Paper detail

Achieving the Secrecy Capacity of Wiretap Channels Using Polar Codes

Suppose Alice wishes to send messages to Bob through a communication channel C_1, but her transmissions also reach an eavesdropper Eve through another channel C_2. The goal is to design a coding scheme that makes it possible for Alice to communicate both reliably and securely. Reliability is measured in terms of Bob's probability of error in recovering the message, while security is measured in terms of the mutual information between the message and Eve's observations. Wyner showed that the situation is characterized by a single constant C_s, called the secrecy capacity, which has the following meaning: for all $ε> 0$, there exist coding schemes of rate $R \ge C_s - ε$ that asymptotically achieve both the reliability and the security objectives. However, his proof of this result is based upon a nonconstructive random-coding argument. To date, despite a considerable research effort, the only case where we know how to construct coding schemes that achieve secrecy capacity is when Eve's channel C_2 is an erasure channel, or a combinatorial variation thereof. Polar codes were recently invented by Arikan; they approach the capacity of symmetric binary-input discrete memoryless channels with low encoding and decoding complexity. Herein, we use polar codes to construct a coding scheme that achieves the secrecy capacity of general wiretap channels. Our construction works for any instantiation of the wiretap channel model, as originally defined by Wyner, as long as both C_1 and C_2 are symmetric and binary-input. Moreover, we show how to modify our construction in order to achieve strong security, as defined by Maurer, while still operating at a rate that approaches the secrecy capacity. In this case, we cannot guarantee that the reliability condition will be satisfied unless the main channel C_1 is noiseless, although we believe it can be always satisfied in practice.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors3 topics

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.