arXiv reader

Coding-Based Hybrid Post-Quantum Cryptosystem for Non-Uniform Information

Saar Tarnopolsky and Alejandro Cohen

arXiv
2503.05873v1 · PDF · 26 January 2025
Categories
cs.IT, math.IT
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

We introduce for non-uniform messages a novel hybrid universal network coding cryptosystem (NU-HUNCC) in the finite blocklength regime that provides Post-Quantum (PQ) security at high communication rates. Recently, hybrid cryptosystems offered PQ security by premixing the data using secure linear coding schemes and encrypting only a small portion of it. The data is assumed to be uniformly distributed, an assumption that is often challenging to enforce. Standard fixed-length lossless source coding and compression schemes guarantee a uniform output in normalized divergence. Yet, this is not sufficient to guarantee security. We consider an efficient compression scheme uniform in non-normalized variational distance for the proposed hybrid cryptosystem, that by utilizing a uniform sub-linear shared seed, guarantees PQ security. Specifically, for the proposed PQ cryptosystem, first, we provide an end-to-end practical coding scheme, NU-HUNCC, for non-uniform messages. Second, we show that NU-HUNCC is information-theoretic individually secured (IS) against an eavesdropper with access to any subset of the links and provide a converse proof against such an eavesdropper. Third, we introduce a modified security definition, individual semantic security under a chosen ciphertext attack (ISS-CCA1), and show that against an all-observing eavesdropper, NU-HUNCC satisfies its conditions. Finally, we provide an analysis of NU-HUNCC’s high data rate, low computational complexity, and the negligibility of the shared seed size.

Items 20

Definition

Definition 1

QEQK

(k_s Individual Security) Let \underline{V}_{\mathcal{L}} \in \mathbb{F}^{\ell \times n}_{q} be a set of \ell confidential source messages Alice intends to send, \underline{Y}_{\mathcal{L}} be Bob’s observations of the encoded messages, and \underline{Z}_{\mathcal{W}} be IT-Eve’s observations of the encoded messages. We say that the coding scheme is k_s-IS if:

  1. Security: \forall \epsilon_s > 0, \forall \mathcal{W} \subset{\mathcal{L}} s.t. |\mathcal{W}| = w < \ell, and \forall \underline{V}_{\mathcal{K}_s} \subset \underline{V}_{\mathcal{L}} s.t. |\mathcal{K}_s|=k_s < \ell - w, it holds that \mathbb{V}(p_{\underline{Z}_{\mathcal{W}}|{\underline{V}_{\mathcal{K}_s}=\underline{v}_{\mathcal{K}_s}}},p_{\underline{Z}_{\mathcal{W}}}) \leq \epsilon_s.

  2. Reliability: \forall \epsilon_e > 0 it holds that \mathbb{P}(\hat{\underline{V}}_{\mathcal{L}}(\underline{Y}_{\mathcal{L}}) \neq \underline{V}_{\mathcal{L}}) \leq \epsilon_e, where \hat{\underline{V}}_{\mathcal{L}}(\underline{Y}_{\mathcal{L}}) is the decoding estimation of the message matrix from Bob’s observations.

Used by Proof
Definition

Definition 2

EZ62

A public key cryptosystem consists of three algorithms:

  1. Key generation algorithm Gen(c) with an input c which generates a public key, p_c, and a secret key, s_c.

  2. An Encryption algorithm used by Alice which is taking a message m and the public key, p_c as an input, and outputs the ciphertext \kappa. We denote the encryption algorithm as \kappa = Crypt(m,p_c).

  3. A polynomial time decryption algorithm taking the ciphertext, \kappa, and the secret key, s_c, and output the original message m = Crypt^{-1}(Crypt(m,p_c),s_c).

Definition

Definition 3

8E2T

(SS-CCA1). Semantic security under chosen ciphertext attack (SS-CCA1) is a computational security notion defined by a game played between a challenger and an adversary. The game is played the following way:

  1. The challenger generates a key pair using a security parameter c: Gen(c) = (p_c,s_c) and shares p_c with the adversary.

