MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083681472 · doi:10.1142/s1793830911001292

BREAKING AND REPAIRING AN APPROXIMATE MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION SCHEME

2011· article· en· W2083681472 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

VenueDiscrete Mathematics Algorithms and Applications · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHash functionHash chainHash-based message authentication codeComputer scienceMessage authentication codeCryptographic hash functionScheme (mathematics)Theoretical computer scienceFunction (biology)Authentication (law)Collision resistanceDouble hashingAlgorithmCryptographyMathematicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional hash functions are designed to protect against even the slightest modification of a message. Thus, one bit changed in a message would result in a totally different message digest when a hash function is applied. This feature is not suitable for applications whose message spaces admit a certain fuzziness, such as multimedia communications or biometric authentication applications. In these applications, approximate hash functions must be designed so that the distance between messages are proportionally reflected in the distance between message digests. Most of the previous designs of approximate hash functions employ traditional hash functions. In an ingenious approximate message authentication scheme for an N-ary alphabet recently proposed by Ge, Arce and Crescenzo, the approximate hash functions are based on the majority selection function. This scheme is suitable for N-ary messages with arbitrary alphabet size N. In this paper, we show a hidden property of the majority selection function, which allows us to successfully break this scheme. We show that an adversary, by observing just one message and digest pair, without any knowledge of the secret information, can generate N - 1 new valid message and digest pairs. In order to resist the attack, we propose some modifications to the original design. The corrected scheme is as efficient as the original scheme and it is secure against the attack. By a new combinatorial approach, we calculate explicitly the security parameters of the corrected scheme.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.242 · 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