ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Digital Library logoTake a look at the new version of this page: [ beta version ]. Tell us what you think.
Key agreement from weak bit agreement
Full text PdfPdf (232 KB)
Source Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing archive
Proceedings of the thirty-seventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing table of contents
Baltimore, MD, USA
SESSION: Session 14A table of contents
Pages: 664 - 673  
Year of Publication: 2005
ISBN:1-58113-960-8
Author
Thomas Holenstein  Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland
Sponsors
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 3,   Downloads (12 Months): 49,   Citation Count: 2
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1060590.1060689
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Assume that Alice and Bob, given an authentic channel, have a protocol where they end up with a bit SA and SB, respectively, such that with probability 1+ε/2 these bits are equal. Further assume that conditioned on the event SA =n SB no polynomial time bounded algorithm can predict the bit better than with probability 1-δ/2. Is it possible to obtain key agreement from such a primitive? We show that for constant δ and ε the answer is yes if and only if δ > 1-ε/1+ε, both for uniform and non-uniform adversaries.The main computational technique used in this paper is a strengthening of Impagliazzo's hard-core lemma to the uniform case and to a set size parameter which is tight (i.e., twice the original size). This may be of independent interest.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
R. Ahlswede and I. Csiszár. Common randomness in information theory and cryptography---Part I: secret sharing. IEEE Trans.on Inf.Th.,39(4):1121--1132.1993.
 
2
 
3
W. Diffie and M. E. Hellman. New directions in cryptography. IEEE Trans. on Inf. Theory, IT-22(6):644--654, 1976.
 
4
C. Dwork, M. Naor, and O. Reingold. Immunizing encryption schemes from decryption errors. In C. Cachin and J. Camenisch, ed., EUROCRYPT 2004, volume 3027 of LNCS, pages 342--360, 2004.
5
 
6
O. Goldreich, N. Nisan, and A. Wigderson. On Yao's XOR-lemma. ECCC Report TR95-050, 1995.
 
7
 
8
 
9
R. Impagliazzo and M. Luby. One-way functions are essential for complexity based cryptography. In 30th FOCS, pages 230--235, 1989.
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
U. Maurer. Secret key agreement by public discussion. IEEE Trans. on Inf. Theory, 39(3):733--742, 1993.
 
14
U. Maurer and S. Wolf. Unconditionally secure key agreement and the intrinsic conditional information. IEEE Trans. on Inf. Theory, 45(2):499--514, 1999.
 
15
R. J. McEliece. A public key cryptosystem based on algebraic coding theory. DSN Progress Report 42-44:114--116, Jet Propulsion Lab, NASA, 1978.
 
16
R. Renner and S. Wolf. New bounds in secret-key agreement: The gap between formation and secrecy extraction. In E. Biham, ed., EUROCRYPT 2003, volume 2656 of LNCS, pages 562--577, 2003.
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
J. von Neumann. Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele. Mathematische Annalen, 100:295--320, 1928.
 
22