MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023048853 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.13415

CDCL(Crypto) SAT Solvers for Cryptanalysis

2020· article· en· W3023048853 on OpenAlexaff
Saeed Nejati, Vijay Ganesh

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBoolean satisfiability problemCryptanalysisTheoretical computer scienceHash functionSolverCryptographySignature (topology)AlgorithmProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last two decades, we have seen a dramatic improvement in the efficiency of conflict-driven clause-learning Boolean satisfiability (CDCL SAT) solvers on industrial problems from a variety of domains. The availability of such powerful general-purpose search tools as SAT solvers has led many researchers to propose SAT-based methods for cryptanalysis, including techniques for finding collisions in hash functions and breaking symmetric encryption schemes. Most of the previously proposed SAT-based cryptanalysis approaches are blackbox techniques, in the sense that the cryptanalysis problem is encoded as a SAT instance and then a CDCL SAT solver is invoked to solve the said instance. A weakness of this approach is that the encoding thus generated may be too large for any modern solver to solve efficiently. Perhaps a more important weakness of this approach is that the solver is in no way specialized or tuned to solve the given instance. To address these issues, we propose an approach called CDCL(Crypto) (inspired by the CDCL(T) paradigm in Satisfiability Modulo Theory solvers) to tailor the internal subroutines of the CDCL SAT solver with domain-specific knowledge about cryptographic primitives. Specifically, we extend the propagation and conflict analysis subroutines of CDCL solvers with specialized codes that have knowledge about the cryptographic primitive being analyzed by the solver. We demonstrate the power of this approach in the differential path and algebraic fault analysis of hash functions. Our initial results are very encouraging and reinforce the notion that this approach is a significant improvement over blackbox SAT-based cryptanalysis.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.055 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207