Source author record

Robin Künzler

Robin Künzler appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Computational Complexity Cryptography and Security Information Theory math.IT

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works

4topics

2close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2014arXiv

A New View on Worst-Case to Average-Case Reductions for NP Problems

We study the result by Bogdanov and Trevisan (FOCS, 2003), who show that under reasonable assumptions, there is no non-adaptive worst-case to average-case reduction that bases the average-case hardness of an NP-problem on the worst-case complexity of an NP-complete problem. We replace the hiding and the heavy samples protocol in [BT03] by employing the histogram verification protocol of Haitner, Mahmoody and Xiao (CCC, 2010), which proves to be very useful in this context. Once the histogram is verified, our hiding protocol is directly public-coin, whereas the intuition behind the original protocol inherently relies on private coins.

preprint2014arXiv

A Protocol for Generating Random Elements with their Probabilities

We give an AM protocol that allows the verifier to sample elements x from a probability distribution P, which is held by the prover. If the prover is honest, the verifier outputs (x, P(x)) with probability close to P(x). In case the prover is dishonest, one may hope for the following guarantee: if the verifier outputs (x, p), then the probability that the verifier outputs x is close to p. Simple examples show that this cannot be achieved. Instead, we show that the following weaker condition holds (in a well defined sense) on average: If (x, p) is output, then p is an upper bound on the probability that x is output. Our protocol yields a new transformation to turn interactive proofs where the verifier uses private random coins into proofs with public coins. The verifier has better running time compared to the well-known Goldwasser-Sipser transformation (STOC, 1986). For constant-round protocols, we only lose an arbitrarily small constant in soundness and completeness, while our public-coin verifier calls the private-coin verifier only once.

preprint2011arXiv

Equivalence of the Random Oracle Model and the Ideal Cipher Model, Revisited

We consider the cryptographic problem of constructing an invertible random permutation from a public random function (i.e., which can be accessed by the adversary). This goal is formalized by the notion of indifferentiability of Maurer et al. (TCC 2004). This is the natural extension to the public setting of the well-studied problem of building random permutations from random functions, which was first solved by Luby and Rackoff (Siam J. Comput., '88) using the so-called Feistel construction. The most important implication of such a construction is the equivalence of the random oracle model (Bellare and Rogaway, CCS '93) and the ideal cipher model, which is typically used in the analysis of several constructions in symmetric cryptography. Coron et al. (CRYPTO 2008) gave a rather involved proof that the six-round Feistel construction with independent random round functions is indifferentiable from an invertible random permutation. Also, it is known that fewer than six rounds do not suffice for indifferentiability. The first contribution (and starting point) of our paper is a concrete distinguishing attack which shows that the indifferentiability proof of Coron et al. is not correct. In addition, we provide supporting evidence that an indifferentiability proof for the six-round Feistel construction may be very hard to find. To overcome this gap, our main contribution is a proof that the Feistel construction with eigthteen rounds is indifferentiable from an invertible random permutation. The approach of our proof relies on assigning to each of the rounds in the construction a unique and specific role needed in the proof. This avoids many of the problems that appear in the six-round case.