Difference between revisions of "HiMQ-3"

Variant
Description	Multivariate Cryptography ;
Assumption	Multivariate quadratic systems of equations, Extended Isomorphism of Polynomials, and Min Rank problems.
Functionality	Signature ??? (CAUTION)
Public Key ; (bytes)	L1 (HiMQ-3); 128744, L1 (HiMQ-3F);100878
Secret Key ; (bytes)	L1 (HiMQ-3); 12074, L1 (HiMQ-3F);14878,
CIPH/SIG ; (bytes)	L1 (HiMQ-3); 75, L1 (HiMQ-3F); 67 L3 (HiMQ-3)?; 131, L5 (HiMQ-3)?; 182
Attacks - Comment	Originally submitted parameters at the 128-bit security level have been revised by th designers after an improved key recovery attack discussed in the comments by Ward Beullens and the designers: (GF(256), 31,15,15,14) → (GF(256), 36,15,15,15) and (GF(256),24,11,17,15) → (GF(256),36,13,17,15) for HiMQ-3 and HiMQ-3F, respectively.
Security Discussions	EUF-CMA
Challenges
Notes	The submission does not seem to be revised to reflect how the recommended changes in the parameter choices will affect the protocol size. (Signature sizes should probably change from 75 and 67 to 81).Signature sizes of 131 and 182 are just a guess.Protocol size for Level 3 and 5 do not seem to be explicitly reported on the proposal. Note 4: There seems to be some conflict between the protocol size numbers in “Limitations” paragraph and the tables.
Updated	[

Latest revision as of 23:34, 12 May 2021

Revision as of 19:22, 30 May 2019 (view source) en>Admin	Latest revision as of 23:34, 12 May 2021 (view source) Admin (talk \| contribs) m (1 revision imported)
(No difference)

Variant
Description	Multivariate Cryptography
Assumption	Multivariate quadratic systems of equations, Extended Isomorphism of Polynomials, and Min Rank problems.
Functionality	Signature ??? (CAUTION)
Public Key (bytes)	L1 (HiMQ-3); 128744, L1 (HiMQ-3F);100878
Secret Key (bytes)	L1 (HiMQ-3); 12074, L1 (HiMQ-3F);14878,
CIPH/SIG (bytes)	L1 (HiMQ-3); 75, L1 (HiMQ-3F); 67 L3 (HiMQ-3)?; 131, L5 (HiMQ-3)?; 182
Attacks - Comment	Originally submitted parameters at the 128-bit security level have been revised by th designers after an improved key recovery attack discussed in the comments by Ward Beullens and the designers: (GF(256), 31,15,15,14) → (GF(256), 36,15,15,15) and (GF(256),24,11,17,15) → (GF(256),36,13,17,15) for HiMQ-3 and HiMQ-3F, respectively.
Security Discussions	EUF-CMA
Challenges
Notes	The submission does not seem to be revised to reflect how the recommended changes in the parameter choices will affect the protocol size. (Signature sizes should probably change from 75 and 67 to 81).Signature sizes of 131 and 182 are just a guess.Protocol size for Level 3 and 5 do not seem to be explicitly reported on the proposal. Note 4: There seems to be some conflict between the protocol size numbers in “Limitations” paragraph and the tables.
Updated	[