MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320925590 · doi:10.1515/jmc-2022-0010

Plactic key agreement (insecure?)

2023· article· en· W4320925590 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

VenueJournal of Mathematical Cryptology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsBlackberry (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Public-key cryptographyComputer scienceDivision (mathematics)ByteCryptographyTheoretical computer scienceComputer securityArithmeticMathematicsEncryptionProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Plactic key agreement is a new type of cryptographic key agreement that uses Knuth’s multiplication of semistandard tableaux from combinatorial algebra. The security of plactic key agreement relies on the difficulty of some computational problems, particularly the division of semistandard tableaux. Tableau division can be used to find the private key from its public key or to find the shared secret from the two exchanged public keys. Monico found a fast division algorithm, which could be a polynomial time in the length of the tableaux. Monico’s algorithm solved a challenge that had been previously estimated to cost 2 128 steps to break, which is an infeasibly large number for any foreseeable computing power on earth. Monico’s algorithm solves this challenge in only a few minutes. Therefore, Monico’s attack likely makes the plactic key agreement insecure. If it were not for Monico’s attack, plactic key agreement with 1,000-byte public keys might perhaps have provided 128-bit security, with a runtime of a millisecond. But Monico’s attack breaks these public keys’ sizes in minutes.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.254 · 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