is used in many widely used protocols such as TLS, SSH, and IPSec, and we show that these protocols are not vulnerable to our attack. We formalize the necessary requirements of protocols using these deterministic signature schemes to be vulnerable, and discuss mitigation strategies and their effect on fault attacks against deterministic signature schemes.

Secure instant messaging is utilized in two variants: one-to-one communication and group communication. While the first variant has received much attention lately (Frosch et al., EuroS Cohn-Gordon et al., EuroS Kobeissi et al., EuroS&P17), little is known about the cryptographic mechanisms and security guarantees of secure group communication in instant messaging. To approach an investigation of group instant messaging protocols, we first provide a comprehensive and realistic security model. This model combines security and reliability goals from various related literature to capture relevant properties for communication in dynamic groups. Thereby the definitions consider their satisfiability with respect to the instant delivery of messages. To show its applicability, we analyze three widely used real-world protocols: Signal, WhatsApp, and Threema. By applying our model, we reveal several shortcomings with respect to the security definition. Therefore we propose generic countermeasures to enhance the protocols regarding the required security and reliability goals. Our systematic analysis reveals that (1) the communications' integrity - represented by the integrity of all exchanged messages - and (2) the groups' closeness - represented by the members' ability of managing the group - are not end-to-end protected. We additionally show that strong security properties, such as Future Secrecy which is a core part of the one-to-one communication in the Signal protocol, do not hold for its group communication.

We provide a security analysis of modern Enterprise Rights Management (ERM) solutions and reveal security threats. We first take a look on Microsoft Azure, and discuss severe attack surfaces that companies enabling Azure in their own trusted infrastructure have to take care of. In addition, we analyze Tresorit, one of the most frequently used End-to-End encrypted cloud storage systems. Tresorit can use Azure and its Rights Management Services (RMS) module as an additional security layer: a user should be able to either trust Tresorit or Azure. Our systematic evaluation reveals a serious breach to their security architecture: we show that the whole security of Tresorit RMS relies on Tresorit being trusted, independent of trusting Azure.