ON "THE POWER OF VERIFICATION QUERIES" IN UNCONDITIONALLY SECURE MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we consider authentication codes where the adversary has access to a verification oracle. We formally study two attack games: offline attack and online attack. In an offline impersonation attack with verification query of order i, the adversary launches its attack through two stages. In the first stage — the query stage — the adversary can adaptively choose i distinct messages to query the verification oracle. The verification oracle will answer whether these queried messages are valid or invalid under the secret encoding rule agreed by the transmitter and the receiver. In the later stage — the spoofing stage — the adversary creates a fraudulent message which is different from all its queried messages and sends this message to the receiver. The adversary wins if the receiver accepts the fraudulent message as a valid message. In an online impersonation attack with verification query of order i, the adversary has i + 1 chances to query the verification oracle and wins as soon as one of the queries is a valid message. We make use of strategy trees, which allow optimal strategies in both attack games to be identified, to establish a number of relationships between the value of the two games. This allows us to formally prove a relationship between the value of the game when the adversary has i queries, and the one in which he does not have any. The relationship, though widely believed to be true, was only recently proved for computationally secure systems. Our result complements this latter work for the information theoretic setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".