Score:0

If we can solve discrete log with on $\frac{1}{poly(n)}$ instances, then we can solve, with high probability, for all instances

cn flag

I am trying to prove the following:

Given an ensemble $\{p_n, g_n\}$ ($p_n$ is an $n$-bit prime and $g_n \in \mathbb{Z}^*_{p_n}$ is a generator), if $A$ is a deterministic polynomial time algorithm such that:

$$ \Pr_{x \leftarrow \mathbb{Z}^*_{p_n}} [A(a)=x \text{ where } g_n^x=a]=\frac{1}{poly(n)}$$

then there is a PPT algorithm $A'$ that solves discrete log with high probability for this ensemble.

I would probably need to somehow call $A$ a polynomial number of times and use the results, but I have no concrete direction on how to proceed with this intuition to define $A'$. Obviously, I can verify the response by $A$, since computing $g^x$ can be done in polynomial time, but if it's wrong - then what?

Note, I have seen all sorts of questions on discrete log using something called baby step giant step, but I am not familiar with that at all (in case it may be useful here).

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

kelalaka avatar
in flag
[If there is a backdoor to any base then there is a backdoor to all bases](https://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/91545/18298). Quite easy to see this.
Score:3
in flag

Yes, the discrete logarithm is random self reduceable, that is the worst case is as hard as the random case.

If we are given y and wish to find $x$ s.t $y=g^x \bmod p$ we can pick a random a and calculate b=$g^a\times y =g^{a+x}$

This value $b$ is uniformly distributed regardless of y. If however, we solve a discrete logarithm for it we can easily subtract $a$ and find $x$.

Q.E.D.

mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.