Description
Pairings on elliptic curves are involved in signatures, NIZK, and recently in blockchains (ZK-SNARKS).<br/> These pairings take as input two points on an elliptic curve E over a finite field, and output a value in an extension of that finite field. Usually for efficiency reasons, this extension degree is a power of 2 and 3 (such as 12,18,24), and moreover the characteristic of the finite field has a special form. The security relies on the hardness of computing discrete logarithms in the group of points of the curve and in the finite field extension.<br/> In 2013-2016, new variants of the function field sieve and the number field sieve algorithms turned out to be faster in certain finite fields related to pairing-based cryptography. Now small characteristic settings (with GF(2^(4*n)), GF(3^(6*m))) are discarded, and the situation of GF(p^k) where p is prime and k is small (in practice from 2 to 54) is unclear.<br/> The asymptotic complexity of the Number Field Sieve algorithm in finite fields GF(p^k) (where p is prime) and its Special and Tower variants is given by an asymptotic formula of the form A^(c+o(1)) where A depends on the finite field size (log p^k), o(1) is unknown, and c is a constant between 1.526 and 2.201 that depends on p, k, and the choice of parameters in the algorithm.<br/> In this work we improve the approaches of Menezes-Sarkar-Singh and Barbulescu-Duquesne to estimate the cost of a hypothetical implementation of the Special-Tower-NFS in GF(p^k) for small k (k <= 24), and update some parameter sizes for pairing-based cryptography. This is a joint work with Shashank Singh, IISER Bhopal, India. lien: http://desktop.visio.renater.fr/scopia?ID=721273***5165&autojoin
Next sessions
-
Wagner’s Algorithm Provably Runs in Subexponential Time for SIS^∞
Speaker : Johanna Loyer - Inria Saclay
At CRYPTO 2015, Kirchner and Fouque claimed that a carefully tuned variant of the Blum-Kalai-Wasserman (BKW) algorithm (JACM 2003) should solve the Learning with Errors problem (LWE) in slightly subexponential time for modulus q = poly(n) and narrow error distribution, when given enough LWE samples. Taking a modular view, one may regard BKW as a combination of Wagner’s algorithm (CRYPTO 2002), run[…]-
Cryptography
-
-
CryptoVerif: a computationally-sound security protocol verifier
Speaker : Bruno Blanchet - Inria
CryptoVerif is a security protocol verifier sound in the computational model of cryptography. It produces proofs by sequences of games, like those done manually by cryptographers. It has an automatic proof strategy and can also be guided by the user. It provides a generic method for specifying security assumptions on many cryptographic primitives, and can prove secrecy, authentication, and[…]-
Cryptography
-
-
Structured-Seed Local Pseudorandom Generators and their Applications
Speaker : Nikolas Melissaris - IRIF
We introduce structured‑seed local pseudorandom generators (SSL-PRGs), pseudorandom generators whose seed is drawn from an efficiently sampleable, structured distribution rather than uniformly. This seemingly modest relaxation turns out to capture many known applications of local PRGs, yet it can be realized from a broader family of hardness assumptions. Our main technical contribution is a[…]-
Cryptography
-
-
Predicting Module-Lattice Reduction
Speaker : Paola de Perthuis - CWI
Is module-lattice reduction better than unstructured lattice reduction? This question was highlighted as `Q8' in the Kyber NIST standardization submission (Avanzi et al., 2021), as potentially affecting the concrete security of Kyber and other module-lattice-based schemes. Foundational works on module-lattice reduction (Lee, Pellet-Mary, Stehlé, and Wallet, ASIACRYPT 2019; Mukherjee and Stephens[…]-
Cryptography
-