  2. The adversary outputs a pair (\mathcal{M},S), where \mathcal{M} is a messages space, and S is a state.

  3. The adversary sends a polynomial number of ciphertexts to a decryption oracle that decrypts them and returns them to the adversary.

  4. Let \mathcal{F} = \{f : \mathcal{M} \rightarrow \Sigma\} be the set of functions on the message space. For any value \sigma \in \Sigma we denote by f^{-1}(\sigma) the inverse image of \sigma on the message space, \{m \in \mathcal{M}|f(m)=\sigma \}. We denote the probability for the most probable value for f(m) as p_{\sigma-max} = \max\limits_{\sigma \in \Sigma}\{ \sum_{m\in f^{-1}(\sigma)} p(m) \}.

  5. The challenger samples a message m \in \mathcal{M} according to its probability distribution.

  6. The challenger encrypts the message \kappa = Enc(m,p_c), and sends it to the challenger.

  7. The adversary tries to find a pair (f,\sigma) s.t. \sigma=f(m).

If the adversary finds a pair (f,\sigma) s.t. \sigma=f(m) he wins. The cryptosystem is considered semantically secured under chosen ciphertext attack if for any pair (\mathcal{M},S) and for any function f \in \mathcal{F}, the advantage the adversary has over guessing according to the message space probability distribution is negligible. We denote a function \epsilon(c) s.t. for every d > 0, there exists an integer c_d such that \forall c > c_d, the bound \epsilon(c) < \frac{1}{c^d} holds. The function \epsilon(c) is called a negligible function. The advantage of the adversary is measured by the adversary’s probability to win: p_{\sigma-max} + \epsilon(c). When \epsilon(c) is a negligible function, the adversary’s advantage is negligible as well.

Definition

Definition 4

9KBH

(ISS-CCA1). Individual semantic security under a chosen ciphertext attack is defined by the following game between an adversary and a challenger:

  1. The challenger generates a key pair using a security parameter c: Gen(c) = (p_c,s_c) and shares p_c with the adversary.

  2. The adversary outputs a pair (\mathcal{M},S), where \mathcal{M} \in \mathbb{F}_{q}^{\ell} is the messages space, and S is a state.

  3. The adversary sends a polynomial number of ciphertexts to the challenger that decrypts them and returns them to the adversary.

  4. The adversary chooses an index i^* \in \{1,...,\ell\} and tells it to the challenger.

  5. Let \mathcal{F} = \{f : \mathcal{M} \rightarrow \Sigma\} be the set of functions on the message space. For any value \sigma \in \Sigma we denote by f^{-1}(\sigma) the inverse image of \sigma on the message space, \{m \in \mathcal{M}|f(m)=\sigma \}. We denote the probability for the most probable value for f(m) as p_{\sigma-max} = \max\limits_{\sigma \in \Sigma}\{ \sum_{m\in f^{-1}(\sigma)} p(m) \}.

  6. For every i \in \{1,...,\ell\}, we consider m_i as an individual message. The challenger samples each m_i from its probability distribution creating the message m.

  7. The challenger encrypts all the messages \kappa = Crypt(m,p_c) and sends it to the adversary.

  8. The adversary tries to find a pair (f,\sigma) s.t. \sigma = f(m_{i^*}).

If the adversary finds a pair (f,\sigma) s.t. \sigma=f(m_{i^{*}}) he wins. The cryptosystem is considered ISS-CCA1 if for any pair (\mathcal{M},S) and for any function f \in \mathcal{F}, the advantage the adversary has over guessing according to the message space probability distribution is negligible. We denote a function \epsilon(c) s.t. for every d > 0, there exists an integer c_d s.t. \forall c > c_d, the bound \epsilon(c) < \frac{1}{c^d} holds. The function \epsilon(c) is called a negligible function. The advantage of the adversary is measured by the adversary’s probability to win: p_{\sigma-max} + \epsilon(c). When \epsilon(c) is a negligible function, the adversary’s advantage is negligible as well.

