4.2 Article

Lattice-based weak-key analysis on single-server outsourcing protocols of modular exponentiations and basic countermeasures

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND SYSTEM SCIENCES
卷 121, 期 -, 页码 18-33

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcss.2021.04.006

关键词

Computation outsourcing; Modular exponentiations; Weak-key attack; Coppersmith's method; Privacy-preserving

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61702294]
  2. National Development Foundation of Cryptography [MMJJ20170126]
  3. Applied Basic Research Project of Qingdao City [17-1-1-10-jch]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the secure outsourcing of modular exponentiations in cryptography, identifying privacy issues and proposing attacks and revisions for certain protocols. The research shows that multiple modular exponentiation protocols become more efficient as the number of exponentiations increases.
We investigate the problem of securely outsourcing the modular exponentiations in cryptography to an untrusted server, and analyze the security and the efficiency of three privacy-preserving outsourcing protocols for exponentiations proposed in Ding et al. (2017) [18]. Based on Coppersmith's lattice-based method, we present heuristic polynomial-time and ciphertext-only weak-key attacks on these protocols, which shows that the recommended size of the secret keys in their protocols can not assure the input privacy of the exponents. Correspondingly, we explicitly estimate the size of the secure secret keys to circumvent our attacks, and analyze the efficiency of the revised protocols with security settings. Our theoretical analysis and experimental results demonstrate that the protocol of single modular exponentiation is unavailable, the protocol of simultaneous modular exponentiations is not so efficient as claimed but still available, and the protocol of multiple modular exponentiations becomes more efficient as the number of exponentiations increases. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据