Paper detail

Distinguishing a truncated random permutation from a random function

An oracle chooses a function $f$ from the set of $n$ bits strings to itself, which is either a randomly chosen permutation or a randomly chosen function. When queried by an $n$-bit string $w$, the oracle computes $f(w)$, truncates the $m$ last bits, and returns only the first $n-m$ bits of $f(w)$. How many queries does a querying adversary need to submit in order to distinguish the truncated permutation from a random function? In 1998, Hall et al. showed an algorithm for determining (with high probability) whether or not $f$ is a permutation, using $O(2^{\frac{m+n}{2}})$ queries. They also showed that if $m < n/7$, a smaller number of queries will not suffice. For $m > n/7$, their method gives a weaker bound. In this manuscript, we show how a modification of the method used by Hall et al. can solve the porblem completely. It extends the result to essentially every $m$, showing that $Ω(2^{\frac{m+n}{2}})$ queries are needed to get a non-negligible distinguishing advantage. We recently became aware that a better bound for the distinguishing advantage, for every $m<n$, follows from a result of Stam published, in a different context, already in 1978.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 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.