Remark

Remark 1

YBSY

The size of the seed can be bounded by n^{0.7214} \leq d_{J} \leq n^{0.7331}. A more detailed analysis is given in Appendix ?.

Remark

Remark 2

1MO4

The size of the seed can be bounded by n^{0.7214} \leq d_{J} \leq n^{0.7331}. A more detailed analysis is given in Sec. ?.

Theorem

Theorem 1

3YP4

Assume a noiseless multipath communication (\ell,w). NU-HUNCC with a linear IS code reliably delivers with high probability \ell non-uniform messages from a DMS (\mathcal{V},p_V) to the legitimate receiver, s.t. \mathbb{P}(\underline{\hat{V}}_{\mathcal{L}}(\underline{Y}_{\mathcal{L}}) \neq \underline{V}_{\mathcal{L}}) \leq \epsilon_e, while keeping IT-Eve ignorant of any set of k_s \leq \ell - w messages individually, s.t. \mathbb{V}(p_{\underline{Z}_{\mathcal{W}}|{\underline{V}_{\mathcal{K}_s}=\underline{v}_{\mathcal{K}_s}}},p_{\underline{Z}_{\mathcal{W}}}) \leq \epsilon_s, whenever d_{J} \geq |\mathcal{J}_V|, \ell is upper bounded by o(2^{n^\beta}/\tilde{n}), and \mu \geq \ell where \mathbb{F}_{2^\mu} is the extension field over which the code operates.

Used by Proof
Proof of Theorem 1

The proof for Theorem 1 is provided in Sec. ?. The information leakage obtained from Theorem 1 is upper bounded by \epsilon_s = 2\sqrt{2\tilde{n}\ell 2^{-n^{\beta}}} whereas the error probability is upper bounded by \epsilon_e = \ell 2^{-n^\beta}. Thus, for both \epsilon_s and \epsilon_e to be negligible we require \ell to be upper bounded by o\left(2^{n^{\beta}}/\tilde{n}\right). We now provide the achievability theorem for the scheme employing the non-linear IS channel code from Sec. ?:

Theorem.

Assume a noiseless multipath communication (\ell,w). NU-HUNCC with non-linear IS code reliably delivers with high probability \ell non-uniform messages from a DMS (\mathcal{V},p_V) to the legitimate receiver, such that \mathbb{P}(\underline{\hat{V}}_{\mathcal{L}}(\underline{Y}_{\mathcal{L}}) \neq \underline{V}_{\mathcal{L}}) \leq \epsilon_e, while keeping IT-Eve ignorant of any set of k_s \leq \ell - w - \ell\epsilon messages individually, s.t. \mathbb{V}(p_{\underline{Z}_{\mathcal{W}}|{\underline{V}_{\mathcal{K}_s}=\underline{v}_{\mathcal{K}_s}}},p_{\underline{Z}_{\mathcal{W}}}) \leq \epsilon_s, whenever d_{J} \geq |\mathcal{J}_V|, \ell\epsilon = o(\ell), and \ell is lower bounded by \omega(\tilde{n}^{\frac{2}{t}}) for some t \geq 1 and upper bounded by o(2^{n^\beta}/\tilde{n}).

Proof(Rate): Alice wants to send \ell n symbols to Bob. The message to Bob contains the following information: 1) \ell premixed messages of total size \tilde{n} \cdot \ell, 2) \ell uniform seed realizations of size d_{J,n} each. Dividing the numerator and denominator by n, gives the required result.

