Indistinguishability
This commit is contained in:
		| @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ The following section explains how to define the security of a cryptographic pri | ||||
| Up to now, we defined the structure on which security proofs works. Let us now define what we are proving. | ||||
| An example of what we are proving has been shown in Section~\ref{se:models} with cryptographic hash functions. | ||||
|  | ||||
| In order to define security properties, a common manner is to define security \emph{games} (or \emph{experiments})~\cite{GM84}. | ||||
| In order to define security properties, a common manner is to define security \emph{games} (or \emph{experiments})~\cite{GM84,Sho06}. | ||||
|  | ||||
| Two examples of security game are given in Figure~\ref{fig:sec-game-examples}: the \emph{indistinguishability under chosen-plaintext attacks} (\indcpa) for public-key encryption (\PKE) schemes and the \emph{existential unforgeability under chosen message attacks} (EU-CMA) for signature schemes. | ||||
|  | ||||
| @@ -245,9 +245,10 @@ We say that a $\PKE$ scheme is $\indcpa$ if for any $\ppt$ $\adv$, the advantage | ||||
| This definition of advantages models the fact that the adversary is unable to distinguish whether the ciphertext $\mathsf{ct}$ comes from the experiment $\Exp{\indcpa}{\adv, 0}$ or the experiment $\Exp{\indcpa}{\adv, 1}$. | ||||
| Which means that the adversary cannot get a single bit of information about the ciphertext. | ||||
|  | ||||
| This kind of definition are also useful to model anonymity. For instance in Part~\ref{pa:gs-ac}, the definition of anonymity for group signatures is defined in a similar fashion. | ||||
| This kind of definition are also useful to model anonymity. | ||||
| For instance in Part~\ref{pa:gs-ac}, the definition of anonymity for group signatures is defined in a similar fashion. | ||||
|  | ||||
| On the other hand, the security definition for signature scheme is no more an indistinguishable game, but an unforgeability game. | ||||
| On the other hand, the security definition for signature scheme is no more an indistinguishability game, but an unforgeability game. | ||||
| The goal of the adversary is not to distinguish between two distributions, but to forge a new signature from what it learns \emph{via} signature queries. | ||||
|  | ||||
| Those signature queries are provided by an oracle \oracle{sign}{sk,\cdot}, which on input $m$ returns the signature $\sigma = \Sigma.\mathsf{sign}(sk, m)$ and add $\sigma$ to $\ensemble{sign}$. The initialization of these sets and the behaviour of oracle may be omitted in the rest of this thesis for the sake of readability. | ||||
|   | ||||
		Reference in New Issue
	
	Block a user