Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This thesis gives an overview of the currently most mature key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs) based on the theory of error correcting codes.It includes an introduction to the theory of error correcting codes in so much as it applies to these systems and how it can be used to encapsulate keys through a public key (PK) cryptosystem.In order to add context to the KEMs, first the required basics of coding theory and a selection of some of the most common error correcting codes are covered.Then, we revisit public key cryptosystems, key encapsulation, and the security threat models that are being used.This is followed by a thorough description of the current NIST candidates for KEM using post-quantum cryptography: Classic McEliece, BIKE, LEDAcrypt, and HQC.We do not include rank metric methods such as ROLLO and RQC, which were NIST candidates until the second round, since they involve different features than those studied in this thesis.The thesis is intended as a survey of current methods being used in this field.We also establish some of the problems which may pose interesting for further research.iii In 1994, Shor [62] came up with a few algorithms for quantum computers that made the previously computationally infeasible problems of factoring large numbers and finding discrete logarithms of numbers in modular rings suddenly feasible.In the subsequent decades, this did not have much effect on the popularity of RSA as a standard for asymmetric encryption.But, now in the advent of quantum computers of increasing bit sizes, this problem has returned.At the same time, the large key sizes required by code-based systems are no longer as much of an issue due to increasing access to high speed networks.In 2016, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published a call for proposals for post-quantum cryptosystems that would not be based on the hardness of factoring large numbers or of finding discrete logarithms.This thesis provides a thorough description of the Round 2 Candidates of this competition which are based upon coding theory.These are Classic McEliece, BIKE, LEDAcrypt, and HQC. Thesis StructureChapter 2 covers coding theory as is necessary to understand the current state of the art in code-based cryptography.It begins with a description of the theory of error correcting codes and then describes several of the most popular code systems currently in use including Hamming Codes, BCH codes, Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) codes, Medium-Density Parity-Check (MDPC) codes, and Quasi-cyclic (QC) codes.Chapter 3 introduces public key cryptosystems and how coding theory fits into this paradigm.It then presents the leading contenders for code-based KEM in Round 3 of the NIST standardization competition, announced in July 2020, including Classic McEliece, BIKE, and HQC, as well as second round contender LEDAcrypt.For each of these proposals, we describe in detail the problem on which the security is based, the system parameters, key generations, encapsulation, decapsulation, attacks on the system, and a security analysis.Chapter 4 concludes with a summary of the findings and includes some potential areas for future research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».