Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T05:41:40.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Polynomial representations of the Diffie-Hellman mapping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2009

Edwin El Mahassni
Affiliation:
Department of Computing, Macquarie University, New South Wales 2109, Australia, e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Igor Shparlinski
Affiliation:
Department of Computing, Macquarie University, New South Wales 2109, Australia, e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We obtain lower bounds on the degrees of polynomials representing the Diffie-Hellman mapping (gx, gy) → gxy, where g is a primitive root of a finite field q of q elements. These bounds are exponential in terms of log q. In particular, these results can be used to obtain lower bounds on the parallel arithmetic complexity of breaking the Diffie-Hellman cryptosystem. The method is based on bounds of numbers of solutions of some polynomial equations.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Mathematical Society 2001

References

[1]Cherepnev, M.A., ‘On the connection between the discrete logarithms and the Diffie–Hellman problem’, (in Russian), Diskret. Mat. 6 (1996), 341349.Google Scholar
[2]Coppersmith, D. and Shparlinski, I.E., ‘On polynomial approximation of the discrete logarithm and the Diffie–Hellman mapping’, J. Cryptology 13 (2000), 339360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Lidl, R. and Niederreiter, H., Finite fields, Encyclopedia of Maths and its Applications 20 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).Google Scholar
[4]Maurer, U.M. and Wolf, S., ‘Lower bounds on generic algorithms in groups’, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1403 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1998), pp. 7284.Google Scholar
[5]Maurer, U.M. and Wolf, S., ‘On the hardness of the Diffie–Hellman decision problem’, (preprint), (1998), 14.Google Scholar
[6]Maurer, U.M. and Wolf, S., ‘The Diffie–Helman protocol’, Des. Codes Cryptogr. 19 (2000), 147171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Maurer, U.M. and Wolf, S., ‘The relationship between breaking the Diffie–Hellman Protocol and computing discrete logarithms’, SIAM J. Comput. 28 (1999), 16891721.Google Scholar
[8]Merkle, J. and Schnorr, C.P., ‘Perfect, generic pseudo-randomness for cyclic groups’, (preprint), (1998), 112.Google Scholar
[9]Menezes, A.J., van Oorrschot, P.C. and Vanstone, S.A., Handbook of applied cryptography (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1996).Google Scholar
[10]Nečaev, V.I., ‘Complexity of a deterministic algorithm for the discrete logarithm’, (in Russian), Mat. Zametki 55 (1994), 91101.Google Scholar
[11]Niederreiter, H. and Winterhof, A., ‘Incomplete character sums and their applications to the polynomial approximation of the discrete logarithm’, (preprint), (2000), 113.Google Scholar
[12]Schnorr, C.P., ‘Security of almost all discrete log bits’, in Electronic Colloq. on Comp. Compl. (Univ. of Trier TR98–033, 1998), pp. 113.Google Scholar
[13]Schnorr, C.P., ‘Small generic hardcore subsets for the discrete logarithm: Short secret DL-keys’, Inform. Process. Letters (to appear).Google Scholar
[14]Schnorr, C.P. and Jacobsson, M., ‘Security of discrete log cryptosystems in the random oracle + generic model’, (preprint), (1999), 115.Google Scholar
[15]Schnorr, C.P. and Jacobsson, M., ‘Security of signed ElGamal encryption’, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1976 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2000), pp. 7399.Google Scholar
[16]Shparlinski, I.E., Number theoretic methods in cryptography: Complexity lower bounds (Birkhauser, Basel, 1999).Google Scholar
[17]Stinson, D.R., Cryptography: Theory and practice (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1995).Google Scholar
[18]Winterhof, A., ‘Polynomial interpolation of the discrete logarithm’, (preprint), (2000), 122.Google Scholar