Removable Weak Keys for Discrete Logarithm Based Cryptography.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a novel type of weak cryptographic private key that can exist in any discrete logarithm-based public-key cryptosystem set in a group of prime order p where $$p-1$$ has small divisors. Unlike the weak private keys based on numerical size (such as smaller private keys, or private keys lying in an interval) that will always exist in any DLP cryptosystems, our type of weak private keys occurs purely due to parameter choice of p, and hence, can be removed with appropriate value of p. Using the theory of implicit group representations, we present a method to determine whether a public key comes from a weak private key subject to a given computational bound, and if so, recover the private key from the corresponding public key. We analyze several elliptic curves proposed in the literature and in various standards, giving counts of the number of keys that can be broken with relatively small amounts of computation.. Our results show that many of these curves, including some from standards, have a considerable number of such weak private keys. We also use our methods to show that none of the 14 outstanding Certicom Challenge problem instances are weak in our sense, up to a certain weakness bound.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".