Score:0

(type-3) Variant of the decisional Diffie-Hellman

cg flag

At a high level, the Uber assumption states that it is not possible to compute (distinguish) linearly independent elements. In the decisional version, the problem is restricted to $G_T$, but it is unclear whether the linearly independent elements can be from $G_1$.

Here is a simple example:

Let be type-3 pairing $E$: $(e, G_1, G_2, G_T, g, h)$ where $g$ and $h$ are generators over $G_1$ and $G_2$.

Given $(g^a, g^b, g^c, g^{ab}, h^a, h^b, E)$, the adversary can distinguish $g^{abc}$ or $g^z$?

Maarten Bodewes avatar
in flag
In this case you can use MathJax / $\LaTeX$ simply by surrounding your variables / sets with dollar signs. I've performed an [edit] doing only that.
Score:1
ru flag

I'm not sure what you mean by linear independent elements, but your example problem is at most as strong as the weakest of a) decisional Diffie-Hellman problem in $\mathbb G_1$ (use the solver on the tuple $g,g^{ab},g^c, \mathrm{candidate}$ b) the computational Diffie-Hellman problem in $\mathbb G_2$ (use the CDH solver to find $h^{ab}$ then compare $e(g^c,h^{ab})$ with $e(\mathrm{candidate},h)$) and c) the decisional Diffie-Hellman in $\mathbb G_T$ (use the solver on the tuple $e(g,h^a),e(g^c,h^a),e(g^b,h^a),e(\mathrm{candidate},h)$).

Given that an adversary can already confirm the consistency of $g,g^a,g^b,g^{ab},h,h^a,h^b$, a more generic attack is to exhibit (not necessarily effectively) the existence of $z\in\mathbb G_2$ such that $e(g,z)=e(g^{ab},h)$ and $e(g^c,z)=e(\mathrm{candidate},h)$, though I cannot see how to express this terms of existing hardness assumptions.

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.