Proof

Proof

JYVC

The proof for Theorem ? is provided in Appendix. ?. The information leakage obtained from Theorem 1 is upper bounded by \epsilon_s = \tilde{n}\ell^{-\frac{t}{2}} + 2\sqrt{2\tilde{n}\ell 2^{-n^{\beta}}} whereas the error probability is upper bounded by \epsilon_e = \tilde{n}O(2^{-\ell}) + \sqrt{2\tilde{n}\ell 2^{-n^{\beta}}} + \ell 2^{-n^\beta}. Thus, for both \epsilon_s and \epsilon_e to be negligible, we require \ell to be upper bounded by o\left(2^{n^{\beta}}/\tilde{n}\right) and lower bounded by \omega\left(\tilde{n}^{\frac{2}{t}}\right).

Remark.

The achievability result in Theorem ? using the non-linear code from Sec. ? requires the number of messages to be upper and lower bounded. The bounds are determined both by the secrecy and reliability constraints. The lower bound is determined by the expression \tilde{n} \ell^{-\frac{t}{2}} in \epsilon_s and the upper bound is determined by the expression \sqrt{2\tilde{n}\ell 2^{-n^{\beta}}} which resides in both \epsilon_s and \epsilon_e. By choosing \ell \epsilon = \lceil t \log{\ell} \rceil to be an integer for any t \geq 1 and taking k_s \leq \ell - w - \ell \epsilon Alice can guarantee reliable and secure communication for non-uniform messages.

The converse result for NU-HUNCC against IT-Eve, under IS constraint (Definition 1), is given by the following theorem.

Theorem.

Assume a noiseless multipath communication (\ell,w). If a coding scheme exists s.t. Alice delivers to Bob any |\mathcal{K}_s| \triangleq k_s source messages from the DMS (\mathcal{V},p_V) in the presence of IT-Eve in an IS manner, i.e.

  1. I(\underline{V}_{\mathcal{K}_s};\underline{Z}_{\mathcal{W}}) \leq \epsilon_s (Secure),

  2. \mathbb{P}(\underline{\hat{V}}_{\mathcal{L}}(\underline{Y}_{\mathcal{L}}) \neq \underline{V}_{\mathcal{L}}) \leq \epsilon_e (Reliable),

  3. \frac{d_n}{n} \leq \epsilon_d (Seed).

Then, one must have:

  1. H(\underline{V}_{\mathcal{L}}) \leq I(\underline{X}_{\mathcal{L}};\underline{Y}_{\mathcal{L}}),

  2. H(\underline{V}_{\mathcal{K}_s}) \leq I(\underline{X}_{\mathcal{L}};\underline{Y}_{\mathcal{L}}) - I(\underline{X}_{\mathcal{L}};\underline{Z}_{\mathcal{W}}),

  3. H(\underline{V}_{\mathcal{K}_w}) \geq I(\underline{X}_{\mathcal{L}};\underline{Z}_{\mathcal{W}}),

where |\mathcal{K}_w| \triangleq k_w = \ell - k_s.

Proof

Proof

O7TM

The proof for Theorem ? is given in Sec. ?.

The information rate obtained by NU-HUNCC against IT-Eve is given by the following Theorem

Theorem.

Consider the setting of NU-HUNCC with an encoding scheme as in Theorem 1 or Theorem ?, the information rate of NU-HUNCC is

\begin{gathered} R = \frac{1}{\frac{|\mathcal{H}_V|}{n} + \frac{2d_{J}}{n}}. \end{gathered}
Proof

Proof

GWJL

Alice wants to send \ell n bits to Bob. The messages to Bob contain the following information: 1) \ell encoded confidential messages of size \tilde{n} = |\mathcal{H}_V| + d_J each, and 2) seed of size \ell d_{J}. Dividing the numerator and denominator by \ell n, we obtain the result in Theorem Proof on NU-HUNCC data rate against IT-Eve.

Theorem

Theorem 5

P95B

Assume the setting in Theorem 1. Let Crypt_1^{\dag} be an SS-CCA1 secured cryptosystem as described in (?). Then, NU-HUNCC is ISS-CCA1 secure.

Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Theorem 5

The proof of Theorem 5 is given in Sec. ?.

Now, we claim that the encryption scheme considering the non-linear coding IS channel code from Sec.? is ISS-CCA1 as well.

Theorem.

Assume the setting in Theorem ?. Let Crypt_{1} be an SS-CCA1 secured cryptosystem as described in (?). Then, NU-HUNCC is ISS-CCA1 secure.

Proof

Proof

8QL2

The proof of Theorem Proof is given in Appendix ?.

The information rate for both coding schemes (linear and non-linear) against Crypto-Eve remains the same and is given by the following theorem.

Theorem.

Consider the setting of the NU-HUNCC with an encoding scheme as in Theorem ?, the information rate of NU-HUNCC is

\begin{gathered} R = \frac{1}{\frac{|\mathcal{H}_V|}{n}(1 +\frac{r}{\ell})+ \frac{d_{J}}{n}(2+\frac{r}{\ell} + \frac{r}{c})}, \end{gathered}

with convergence rate of \mathcal{O}(1/\ell).

Proof

Proof

2OQT

Alice wants to send \ell n bits to Bob. The messages to Bob contain the following information: 1) \ell-c not encrypted messages of total size \tilde{n}(\ell-c), 2) c encrypted messages of total size \tilde{n}(c+r), and 3) encrypted seed of size \ell d_{J} \cdot \frac{c+r}{c}. Dividing the numerator and denominator by \ell n, we obtain the result in Theorem Proof on NU-HUNCC data rate.

Remark

Remark 4

AJ9X

Considering the size of the messages, n, as constant the optimal rate of NU-HUNCC is given by Theorem Proof and can be achieved by increasing the number of links, \ell.

Remark

Remark 5

AKXA

The security theorems provided in this section assume a multipath communication network with \ell links. However, NU-HUNCC coding scheme can be applied on any communication or information system since the security of both the linear and non-linear codes does not rely on the network structure [SMSM]. In this sense, NU-HUNCC is a universal coding scheme. We show our results on a multipath network merely for simplicity of representation.

Corollary

Corollary 1

XNXX

Consider the setting of Theorem 5 and the sets \mathcal{B}_1 and \mathcal{B}_2 as defined above. The number of codewords in the sets is equal. i.e.: |\mathcal{B}_1| = |\mathcal{B}_2|.

Proof of Corollary 1

The proof for Corollary 1 is provided in Appendix. ?.

We assume the best possible scenario for Crypto-Eve s.t.: 1) The induced probability of the codewords from coset 1 is as high as possible while the induced probability of the codewords from coset 2 is as low as possible(In [cohen2022partial] the induced probabilities of each of the codewords were equal since the probability of the messages was uniform.), and 2) the advantage Crypto-Eve has from Crypt^{\dag}_1 is as high as possible.

We start by bounding the maximum and minimum possible probabilities of the codewords in \mathcal{B}_1 and \mathcal{B}_2. We denote those probabilities by p_{max} and p_{min}. First, we consider j s.t. [j \mu, j (\mu + 1)] \in \mathcal{H}_V, i.e. the bits that are mapped to the symbol in column j were not padded by the uniform seed, and their entropy is lower bounded by 1 - \delta_n. The case for [j \mu, j (\mu + 1)] \in \mathcal{J}_V will be addressed later on.

For each column j, we recall the set of possible messages from symbols \{k_s+1,...,\ell\}, M_{k_w} \in \mathbb{F}_{2^\mu}^{k_w}. In each column j of the message matrix, the symbols are independent since they are obtained from independent source messages. Thus, we have

\begin{aligned} p(M_{k_w} =m_{k_w}) &= \prod_{i=1}^{k_w}p(M_{k_w,i} = m_{k_w,i}) \\ &= \prod_{i=1}^{k_w} \prod_{j'=1}^{\mu} p(M_{k_w,i,j'} = m_{k_w,i,j'}). \end{aligned}

