1. Cryptography Lecture 2 Stefan Dziembowski www.dziembowski.net stefan@dziembowski.net

2. Plan 1.Information-theoretic cryptography 2.Introduction to cryptography based on the computational assumptions 3.Provable security 4.Pseudorandom generators

3. The scenario from the previous lecture Eve AliceBob Shannon’s theorem  perfect secrecy is possible only if the key is as long as the plaintext In real-life it is completely impractical

4. What to do? Idea: limit the power of the adversary. How? Classical (computationally-secure) cryptography: bound his computational power. Alternative options exists (but are not very practical)

5. Quantum cryptography Stephen Wiesner (1970s), Charles H. Bennett and Gilles Brassard (1984) quantum link Eve AliceBob Quantum indeterminacy: quantum states cannot be measured without disturbing the original state. Hence Eve cannot read the bits in an unnoticeable way.

6. Quantum cryptography Advantage: security is based on the laws of quantum physics Disadvantage: needs a dedicated equipment. Practicality? Currently: successful transmissions for distances of length around 150 km. Commercial products are available. Warning: Quantum cryptography should not be confused with quantum computing.

7. A satellite scenario Eve AliceBob 000110100111010010011010111001110111 111010011101010101010010010100111100 001001111111100010101001000101010010 001010010100101011010101001010010101 A third party (a satellite) is broadcasting random bits. Does it help? No... (Shannon’s theorem of course also holds in this case.)

8. Ueli Maurer (1993): noisy channel. 101010011010010101010011010010 101010011010010 101010011010010 001000011000011101110011010001 101110011010000 Assumption: the data that the adversary receives is noisy. (The data that Alice and Bob receive may be even more noisy.) some bits get flipped (because of the noise)

9. Bounded-Storage Model Another idea: bound the size of adversary’s memory 000110100111010010011010111001110111 111010011101010101010010010100111100 001001111111100010101001000101010010 001010010100101011010101001010010101 too large to fit in Eve’s memory

10. Real (computationally-secure) cryptography starts here: Eve is computationally-bounded But what does it mean? Ideas : 1.She has can use at most 1000 Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Dual Core Processors for at most 100 years... 2.She can buy equipment worth 1 million euro and use it for 30 years... it’s hard to reason formally about it

11. A better idea ”The adversary has access to a Turing Machine that can make at most 10 30 steps.” More generally, we could have definitions of a type: “a system X is (t,ε)-secure if every Turing Machine that operates in time t can break it with probability at most ε.” This would be quite precise, but... We would need to specify exactly what we mean by a “Turing Machine”: how many tapes it has? how does it access these tapes (maybe a “random access memory” is a more realistic model..)... Moreover, this approach often leads to ugly formulas...

12. What to do? “(t,ε)-security” Idea: t steps of a Turing Machine = “efficient computation” ε – a value “very close to zero”. How to formalize it? Use the asymptotics!

13. Efficiently computable? “polynomial-time computable on a Turing Machine” “efficiently computable” = that is: running in time O(n c ) (for some c) Here we assume that the Turing Machines are the right model for the real-life computation. Not true if a quantum computer is built...

14. Very small? “very small” = “negligible” = approaches 0 faster than the inverse of any polynomial Formally:

15. Negligible or not? yes no yes

16. Security parameter The terms “negligible” and “polynomial” make sense only if X (and the adversary) take an additional input n called a security parameter. In other words: we consider an infinite sequence X(1),X(2),... of schemes. Typically, we will say that a scheme X is secure if A polynomial-time Turing Machine M P (M breaks the scheme X) is negligible

17. Example Consider the authentication scheme from the last week:

18. Nice properties of these notions A sum of two polynomials is a polynomial: poly + poly = poly A product of two polynomials is a polynomial: poly * poly = poly A sum of two negligible functions is a negligible function: negl + negl = negl Moreover: A negligible function multiplied by a polynomial is negligible negl * poly = negl

19. A new definition of an encryption scheme

20. Is this the right approach? Advantages 1.All types of Turing Machines are “equivalent” up to a “polynomial reduction”. Therefore we do need to specify the details of the model. 2.The formulas get much simpler. Disadvantage Asymptotic results don’t tell us anything about security of the concrete systems. However Usually one can prove formally an asymptotic result and then argue informally that “the constants are reasonable” (and can be calculated if one really wants).

21. Provable security We want to construct schemes that are provably secure. But... why do we want to do it? how to define it? and is it possible to achieve it?

22. Provable security – the motivation In many areas of computer science formal proofs are not essential. For example, instead of proving that an algorithm is efficient, we can just simulate it on a “typical input”. In cryptography it’s not true, because there cannot exist an experimental proof that a scheme is secure. Why? Because a notion of a “typical adversary” does not make sense.

