Paper detail

A Time-Success Ratio Analysis of wPRF-based Leakage-Resilient Stream Ciphers

Weak pseudorandom functions (wPRFs) found an important application as main building blocks for leakage-resilient ciphers (EUROCRYPT'09). Several security bounds, based on different techniques, were given to these stream ciphers. The security loss in these reduction-based proofs is always polynomial, but has not been studied in detail. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we present a clear comparison of quantitatively different security bounds in the literature. Second, we revisit the current proof techniques and answer the natural question of how far we are from meaningful and provable security guarantees, when instantiating weak PRFs with standard primitives (block ciphers or hash functions). In particular, we demonstrate a flaw in the recent (TCC'14) analysis of the EUROCRYPT'09 stream cipher, which means that we still don't know if it offers provable security when instantiated with a standard block cipher. Our approach is a \emph{time-to-success Ratio} analysis, a universal measure introduced by Luby, which allow us to compare different security bounds.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.