From (?), we conclude that

\begin{aligned} H(m_{k_w,i,j'}) \geq H\left(m_{k_w,i,j'}|m_{k_w,i,j'}^{j\mu + j'-1}\right) \geq 1 - \delta_n, \end{aligned}

where m_{k_w,i,j'}^{j \mu +j'-1} = \left(m_{k_w,i,j'}(1),...,m_{k_w,i,j'}(j \mu +j'- 1)\right) are the bits in columns 1 to j-1 of the i-th row in the message matrix. We denote \zeta \in (0,\frac{1}{2}) s.t. H(\frac{1}{2} - \zeta) = H(\frac{1}{2} + \zeta) = 1 - \delta_n, and use \zeta to bound p_{min} and p_{max}

\begin{aligned} p_{min} \triangleq \left(\frac{1}{2} - \zeta\right)^{\mu k_w} \leq p(\underline{m}_{k_w}) \leq \left(\frac{1}{2} + \zeta\right)^{\mu k_w} \triangleq p_{max}. \end{aligned}

We bound \zeta using the binary entropy bounds given in [topsoe2001bounds], 4p(1-p) \leq H_b(p) \leq \left(4p(1-p)\right)^{\ln{4}} for 0 < p < 1. That is, by replacing p = \frac{1}{2} + \zeta we obtain the upper bound by

\begin{aligned} H_b\left(\frac{1}{2} + \zeta\right) \leq \left(4\left(\frac{1}{2} + \zeta\right)\cdot \left(\frac{1}{2} - \zeta\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{\ln 4}}, \end{aligned}

and the lower bound by

\begin{aligned} H_b\left(\frac{1}{2} + \zeta\right) \geq 4\left(\frac{1}{2} + \zeta\right)\left(\frac{1}{2} - \zeta\right). \end{aligned}

From which, we conclude

\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{2} + \zeta \leq \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}\cdot \sqrt{1 - (1 - \delta_n)^{\ln 4}}, \end{aligned}

and therefore, the upper bound for \zeta is given by

\begin{aligned} \zeta \leq \frac{\sqrt{1 - (1 - \delta_n)^{\ln 4}}}{2}. \end{aligned}

Now, we give the probability for some codeword from the set \mathcal{B}_1 \cup \mathcal{B}_2. We denote the codeword by \alpha \in \mathcal{B}_1 \cup \mathcal{B}_2 and we denote |\mathcal{B}_1| = |\mathcal{B}_2| = |\mathcal{B}| (see Corollary 1). The probability for \alpha is

\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}[\alpha | \alpha \in \mathcal{B}_1 \cup \mathcal{B}_2] = \begin{cases} \frac{p_{max}}{|\mathcal{B}| \cdot (p_{max} + p_{min})} & \text{if } \alpha \in \mathcal{B}_1 \\ \frac{p_{min}}{|\mathcal{B}| \cdot (p_{max} + p_{min})} & \text{if } \alpha \in \mathcal{B}_2 \end{cases}. \end{aligned}

From (?), we conclude that the probability for a codeword \alpha to be from the set \mathcal{B}_1 is

\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}[\alpha \in \mathcal{B}_1 | \alpha \in \mathcal{B}_1 \cup \mathcal{B}_2] = \frac{p_{max}}{p_{max} + p_{min}}. \end{aligned}

Since Crypt_1^{\dag} is SS-CCA1, Crypto-Eve can obtain some negligible information about the original codeword or some function of the codeword. We consider the function f: \{\mathcal{B}_1 \cup \mathcal{B}_2\} \rightarrow \{1,2\}, i.e. the function that takes a codeword from the set \{\mathcal{B}_1 \cup \mathcal{B}_2\} and outputs whether it belongs to \mathcal{B}_1 or \mathcal{B}_2

\begin{aligned} f(\alpha \in \{\mathcal{B}_1 \cup \mathcal{B}_2\}) = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if } \alpha \in \mathcal{B}_1\\ 2 & \text{if } \alpha \in \mathcal{B}_2 \end{cases}. \end{aligned}

