Merkle Puzzles in a Quantum World

In 1974, Ralph Merkle proposed the first unclassified scheme for secure communications over insecure channels. When legitimate communicating parties are willing to spend an amount of computational effort proportional to some parameter N, an eavesdropper cannot break into their communication without spending a time proportional to N2, which is quadratically more than the legitimate effort. We showed in an earlier paper that Merkle's schemes are completely insecure against a quantum adversary, but that their security can be partially restored if the legitimate parties are also allowed to use quantum computation: the eavesdropper needed to spend a time proportional to N3/2 to break our earlier quantum scheme. Furthermore, all previous classical schemes could be broken completely by the onslaught of a quantum eavesdropper and we conjectured that this is unavoidable. We give two novel key agreement schemes in the spirit of Merkle's. The first one can be broken by a quantum adversary that makes an effort proportional to N5/3 to implement a quantum random walk in a Johnson graph reminiscent of Andris Ambainis' quantum algorithm for the element distinctness problem. This attack is optimal up to logarithmic factors. Our second scheme is purely classical, yet it cannot be broken by a quantum eavesdropper who is only willing to expend effort proportional to that of the legitimate parties.

[1]  Boaz Barak,et al.  Merkle Puzzles are Optimal , 2008, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch..

[2]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  Quantum lower bounds for the collision and the element distinctness problems , 2004, JACM.

[3]  I. Chuang,et al.  Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: Introduction to the Tenth Anniversary Edition , 2010 .

[4]  Shai Halevi Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2009, 29th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 16-20, 2009. Proceedings , 2009, CRYPTO.

[5]  Mark Heiligman Finding Matches between Two Databases on a Quantum Computer , 2000 .

[6]  Larry Carter,et al.  Universal Classes of Hash Functions , 1979, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[7]  Rajat Mittal,et al.  An adversary for algorithms , 2010 .

[8]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  Quantum walk algorithm for element distinctness , 2003, 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[9]  Gilles Brassard,et al.  Quantum Merkle Puzzles , 2008, Second International Conference on Quantum, Nano and Micro Technologies (ICQNM 2008).

[10]  Lov K. Grover Quantum Mechanics Helps in Searching for a Needle in a Haystack , 1997, quant-ph/9706033.

[11]  Gilles Brassard,et al.  Tight bounds on quantum searching , 1996, quant-ph/9605034.

[12]  Ralph C. Merkle,et al.  Secure communications over insecure channels , 1978, CACM.

[13]  Whitfield Diffie,et al.  New Directions in Cryptography , 1976, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[14]  Ronald de Wolf,et al.  Quantum lower bounds by polynomials , 2001, JACM.

[15]  Gilles Brassard,et al.  Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing , 1997, SIAM J. Comput..

[16]  Troy Lee,et al.  Negative weights make adversaries stronger , 2007, STOC '07.

[17]  G. Brassard,et al.  Quantum Amplitude Amplification and Estimation , 2000, quant-ph/0005055.

[18]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Limits on the Provable Consequences of One-way Permutations , 1988, CRYPTO.

[19]  Frédéric Magniez,et al.  Quantum algorithms for element distinctness , 2000, Proceedings 16th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity.