3 ms·
What you are saying was true until this February when this paper came out https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/170 https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/170 It hadn't been impl
by thomasahle 11y ago
What you are saying was true until this February when this paper came out https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/170 https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/170
It hadn't been implemented yet I'm any practical crypto system that I know of, buy it certainly seems like we are finally going to have actually, provably hard problems to build out security om.
- LeifCarrotson 11y agoI believe you made an unfortunate typo, substituting "probably" when you meant "provably".
- thomasahle 11y agoEven auto correct finds it surprising :-)
- swordswinger12 11y agoThe scheme in this paper is in the bounded-storage model...
- thomasahle 11y agoIt says you either have to use exponential time or quadratic storage. Schemes based on high memory requirements have actually been sought for a while, since (apparently) memory is considered less scalable than computation.
- swordswinger12 11y agoNo, I mean your original comment is inaccurate. The paper presents a time-space lower bound for parity learning, but the encryption scheme based on this result is only 'unconditionally secure' in a model where the adversary is restricted to having at most (n^2)/25 bits of storage. This isn't a general-purpose unconditionally secure encryption scheme, which is what your original comment implied.