Objective 2.4Medium Priority9 min read

Cryptographic Attack Indicators

Recognition of attacks on cryptographic systems including downgrade attacks (forcing weak protocols), collision attacks (finding matching hashes), and birthday attacks (probabilistic hash collisions).

Understanding Cryptographic Attack Indicators

Cryptographic attacks target the mathematical foundations and implementations of encryption, hashing, and authentication. These attacks attempt to break cryptographic protections to steal data, forge signatures, or bypass authentication.

Key cryptographic attack categories: • Downgrade attacks — Forcing use of weaker protocols • Collision attacks — Finding two inputs with same hash • Birthday attacks — Probabilistic collision finding • Side-channel attacks — Exploiting implementation leaks

Understanding these indicators helps detect when cryptographic protections are under attack or have been weakened.

Why This Matters for the Exam

Cryptographic attack indicators are tested on SY0-701 as they represent threats to fundamental security controls. Questions may describe attack scenarios or ask about specific attack types.

Understanding these attacks helps with security configuration—knowing why weak protocols should be disabled provides context for hardening decisions.

The exam tests specific terminology and the ability to distinguish between attack types based on their characteristics.

Deep Dive

Downgrade Attacks

Forcing systems to use older, weaker cryptographic protocols.

How Downgrade Attacks Work:

  • 1.Attacker intercepts connection negotiation
  • 2.Modifies messages to remove strong protocol options
  • 3.Client and server fall back to weaker protocol
  • 4.Attacker exploits weaknesses in older protocol

Downgrade Attack Examples:

AttackTargetMethod
POODLESSL 3.0Force downgrade from TLS to SSL
DROWNSSLv2Cross-protocol attack via old SSL
LogjamDH key exchangeForce weak DH parameters
FREAKExport ciphersForce weak "export" encryption

Downgrade Indicators:

  • •Connections using older protocols unexpectedly
  • •TLS/SSL version lower than expected
  • •Weak cipher suites negotiated
  • •Connection resets during handshake
  • •Multiple handshake attempts

Log Evidence:

  • •```
  • •SSL negotiation: TLS 1.2 → SSL 3.0 downgrade
  • •Cipher suite: AES-256 → DES (weak)
  • •```

Prevention:

  • •Disable old protocol versions (SSL, TLS 1.0/1.1)
  • •Remove weak cipher suites
  • •Use TLS 1.2 minimum, prefer 1.3
  • •Monitor for unexpected protocol versions

Collision Attacks

Finding two different inputs that produce the same hash output.

Why Collisions Matter:

  • •Hash functions should be collision-resistant
  • •If attacker can create collision, they can forge signatures
  • •Can substitute malicious file for legitimate one

Collision Attack Process:

  • •```
  • •Attacker creates: File A (legitimate) and File B (malicious)
  • •If: Hash(A) = Hash(B)
  • •Then: Signature on A also validates B
  • •```

Collision Attack Examples:

AlgorithmStatusCollision Feasibility
MD5BrokenPractical (seconds)
SHA-1WeakDemonstrated (expensive)
SHA-256SecureComputationally infeasible

MD5 Collision Impact:

  • •Can create two PDFs with same hash
  • •Forge digital certificates
  • •Bypass file integrity checks

Collision Attack Indicators:

  • •Two different files with same hash (verify with stronger algorithm)
  • •Certificate transparency showing suspicious certs
  • •Integrity violations without file modification timestamp change
  • •Security tools flagging hash-based anomalies

Birthday Attacks

Exploiting the birthday paradox to find hash collisions more efficiently.

Birthday Paradox:

  • •In a room of just 23 people, there's a 50% chance two share a birthday. This seems counterintuitive but is mathematically proven.

Applied to Hashing:

  • •Don't need to find collision with SPECIFIC hash
  • •Just need ANY two inputs that collide
  • •Much easier than finding collision with target

Birthday Attack Math:

  • •For n-bit hash, birthday attack needs approximately 2^(n/2) attempts instead of 2^n.
Hash SizeBrute ForceBirthday Attack
64-bit2^642^32 (feasible)
128-bit2^1282^64 (expensive)
256-bit2^2562^128 (infeasible)

Birthday Attack Implications:

  • •Hash output should be at least 256 bits
  • •MD5 (128-bit) vulnerable to birthday attack
  • •Affects digital signatures and MACs

Birthday Attack Indicators:

  • •Unusually high number of hash computations
  • •Patterns suggesting collision searching
  • •Hash storage with potential for collision exploitation

Other Cryptographic Attacks

Known Plaintext Attack:

  • •Attacker has both plaintext and ciphertext
  • •Uses relationship to determine key
  • •Indicator: Unusual interest in encrypted communications with known content

Chosen Plaintext Attack:

  • •Attacker can encrypt chosen messages
  • •Studies resulting ciphertext
  • •Indicator: Suspicious encryption requests

Side-Channel Attacks:

  • •Timing analysis (operation speed reveals data)
  • •Power analysis (power consumption reveals operations)
  • •Cache timing attacks (memory access patterns)
  • •Indicator: Unusual observation of system behavior

Cryptographic Attack Detection

Monitoring Points:

What to MonitorWhy
Protocol versionsDetect downgrades
Cipher suitesIdentify weak crypto
Certificate changesDetect forgery
Hash verification failuresPotential collision
Handshake patternsManipulation attempts

Detection Tools:

  • •TLS inspection and logging
  • •Certificate monitoring services
  • •Protocol analyzers
  • •Cryptographic library logs

How CompTIA Tests This

Example Analysis

Scenario: A security analyst reviews connection logs and notices that connections to a critical server negotiated TLS 1.0 with RC4 encryption, despite the server being configured for TLS 1.2 minimum. Multiple "connection reset" messages preceded successful connections.

Analysis - Downgrade Attack:

Indicators Present: • Negotiated protocol (TLS 1.0) below configured minimum (TLS 1.2) • Weak cipher suite (RC4) selected • Connection resets before successful connection • Pattern suggests manipulation

Attack Mechanism: 1. Attacker positioned as man-in-the-middle 2. Intercepted TLS handshake 3. Modified ClientHello to remove TLS 1.2 support 4. Server fell back to TLS 1.0 (if enabled) 5. Weak protocol now exploitable

Why Connection Resets: • Attacker testing which modifications work • Client attempting modern protocols first • Resets when attacker removes those options

Vulnerabilities Created: • TLS 1.0 has known vulnerabilities (BEAST) • RC4 is cryptographically weak • Encrypted traffic now breakable

Response: 1. Verify server truly has TLS 1.0 disabled 2. Investigate potential MITM position 3. Check for compromised network equipment 4. Force TLS 1.2/1.3 only on all systems 5. Implement HSTS to prevent downgrades

Key insight: Protocol versions below configuration indicate potential downgrade attack. Connection resets before negotiation suggest active manipulation.

Key Terms to Know

cryptographic attacksdowngrade attackcollision attackbirthday attackcryptanalysisPOODLEhash collision

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Thinking collision attacks break encryption—collision attacks affect hashing, not encryption. They enable forgery, not decryption.
Confusing collision and preimage attacks—collision finds ANY two matching hashes. Preimage finds input matching SPECIFIC hash.
Assuming birthday attacks are about dates—the name comes from the birthday paradox probability math, applied to finding any collision.
Ignoring protocol version in logs—downgrade attacks are revealed by unexpectedly weak protocol versions.

Exam Tips

Downgrade attack = Force weak protocol (TLS 1.2 → SSL 3.0).
Collision attack = Find two inputs with same hash. MD5 is broken.
Birthday attack = Probabilistic collision finding. Need 2^(n/2) attempts, not 2^n.
POODLE, DROWN, FREAK, Logjam = Famous downgrade attacks.
Defense: Disable old protocols, use TLS 1.2+ only, remove weak ciphers.
256-bit hash minimum for collision resistance.

Memory Trick

"DCB" - Cryptographic Attack Types

  • •Downgrade (force weak protocols)
  • •Collision (two inputs → same hash)
  • •Birthday (probabilistic collision)

Downgrade Attack Memory: "Downgrade" = Force DOWN to weaker GRADE TLS 1.2 → TLS 1.0 → SSL 3.0 (getting worse)

Birthday Attack Math: Birthday party: 23 people → 50% chance of shared birthday Hashing: 2^(n/2) attempts → 50% chance of collision "Half the exponent = birthday attack"

Collision Danger: If Hash(Good) = Hash(Evil) Then signature on Good validates Evil! "Same hash = Same identity"

  • •Famous Downgrade Attacks: "PDLF"
  • •POODLE (SSL 3.0)
  • •DROWN (SSLv2)
  • •Logjam (weak DH)
  • •FREAK (export ciphers)

Test Your Knowledge

Q1.An attacker intercepts a TLS handshake and manipulates it so the client and server negotiate SSL 3.0 instead of TLS 1.2. What type of attack is this?

Q2.A birthday attack against a cryptographic hash function requires approximately:

Q3.An attacker creates two different PDF documents that produce the same MD5 hash, allowing them to substitute a malicious document. This is an example of:

Want more practice with instant AI feedback?

Practice with AI

Continue Learning

Cryptographic VulnerabilitiesEncryption Algorithms and Key Length

Ready to test your knowledge?

Practice questions on cryptographic attack indicators and other Objective 2.4 concepts.

Start Practice
Application Attack IndicatorsPassword Attack Indicators