REVIEW 1 cited by
The Sponge is Quantum Indifferentiable
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
The sponge is a cryptographic construction that turns a public permutation into a hash function. When instantiated with the Keccak permutation, the sponge forms the NIST SHA-3 standard. SHA-3 is a core component of most post-quantum public-key cryptography schemes slated for worldwide adoption. While one can consider many security properties for the sponge, the ultimate one is indifferentiability from a random oracle, or simply indifferentiability. The sponge was proved indifferentiable against classical adversaries by Bertoni et al. in 2008. Despite significant efforts in the years since, little is known about sponge security against quantum adversaries, even for simple properties like preimage or collision resistance beyond a single round. This is primarily due to the lack of a satisfactory quantum analog of the lazy sampling technique for permutations. In this work, we develop a specialized technique that overcomes this barrier in the case of the sponge. We prove that the sponge is in fact indifferentiable from a random oracle against quantum adversaries. Our result establishes that the domain extension technique behind SHA-3 is secure in the post-quantum setting. Our indifferentiability bound for the sponge is a loose $O(\mathsf{poly}(q) 2^{-\mathsf{min}(r, c)/4})$, but we also give bounds on preimage and collision resistance that are tighter.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The Compressed Oracle is a Worthy (Multiplicative) Adversary
The compressed oracle technique is captured by the multiplicative adversary method through the new multiplicative ladder adversary method, up to a factor of 6.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.