Question on definition of semantic security: why "probability ensemble"?
- From: "Sergei" <silentser@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Oct 2006 12:24:21 -0700
Hi!
I was often stumbling over this question and could not get a clear
explanation, so maybe someone here would be able to help me.
Why does the definition of semantic security use a notion of
"probability ensemble" (e.g. in Goldreich's "Foundations of
Cryptography II")? According to this definition an encryption scheme is
semantically secure if for any PPT algorithm A there exists a PPT
algorithm A' such that for every probability ensemble {X_n}
Pr[A(E_k(X_n))=1] < Pr[A'(lengthof(X_n))=1] + 1/poly(n)
Why not to say "for any plaintext x_n \in {0,1}^n" instead of
"probability ensemble"?
Sergei
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Question on definition of semantic security: why "probability ensemble"?
- From: Kristian Gjøsteen
- Re: Question on definition of semantic security: why "probability ensemble"?
- Prev by Date: Re: Rand generator (MD5)
- Next by Date: Re: Self-shrinking MT19937 as stream cipher
- Previous by thread: Graphical test results
- Next by thread: Re: Question on definition of semantic security: why "probability ensemble"?
- Index(es):