ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Key agreement from weak bit agreement
Full text PdfPdf (232 KB)
Source Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing archive
Proceedings of the thirty-seventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing table of contents
Baltimore, MD, USA
SESSION: Session 14A table of contents
Pages: 664 - 673  
Year of Publication: 2005
ISBN:1-58113-960-8
Author
Thomas Holenstein  Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland
Sponsors
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 1,   Downloads (12 Months): 37,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
Save this Article to a Binder    Display Formats: BibTex  EndNote ACM Ref   
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1060590.1060689
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Assume that Alice and Bob, given an authentic channel, have a protocol where they end up with a bit SA and SB, respectively, such that with probability 1+ε/2 these bits are equal. Further assume that conditioned on the event SA =n SB no polynomial time bounded algorithm can predict the bit better than with probability 1-δ/2. Is it possible to obtain key agreement from such a primitive? We show that for constant δ and ε the answer is yes if and only if δ > 1-ε/1+ε, both for uniform and non-uniform adversaries.The main computational technique used in this paper is a strengthening of Impagliazzo's hard-core lemma to the uniform case and to a set size parameter which is tight (i.e., twice the original size). This may be of independent interest.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
R. Ahlswede and I. Csiszár. Common randomness in information theory and cryptography---Part I: secret sharing. IEEE Trans.on Inf.Th.,39(4):1121--1132.1993.
 
2
 
3
W. Diffie and M. E. Hellman. New directions in cryptography. IEEE Trans. on Inf. Theory, IT-22(6):644--654, 1976.
 
4
C. Dwork, M. Naor, and O. Reingold. Immunizing encryption schemes from decryption errors. In C. Cachin and J. Camenisch, ed., EUROCRYPT 2004, volume 3027 of LNCS, pages 342--360, 2004.
5
 
6
O. Goldreich, N. Nisan, and A. Wigderson. On Yao's XOR-lemma. ECCC Report TR95-050, 1995.
 
7
 
8
 
9
R. Impagliazzo and M. Luby. One-way functions are essential for complexity based cryptography. In 30th FOCS, pages 230--235, 1989.
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
U. Maurer. Secret key agreement by public discussion. IEEE Trans. on Inf. Theory, 39(3):733--742, 1993.
 
14
U. Maurer and S. Wolf. Unconditionally secure key agreement and the intrinsic conditional information. IEEE Trans. on Inf. Theory, 45(2):499--514, 1999.
 
15
R. J. McEliece. A public key cryptosystem based on algebraic coding theory. DSN Progress Report 42-44:114--116, Jet Propulsion Lab, NASA, 1978.
 
16
R. Renner and S. Wolf. New bounds in secret-key agreement: The gap between formation and secrecy extraction. In E. Biham, ed., EUROCRYPT 2003, volume 2656 of LNCS, pages 562--577, 2003.
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
J. von Neumann. Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele. Mathematische Annalen, 100:295--320, 1928.
 
22