Circular Insecure Encryption: from Long Cycles to Short Cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A length n encryption cycle consists of a sequence of n keys, each encrypting the next, forming a cycle, and an encryption scheme is n -circular secure if a length n encryption cycle is computationally indistinguishable from encryptions of zeros. An interesting problem is whether CPA security implies circular security. This is shown to be not true. Using standard cryptographic assumptions and LWE, it was shown that within the class of CPA secure encryption schemes, for any n , there exists an n -circular insecure encryption scheme. Furthermore, there exists a particular encryption scheme that is ℓ -circular insecure for all ℓ . Following these results, it is natural to ask whether a circular insecurity of a particular length implies circular insecurity of different lengths and of multiple lengths. We answer this problem with an affirmative in this paper. We constructively prove that a CPA secure encryption scheme that is insecure in the presence of encryption cycles of length ( n + 1 ) implies the existence of such a scheme for encryption cycles of any length less than ( n + 1 ) . The constructed ( ≤ n ) -circular insecure construction may have the same message space as the ( n + 1 ) -circular insecure encryption scheme, and our results apply to both public key and symmetric key settings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".