Score:3

KYBER.CPAPKE: IND-CCA Security of Lyubashevsky, Peikert, Regev (LPR) Encryption

cn flag

The NIST Kyber KEM spec. defines an encryption scheme, KYBER.CPAPKE, that's a variant of the so called Lyubashevsky, Peikert, Regev ("LPR") encryption scheme [1]. While LPR encryption is typically defined over subrings of cyclotomic number fields, KYBER.CPAPKE is instantiated over an $R_q$-Module where the base commutative ring is $R_q := \mathbb{Z}_q[X]/ \langle \Phi_{512}(x)\rangle$ and $q = 3329$. It seems like neither KYBER.CPAPKE nor its plain ring analogue are IND-CCA1/2 secure. Is this a true statement? (I'm assuming that its true which is the reason for the Fujisaki-Okomoto transform in the Kyber spec.)

[1] [LPR2013a] Lyubashevsky, Vadim and Peikert, Chris and Regev, Oded, "On Ideal Lattices and Learning with Errors over Rings". J. ACM, November 2013 Vol.60/6, 2013.

Score:3
vu flag

. It seems like neither KYBER.CPAPKE nor its plain ring analogue are IND-CCA1/2 secure

Yes, it's a true statement. You might have already noticed the CPA in the KYBER.CPAPKE name.

And your understanding about (the need for) FO transformation is correct.

Up-voting the Q for the honest learning effort!

I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:

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.