Description
Les méthodes formelles (ou encore logiques) sont désormais capables d'analyser automatiquement la plupart des protocoles cryptographiques. Néanmoins les modèles d'attaquant utilisés reposent tous --sauf rares exceptions-- sur le modèle Needham-Schroeder, qui énumère un nombre fini d'actions possibles pour l'intrus. Les modèles cryptographiques au contraire reposent sur un modèle d'attaquant très général, au prix de preuves difficilement automatisables. Une question naturelle est alors de savoir si les modèles logiques, ou au moins certains d'entre eux, peuvent être justifiés du point de vue de la cryptographie: autrement dit si la sécurité au niveau logique implique la sécurité au niveau cryptographique. Le bénéfice serait de pouvoir tirer profit des deux approches et obtenir de manière automatique des preuves de sécurité cryptographiques.<br/> Dans cet exposé, nous présenterons un panorama des travaux existants sur ce sujet. Nous montrerons que si la plupart des résultats sont positifs, certaines limitations sont inévitables dans l'état actuel des connaissance en cryptographie. Nous présenterons enfin certaines directions de recherche visant à étendre les résultats actuels.
Next sessions
-
Some applications of linear programming to Dilithium
Speaker : Paco AZEVEDO OLIVEIRA - Thales & UVSQ
Dilithium is a signature algorithm, considered post-quantum, and recently standardized under the name ML-DSA by NIST. Due to its security and performance, it is recommended in most use cases. During this presentation, I will outline the main ideas behind two studies, conducted in collaboration with Andersson Calle-Vierra, Benoît Cogliati, and Louis Goubin, which provide a better understanding of[…] -
Wagner’s Algorithm Provably Runs in Subexponential Time for SIS^∞
Speaker : Johanna Loyer - Inria Saclay
At CRYPTO 2015, Kirchner and Fouque claimed that a carefully tuned variant of the Blum-Kalai-Wasserman (BKW) algorithm (JACM 2003) should solve the Learning with Errors problem (LWE) in slightly subexponential time for modulus q = poly(n) and narrow error distribution, when given enough LWE samples. Taking a modular view, one may regard BKW as a combination of Wagner’s algorithm (CRYPTO 2002), run[…]-
Cryptography
-
-
CryptoVerif: a computationally-sound security protocol verifier
Speaker : Bruno Blanchet - Inria
CryptoVerif is a security protocol verifier sound in the computational model of cryptography. It produces proofs by sequences of games, like those done manually by cryptographers. It has an automatic proof strategy and can also be guided by the user. It provides a generic method for specifying security assumptions on many cryptographic primitives, and can prove secrecy, authentication, and[…]-
Cryptography
-
-
Structured-Seed Local Pseudorandom Generators and their Applications
Speaker : Nikolas Melissaris - IRIF
We introduce structured‑seed local pseudorandom generators (SSL-PRGs), pseudorandom generators whose seed is drawn from an efficiently sampleable, structured distribution rather than uniformly. This seemingly modest relaxation turns out to capture many known applications of local PRGs, yet it can be realized from a broader family of hardness assumptions. Our main technical contribution is a[…]-
Cryptography
-
-
Predicting Module-Lattice Reduction
Speaker : Paola de Perthuis - CWI
Is module-lattice reduction better than unstructured lattice reduction? This question was highlighted as `Q8' in the Kyber NIST standardization submission (Avanzi et al., 2021), as potentially affecting the concrete security of Kyber and other module-lattice-based schemes. Foundational works on module-lattice reduction (Lee, Pellet-Mary, Stehlé, and Wallet, ASIACRYPT 2019; Mukherjee and Stephens[…]-
Cryptography
-