Generic Algorithms and Key Agreement Protocols Based on Group Actions

  • Akihiro Yamamura
  • Kaoru Kurosawa
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2223)


We propose a Diffie-Hellman-like key agreement protocol based on the computational intractability of reversing group action. The concept of a group action generalizes exponentiation and provides an algorithmic problem harder than the discrete logarithm problem. Using the action of the general linear group on the direct product of two cyclic groups, we invent a key agreement protocol secure against an attacker who has power to solve the discrete logarithm problem. We discuss a semantic secure asymmetric encryption scheme as well. Its security is evaluated in terms of a generic algorithm, which is a model of probabilistic algorithms over black box groups (similar to a straight-line program) and does not depend on any specific property of the group representation.


Generic Algorithm Cyclic Group Group Element Discrete Logarithm Discrete Logarithm Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. Babai and E. Szemerédi On the complexity of matrix group problems, IEEE Symp. Found. of Computer Scienece (1984) 229–240.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. Diffie and M. E. Hellman, New directions in cryptography, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 22 (1976) 644–654.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. ElGamal, A public key cryptosystem and a signature scheme based on discrete logarithms, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 31 (1985) 469–472.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Fischlin, A note on security proofs in the generic model, Advances in Cryptology (Asiacrypt’00) Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1976 Springer-Verlag (2000) 458–469.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    U. M. Maurer and S. Wolf, Lower bounds on generic algorithms in groups, Advances in Cryptology (Eurocrypt’98) Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1403 Springer-Verlag (1998) 72–84.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. I. Nechaev, Complexity of a determinate algorithm for the discrete logarithm, Math. Notes, 55 (1994) 165–172.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. P. Schnorr, Small generic hardcore subsets for the discrete logarithm: Short secret DL-keys, Infor. Proc. Letters, 79 (2001) 93–98.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. P. Schnorr and M. Jakobsson, Security of signed ElGamal encryption, Advances in Cryptology (Asiacrypt’00) Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1976 Springer-Verlag (2000) 73–89.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. T. Schwartz, Fast probabilistic algorithms for veri.cation of polynomial identities, J. ACM, 27(4) (1980) 701–717.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Shoup, Lower bounds for discrete logarithms and related problems, Advances in Cryptology (Eurocrypt’97) Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1233 Springer-Verlag (1997) 256–266.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akihiro Yamamura
    • 1
  • Kaoru Kurosawa
    • 2
  1. 1.Communications Research LaboratoryTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Tokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations