Advertisement

Key Encapsulation Mechanism with Explicit Rejection in the Quantum Random Oracle Model

  • Haodong Jiang
  • Zhenfeng ZhangEmail author
  • Zhi Ma
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11443)

Abstract

The recent post-quantum cryptography standardization project launched by NIST increased the interest in generic key encapsulation mechanism (KEM) constructions in the quantum random oracle (QROM). Based on a OW-CPA-secure public-key encryption (PKE), Hofheinz, Hövelmanns and Kiltz (TCC 2017) first presented two generic constructions of an IND-CCA-secure KEM with quartic security loss in the QROM, one with implicit rejection (a pseudorandom key is return for an invalid ciphertext) and the other with explicit rejection (an abort symbol is returned for an invalid ciphertext). Both are widely used in the NIST Round-1 KEM submissions and the ones with explicit rejection account for 40%. Recently, the security reductions have been improved to quadratic loss under a standard assumption, and be tight under a nonstandard assumption by Jiang et al. (Crypto 2018) and Saito, Xagawa and Yamakawa (Eurocrypt 2018). However, these improvements only apply to the KEM submissions with implicit rejection and the techniques do not seem to carry over to KEMs with explicit rejection.

In this paper, we provide three generic constructions of an IND-CCA-secure KEM with explicit rejection, under the same assumptions and with the same tightness in the security reductions as the aforementioned KEM constructions with implicit rejection (Crypto 2018, Eurocrypt 2018). Specifically, we develop a novel approach to verify the validity of a ciphertext in the QROM and use it to extend the proof techniques for KEM constructions with implicit rejection (Crypto 2018, Eurocrypt 2018) to our KEM constructions with explicit rejection. Moreover, using an improved version of one-way to hiding lemma by Ambainis, Hamburg and Unruh (ePrint 2018/904), for two of our constructions, we present tighter reductions to the standard IND-CPA assumption. Our results directly apply to 9 KEM submissions with explicit rejection, and provide tighter reductions than previously known (TCC 2017).

Keywords

Quantum random oracle model Key encapsulation mechanism Explicit rejection Generic construction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank anonymous reviews of PKC 2019 for their insightful comments. In particular, we are also grateful to Chris Brzuska for his kind suggestions which are helpful in improving our paper. This work is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2017YFB0802000), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. U1536205, 61472446, 61701539), and the National Cryptography Development Fund (mmjj20180107, mmjj20180212).

Supplementary material

References

  1. 1.
    Rackoff, C., Simon, D.R.: Non-interactive zero-knowledge proof of knowledge and chosen ciphertext attack. In: Feigenbaum, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 1991. LNCS, vol. 576, pp. 433–444. Springer, Heidelberg (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46766-1_35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Random oracles are practical: a paradigm for designing efficient protocols. In: Denning, D.E., Pyle, R., Ganesan, R., Sandhu, R.S., Ashby, V. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security – CCS 1993, pp. 62–73. ACM (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dent, A.W.: A designer’s guide to KEMs. In: Paterson, K.G. (ed.) Cryptography and Coding 2003. LNCS, vol. 2898, pp. 133–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-40974-8_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hofheinz, D., Hövelmanns, K., Kiltz, E.: A modular analysis of the Fujisaki-Okamoto transformation. In: Kalai, Y., Reyzin, L. (eds.) TCC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10677, pp. 341–371. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70500-2_12CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fujisaki, E., Okamoto, T.: Secure integration of asymmetric and symmetric encryption schemes. In: Wiener, M.J. (ed.) CRYPTO 1999. LNCS, vol. 1666, pp. 537–554. Springer, Heidelberg (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48405-1_34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fujisaki, E., Okamoto, T.: Secure integration of asymmetric and symmetric encryption schemes. J. Cryptol. 26(1), 1–22 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Okamoto, T., Pointcheval, D.: REACT: rapid enhanced-security asymmetric cryptosystem transform. In: Naccache, D. (ed.) CT-RSA 2001. LNCS, vol. 2020, pp. 159–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45353-9_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jean-Sébastien, C., Handschuh, H., Joye, M., Paillier, P., Pointcheval, D., Tymen, C.: GEM: A \(\underline{\rm G}\)eneric chosen-ciphertext secure \(\underline{\rm E}\)ncryption \(\underline{\rm M}\)ethod. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) CT-RSA 2002. LNCS, vol. 2271, pp. 263–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45760-7_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Targhi, E.E., Unruh, D.: Post-quantum security of the Fujisaki-Okamoto and OAEP transforms. In: Hirt, M., Smith, A. (eds.) TCC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9986, pp. 192–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53644-5_8CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    NIST: National Institute for Standards and Technology. Post quantum crypto project (2017). https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography/round-1-submissions
  11. 11.
    Boneh, D., Dagdelen, Ö., Fischlin, M., Lehmann, A., Schaffner, C., Zhandry, M.: Random oracles in a quantum world. In: Lee, D.H., Wang, X. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 7073, pp. 41–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25385-0_3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Unruh, D.: Non-interactive zero-knowledge proofs in the quantum random oracle model. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9057, pp. 755–784. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46803-6_25CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saito, T., Xagawa, K., Yamakawa, T.: Tightly-secure key-encapsulation mechanism in the quantum random oracle model. In: Nielsen, J.B., Rijmen, V. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2018. LNCS, vol. 10822, pp. 520–551. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78372-7_17CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jiang, H., Zhang, Z., Chen, L., Wang, H., Ma, Z.: IND-CCA-secure key encapsulation mechanism in the quantum random oracle model, revisited. In: Shacham, H., Boldyreva, A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2018. LNCS, vol. 10993, pp. 96–125. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96878-0_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hamburg, M.: Module-LWE: the three bears. Technical report. https://www.shiftleft.org/papers/threebears/
  16. 16.
    Hülsing, A., Rijneveld, J., Schanck, J., Schwabe, P.: High-speed key encapsulation from NTRU. In: Fischer, W., Homma, N. (eds.) CHES 2017. LNCS, vol. 10529, pp. 232–252. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66787-4_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bernstein, D.J., Persichetti, E.: Towards KEM unification. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/526 (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/526
  18. 18.
    Unruh, D.: Revocable quantum timed-release encryption. J. ACM 62(6), 49:1–49:76 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ambainis, A., Hamburg, M., Unruh, D.: Quantum security proofs using semi-classical oracles. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/904 (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/904
  20. 20.
    Zhandry, M.: How to record quantum queries, and applications to quantum indifferentiability. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/276 (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/276
  21. 21.
    Boneh, D., Zhandry, M.: Secure signatures and chosen ciphertext security in a quantum computing world. In: Canetti, R., Garay, J.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2013. LNCS, vol. 8043, pp. 361–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40084-1_21CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000). Number 2zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhandry, M.: Secure identity-based encryption in the quantum random oracle model. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7417, pp. 758–775. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32009-5_44CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ambainis, A., Rosmanis, A., Unruh, D.: Quantum attacks on classical proof systems: the hardness of quantum rewinding. In: 55th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science - FOCS 2014, pp. 474–483. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hülsing, A., Rijneveld, J., Song, F.: Mitigating multi-target attacks in hash-based signatures. In: Cheng, C.-M., Chung, K.-M., Persiano, G., Yang, B.-Y. (eds.) PKC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9614, pp. 387–416. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49384-7_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Mathematical Engineering and Advanced ComputingZhengzhouChina
  2. 2.TCA Laboratory, State Key Laboratory of Computer Science, Institute of SoftwareChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  4. 4.Henan Key Laboratory of Network Cryptography TechnologyZhengzhouChina

Personalised recommendations