5 Matching Annotations
- Dec 2020
-
eprint.iacr.org eprint.iacr.org128.pdf2
-
Intuitively, in order to prove that a processQ0satisfiesa non-injective correspondenceψ⇒φ, we collect all factsthat hold at events inψand show that these facts implyφusing the equational prover.
How CryptoVerif proves non-injective correspondence properties
-
6.3. Injective CorrespondencesInjective correspondences are more difficult to checkthan non-injective ones, because they require distinguishingbetween several executions of the same event. We achievethat as follows
How CryptoVerif proves injective correspondence properties
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
-
eprint.iacr.org eprint.iacr.org069.pdf1
-
Actually, the modifications of games can beseen as “rewriting rules” of the probability distributions of the variables involved in the games. Theymay consist of a simple renaming of some variables, and thus to perfectly identical distributions. Theymay introduce unlikely differences, and then the distributions are “statistically” indistinguishable.Finally, the rewriting rule may be true under a computational assumption only: then appears thecomputational indistinguishability
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
- Apr 2020
-
eprint.iacr.org eprint.iacr.org401.pdf2
-
findu′≤nsuchthat defined(y[u′],u1[u′],...,um[u′])∧u1[u′] =u1∧...∧um[u′] =umthenc〈y[u′]
If the same indices are queried again, return the same y.
-
Q|Rx≈Q|R′x
When proving a “query secret k” for Q, CryptoVerif proves the indistinguishability of Q|R_x and Q|R'_x. One could imagine that CryptoVerif appends the oracle R_x to Q by parallel composition.
-