Notations
This commit is contained in:
		| @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ Two examples of security game are given in Figure~\ref{fig:sec-game-examples}: t | ||||
|         \pcwhile \adv(\texttt{query}, vk, \mathsf{st}, \oracle{sign}{sk,\cdot} ) \pcdo  | ||||
|         ;\\ | ||||
|         (m^\star, \sigma^\star) \gets \adv(\texttt{forge}, vk, \mathsf{st}) \\ | ||||
|         \pcreturn (vk, \ensemble{sign}  m^\star, \sigma^\star) | ||||
|         \pcreturn (vk, \ensemble{sign},  m^\star, \sigma^\star) | ||||
|     }} | ||||
|   } | ||||
|   \caption{Some security games examples} \label{fig:sec-game-examples} | ||||
| @@ -227,7 +227,11 @@ Two examples of security game are given in Figure~\ref{fig:sec-game-examples}: t | ||||
| \index{Reduction!Advantage} | ||||
| The \indcpa{} game is an \emph{indistinguishability} game. Meaning that the goal for the adversary $\mathcal A$ against this game is to distinguish between two messages from different distributions. | ||||
| To model this, for any adversary $\adv$, we define a notion of \emph{advantage} for the $\indcpa$ game as | ||||
| \[ \advantage{\indcpa}{\adv}(\lambda) = \left| \Pr\left[ \Exp{\indcpa}{\adv,1}(\lambda) = 1 \right] - \Pr\left[ \Exp{\indcpa}{\adv, 0}(\lambda) = 1\right] \right|.\] | ||||
| \[ | ||||
|   \advantage{\indcpa}{\adv}(\lambda) | ||||
|   \triangleq | ||||
|   \left| \Pr\left[ \Exp{\indcpa}{\adv,1}(\lambda) = 1 \right] - \Pr\left[ \Exp{\indcpa}{\adv, 0}(\lambda) = 1\right] \right|. | ||||
| \] | ||||
|  | ||||
| We say that a $\PKE$ scheme is $\indcpa$ if for any $\ppt$ $\adv$, the advantage of $\mathcal A$ in the $\indcpa$ game is negligible with respect to $\lambda$. | ||||
|  | ||||
| @@ -242,7 +246,11 @@ The goal of the adversary is not to distinguish between two distributions, but t | ||||
| 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. | ||||
|  | ||||
| For EU-CMA, the advantage of an adversary $\adv$ is defined as | ||||
| \[ \advantage{\textrm{EU-CMA}}{\adv}(\lambda) = \Pr\left[ \Sigma.\mathsf{verif}(vk, m^\star, \sigma^\star) = \top~\land~ \sigma^\star \notin \ensemble{sign} \right]. \] | ||||
| \[ | ||||
|   \advantage{\textrm{EU-CMA}}{\adv}(\lambda)  | ||||
|   \triangleq | ||||
|   \Pr\left[ \Sigma.\mathsf{verif}(vk, m^\star, \sigma^\star) = \top~\land~ \sigma^\star \notin \ensemble{sign} \right]. | ||||
| \] | ||||
|  | ||||
| And a signature scheme is considered unforgeable under chosen message attacks if for any $\ppt$ adversary $\adv$, the advantage of $\adv$ is negligible with respect to $\lambda$. | ||||
|  | ||||
|   | ||||
		Reference in New Issue
	
	Block a user