From the definition of SS-CCA1, we conclude

\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}[M_{i^{*},1}] = \mathbb{P}[\alpha \in \mathcal{B}_1] + \epsilon_{ss-cca1}, \end{aligned}

where \epsilon_{ss-cca1} is a negligible function in c s.t. \epsilon_{ss-cca1} \leq \frac{1}{(\mu c)^{d}}. Thus, by substituting (?) into (?), we have

\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}[M_{i^{*},1}] - \frac{1}{2} &= \mathbb{P}[\alpha \in \mathcal{B}_1] + \epsilon_{ss-cca1} - \frac{1}{2} \\ &= \frac{p_{max} - p_{min}}{p_{max} + p_{min}} + \frac{1}{(\mu c)^{d}} . \end{aligned}

We bound the term \frac{p_{max}-p_{min}}{p_{max}+p_{min}} from (?) by

\begin{aligned} \frac{p_{max}-p_{min}}{p_{max}+p_{min}} &= \frac{(\frac{1}{2}+\zeta)^{\mu k_w}-(\frac{1}{2}-\zeta)^{\mu k_w}}{(\frac{1}{2}+\zeta)^{\mu k_w}+(\frac{1}{2}-\zeta)^{\mu k_w}} \\ & = \frac{\sum_{i=0}^{\mu k_w}\binom{\mu k_w}{i}(2\zeta)^i - \sum_{i=0}^{\mu k_w}\binom{\mu k_w}{i}(-2\zeta)^i}{\sum_{i=0}^{\mu k_w}\binom{\mu k_w}{i}(2\zeta)^i + \sum_{i=0}^{\mu k_w}\binom{\mu k_w}{i}(-2\zeta)^i} \\ & = \frac{2\sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor \frac{\mu k_w-1}{2} \rfloor}\binom{\mu k_w}{2i+1}(2\zeta)^{2i+1}}{2\sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor \frac{\mu k_w}{2} \rfloor}\binom{\mu k_w}{2i}(2\zeta)^{2i}} \\ & \overset{(a)}{<} 2\zeta \mu k_w \overset{(b)}{\leq} 2^{\frac{3}{2}}2^{\frac{-n^{\beta}}{2}}\mu k_w, \end{aligned}

where (a) follows from the upper bound \frac{\sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor (\mu k_w-1) / 2 \rfloor}\binom{\mu k_w}{2i+1}(2\zeta)^{2i}}{\sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor \mu k_w / 2 \rfloor}\binom{\mu k_w}{2i}(2\zeta)^{2i}} < \mu k_w, which can be easily proved, and (b) is from (?).

By substituting (?) into (?), it can be shown that for every d' Crypto-Eve’s advantage can be made smaller than \frac{1}{(\mu c)^{d'}} by choosing an appropriate d. Thus, we showed that column j \in \mathcal{H}_V is ISS-CCA1.

For the case of a column j s.t. j \in \mathcal{J}_V, ISS-CCA1 follows directly from the SS-CCA1 of Crypt_1, considering Crypto-Eve has the maximal advantage in guessing the seed from its ciphertext. Thus, we can conclude the cryptosystem is IIND-CCA1 and thus ISS-CCA1 as well [goldwasser2019probabilistic].

Lemma

Lemma 1

FVW1

Let a_i,b_i, 1 \leq i \leq n be a series of non-negative numbers. Then, the following inequality holds

\begin{gathered} \left|\prod_{i=1}^{n}a_i - \prod_{i=1}^{n}b_i\right| \leq \sum_{i=1}^{n}|a_i-b_i|\cdot \prod_{j=1}^{i-1}a_j \cdot \prod_{k=i+1}^{n}b_k. \end{gathered}

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2503.05873v1 by Saar Tarnopolsky and Alejandro Cohen, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2503/2503.05873.jsonl.