MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061914999 · doi:10.2197/ipsjdc.3.600

The Security of RC6 against Asymmetric Chi-square Test Attack

2007· article· en· W2061914999 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIPSJ Digital Courier · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptographic Implementations and Security
Canadian institutionsNuclear Waste Management Organization
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceKey (lock)Computer securityTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knudsen and Meier applied the χ2-attack to RC6. The χ2-attack recovers a key by using high correlations measured by χ2-value. The best χ2-attacks to RC6 whose security is guaranteed theoretically works on 16-round RC6 with 192- and 256-bit key but just 8-round RC6 with 128-bit key, because it recovers keys of RC6 symmetrically, which requires a time complexity of #plaintexts × 254 and a memory complexity of 280 for recovering one key. In this paper, we improve the χ2-attack to reduce the time complexity. We give the theorem that evaluates the success probability of the χ2-attack on RC6 without using any experimental result. Our key recovery attack recovers keys asymmetrically, which requires a time complexity of #plaintexts × 231 and a memory complexity of 252 for recovering one key. As a result, our key recovery attack works on 16-round RC6 with 192- and 256-bit key and 12-round RC6 with 128-bit key. In the case both of 196- and 256-bit keys, our attack surprisingly reduces the time and memory complexity compared with that of the previous attack. We also demonstrate our theorem on RC6-8/4/8 and make sure of the accuracy by comparing our approximation with the experimental results.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it