Re: First quantum byte!
- From: Mike Amling <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:27:09 GMT
Unruh wrote:
wwhyte@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
"Mike Amling" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:R67lf.795$Ql1.392@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Is the public-key system described at http://bitconjurer.org/simple_public_key.html subject to attack by quantum computers like RSA and elliptic curves are?
Almost certainly yes, although I haven't delved that deep into it, and probably won't. The biggest problem with it is that while it is published so anyone can break it, it isn't published in a respected form (there isn't even a paper, just Bram's somewhat scattered thoughts, and a rather complete lack of fundamentals) so no one respectable is likely to look at it. Joe
It looks like the best attack against Bram's algorithm would use lattice reduction -- it's essentially a neat variant on knapsacks, very efficient but with bad message expansion properties. If that's the case, Shor's algorithm wouldn't apply. However, as Joe says the problem with making a statement about the security of this algorithm is that no-one's closely studied how secure it is against classical algorithms, so it's a bit early to start saying how quantum computers might affect it.
Remember that the attacker does not need to find p. He just needs to find some p such that the known k integers mod p are less than p/2k. Any such p will do. It is not necessarily unique. Also, the number of "knapsacks" is finite ( about 2^k at most), so if k is small, then one can simply list them all and does not need to know what p is at all just look to see if the answer is one of them or is minus one of them. And if k is large then p/2k is small finding p such that anyof the numbers is less than p/2k again is not hard.
Well, that's not really a problem. If k is >=80 and p>=2**1000, then neither 2**k nor p/2k is small.
It is also horribly inefficient. One has to send a number of bits far greater than the number of bits in p simply to encode a single bit.
Yep.
--Mike Amling .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: First quantum byte!
- From: Unruh
- Re: First quantum byte!
- References:
- Re: First quantum byte!
- From: Mike Amling
- Re: First quantum byte!
- From: Joseph Ashwood
- Re: First quantum byte!
- From: wwhyte
- Re: First quantum byte!
- From: Unruh
- Re: First quantum byte!
- Prev by Date: Re: PGP Lame question
- Next by Date: Re: PGP Lame question
- Previous by thread: Re: First quantum byte!
- Next by thread: Re: First quantum byte!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|