Scribd
Upload
44 views

Homework 4: ' N 1 L N N 1 L

This document contains the instructions for Homework 4 of the CSL759: Cryptography and Network Security course. It includes 4 problems related to digital signatures, pseudorandom functions, and collision-resistant hash functions. The homework is due on November 9th and must be submitted to the instructor, Shweta Agrawal. Problem 1 extends Lamport's one-time digital signature to a two-time signature and asks students to analyze the security properties. Problem 2 proves that secure digital signature schemes imply the existence of one-way functions. Problem 3 constructs a pseudorandom function from a message authentication code. Problem 4 analyzes the collision resistance of a hash function based on the RSA assumption.

Uploaded by

Ishaan Preet Singh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
44 views

Homework 4: ' N 1 L N N 1 L

This document contains the instructions for Homework 4 of the CSL759: Cryptography and Network Security course. It includes 4 problems related to digital signatures, pseudorandom functions, and collision-resistant hash functions. The homework is due on November 9th and must be submitted to the instructor, Shweta Agrawal. Problem 1 extends Lamport's one-time digital signature to a two-time signature and asks students to analyze the security properties. Problem 2 proves that secure digital signature schemes imply the existence of one-way functions. Problem 3 constructs a pseudorandom function from a message authentication code. Problem 4 analyzes the collision resistance of a hash function based on the RSA assumption.

Uploaded by

Ishaan Preet Singh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CSL759: Cryptography and Network Security

Oct 29, 2015

Homework 4
Instructor: Shweta Agrawal

Notation.

Due: Nov 9

We let || denote the concatenation operator.

Problem 1: Digital Signatures


In class, we saw Lamports construction of a one time signature. In this problem, we will extend it
to build a two-time signature. Let f : X Y . Assume that the messages to be signed are ` bits
long. Let L = 2` and interpret m as a number in {1, . . . , L}.
Let n = {1, . . . , n} and let S1 , . . . , SL n be subsets of n . The sets S1 , . . . , SL are fixed
and known to everyone. Consider the following signature
scheme. Algorithm KeyGen picks random

x1 , . . . , xn X and outputs PK = f (x1 ), . . . , f (xn ) and SK = x1 , . . . , xn .
We define
= Sign(m, SK) = {all xi where i Sm }
a. Explain how Verify(m, , PK) works. What is the worst case length of the resulting signature?
b. We say that the sets S1 , . . . , SL are cover free if for all 1 i 6= j L we have Si Sj . Briefly
explain why if S1 , . . . , SL are cover free then the signature scheme is a secure one time signature
scheme.
c. Let us assume that ` is a power of 2 and let n = ` + 1 + log `. For a message m {0, 1}` let c
be the number of 0s in m. Let m
= m||c {0, 1}n and let m
1, . . . , m
n {0, 1} be the n bits
of m.
Define the set Sm as:
Sm = {1 i n where m
i = 1} n
Prove that the sets (S1 , . . . , SL ) are cover free. What is the length of the resulting signatures
as a function of `?
d. We say that the sets (S1 , . . . , SL ) are 2-cover free if for all 1 i, j, k L where i 6= j, k we
have that Si Sj Sk . Briefly explain why if (S1 , . . . , SL ) are 2-cover free the the signature
scheme is a two time secure signature scheme (i.e. it remains secure as long as SK is not used
to sign more than two messages).
e. (extra credit) Construct L sets (S1 , . . . , SL ) n that are 2 cover free where n = O(`2 ).
Note that n = O(`) is possible.

Problem 2: More on Digital Signatures


Prove that the existence of secure digital signature schemes implies the existence of one-way functions.

HW 4-1

Problem 3: PRF from MAC


Recall that a PRF is a MAC. In this problem, we will construct a PRF from a MAC.
a. Recall that we can compute a hardcore bit of a one-way function f (x) using hx, ri where r is a
Pk
k
random string and: hy, ri =
i=1 yi ri mod 2. Suppose g is a secure MAC for {0, 1}
n
m
0
k
n
0
{0, 1} {0, 1} . Let f : {0, 1} {0, 1} {0, 1} and f (s, x) = hg(s, x), ri where
r {0, 1}m . Give a contrived example to show that f 0 is not a PRF.
b. We fix the above function by keeping r secret as follows h(s, r, x) = hg(s, x), ri. Prove that h
is a PRF.
Hint 1: How can an adversary A that distinguishes between h and a truly random function
be used to learn a value of h on an input without explicitly querying for it?
Hint 2: Recall that given a value r and a good prediction for hz, ri one can learn a value of z.
Hint 3: Use the above to break security of g(s, x).
c. The output of h is a single bit. Propose a construction based on h that outputs more than
one bit. Argue that your construction is a PRF.

Problem 4: Collision-resistant hash functions


Consider the following hash function family for hashing integers:
Gen(1k ): generate 2 k-bit primes p, q. Let n = pq. Choose random y QRn and output n, y.
H(n,y) (x) = y x mod n
a. What is the definition of a collision-resistant hash function?
b. Recall that the RSA assumption says that, given an RSA public key (n, e) GRSA (1k ) and a
random y Zn , it is hard to find x Zn such that xe = y.
In experiment notation: for all probabilistic polynomial-time adversaries A, there exists a
negligible function () such that
Pr[(n, e) GRSA (1k ); y Zn ; x A(n, e, y) : y = xe ] = (k).
Prove that if the RSA assumption holds, then the hash function described above is collisionresistant (as usual, use a reduction).
Hint: Recall that if we can break RSA for y QRn , we can break RSA for y Zn . Also recall
that if k is the order of y Zn , then k divides (n).

HW 4-2

You might also like