23. How did we define the perfect secrecy? Experiment (m – a message) 1.the key k is chosen randomly 2.message m is encrypted using k: c := Enc k (m) 3.c is given to the adversary Idea 1 The adversary should not be able to compute k. Idea 2 The adversary should not be able to compute m. Idea 3 The adversary should not be able to compute any information about m. Idea 4 The adversary should not be able to compute any additional information about m. makes more sense

24. Idea The adversary should not be able to compute any additional information about m.

25. A m 0,m 1 P(C = c | M = m 0 ) = P(C = c | M = m 1 ) A c P(Enc(K,M) = c | M = m 0 ) = P(Enc(K,M) = c | M = m 1 ) Towards the definition of computational secrecy... P(Enc(K,m 0 ) = c | M = m 0 ) = P(Enc(K,m 1 ) = c | M = m 1 ) P(C = c) = P(C = c | M=m) P(Enc(K,m 0 ) = c) = P(Enc(K,m 1 ) = c) A mc A A m 0,m 1 A c A A c A A c

26. Indistinguishability P(Enc(K,m 0 ) = c) = P(Enc(K,m 1 ) = c) A m 0,m 1 A c In other words: the distributions of Enc(K,m 0 ) = Enc(K,m 1 ) are identical IDEA change it to: are indistinguishable by a polynomial time adversary

27. A game adversary (polynomial-time Turing machine) oracle chooses m 0,m 1 such that |m 0 |=|m 1 | m 0,m 1 1.selects k := G(1 n ) 2.chooses a random b = 0,1 3.calculates c := Enc(k,m b ) (Gen,Enc,Dec) – an encryption scheme c has to guess b Security definition: We say that (Gen,Enc,Dec) has indistinguishable encryptions if any polynomial time adversary guesses b correctly with probability at most 0.5 + ε(n), where ε is negligible. security parameter 1 n Alternative name: semantially-secure (sometimes we will say: “is computationally-secure”, if the context is clear)

28. Testing the definition 1.Suppose the adversary can compute k from some Enc(k,m). Can he win the game? 2.Suppose the adversary can compute some bit of m from Enc(k,m). Can he win the game? YES!

29. Is it possible to prove security? (Gen,Enc,Dec) -- an encryption scheme. For simplicity suppose that: 1.for a security parameter n the key is of length n. 2.Enc is deterministic Consider the following language: Q: What if L is polynomial-time decidable? A: Then the scheme is broken (exercise) On the other hand: L is in NP.(k is the NP-witness) So, if P = NP, then any semantically-secure encryption is broken. Is it really true?

30. “If P=NP, then the semantically-secure encryption is broken” Is it 100% true? Not really... This is because even if P=NP we do not know what are the constants. Maybe P=NP in a very “inefficient way”...

31. In any case, to prove security of a cryptographic scheme we would need to show a lower bound on the computational complexity of some problem. In the “asymptotic setting” that would mean that at least we show that P ≠ NP. Does the implication in the other direction hold? (that is: does P ≠ NP imply anything for cryptography?) No! (at least as far as we know) Intuitively: because NP is a notion from the “worst case complexity”, and cryptography concerns the “average case complexity”. Therefore proving that an encryption scheme is secure is probably much harder than proving that P ≠ NP.

32. What can we prove? We can prove conditional results. That is, we can show theorems of a type: Suppose that some scheme Y is secure then scheme X is secure. Suppose that some “computational assumption A” holds then scheme X is secure.

33. Research program in cryptography Base the security of cryptographic schemes on a small number of well-specified “computational assumptions”. then scheme X is secure. Some “computational assumption A” holds in this we have to “believe” the rest is provable Examples of A: “decisional Diffie-Hellman assumption” “strong RSA assumption”

34. Example We are now going to show an example of such reasoning: then scheme X is secure. Suppose that some “computational assumption A” holds we G can construct a secure encryption scheme Suppose that G is a “cryptographic pseudorandom generator”

35. Pseudorandom generators s G(s)

36. If we use a “normal PRG” – this idea doesn’t work (exercise). It works only with the cryptographic PRGs.

37. “Looks random” What does it mean? Non-cryptographic applications: should pass some statistical tests. Cryptography: should pass all polynomial-time tests.

38. Cryptographic PRG a polynomial-time distinguisher D a random string R G(S) (where S random) or Should not be able to distinguish... outputs: 0 if he thinks it’s R 1 if he thinks it’s G(S)

39. Constructions There exists constructions of cryptographic pseudorandom-generators, that are conjectured to be secure. Some of them are extremely efficient, and widely used in practice. They are called the “stream ciphers” (we will discuss them later).

40. Theorem If G is a cryptographic PRG then the encryption scheme constructed before is semantically- secure (i.e. it has indistinguishable encryptions). cryptographic PRGs computationally-secure encryption Proof (sketch) Suppose that it is not secure. Therefore there exists an adversary that wins the “guessing game” with probability 0.5 + δ(n), where δ(n) is not negligible.

41. X chooses m 0,m 1 m 0,m 1 1.b = 0,1 random 2.c := x xor m b c has to guess b simulates If the adversary guessed b correctly then output 1: “x is pseudorandom”. Otherwise output 0: “x is random”.

42. x is a random string Rx = G(S) the adversary guesses b correctly with probability 0.5 the adversary guesses b correctly with probability 0.5 + δ(n) prob. 0.5 prob. 0.5 + δ(n) prob. 0.5 - δ(n) 1010 outputs: QED

43. Moral To construct secure encryption it suffices to construct a secure PRG. cryptographic PRGs semantically-secure encryption

44. Outlook Cryptography one time pad, quantum cryptography, “the satellite scenario” often called: “information-theoretic”, “unconditional” “computationally-secure” based on 2 assumptions: 1.some problems are computationally difficult 2.our understanding of what “computational difficulty” means is correct.