The Mathematics of Secrets

@mathofsecrets.bsky.social

Hi, I'm Josh Holden. I teach math, write books, and encrypt secret messages.

New ETH proof: no Schnorr-like signature can have a tight security reduction to generic group assumptions under weak random oracles. The compactness-tightness tradeoff is structural, not laziness.

Schnorr-like Signatures in the Non-Observable Random Oracle Model

Schnorr's signature scheme and many of its variants are among the most efficient group-based digital signature schemes. Schnorr's scheme has very compact signatures (consisting of only two exponents in its most compact form). However, its security reduction is notoriously non-tight and requires a strong (“programmable”) version of the random oracle model. Variants with a tight(er) security proof in a more realistic model exist, but are less compact and efficient. In this work, we investigate whether these disadvantages are inherent to Schnorr's signatures and its variants. In particular, we define a family of “Schnorr-like” signature schemes, which contains group-based signature schemes with verification similar to Schnorr's scheme. To explore the necessity of (heavy) random oracle abstractions for such schemes, we allow only for a very weak (“non-programmable, non-observable”) version of a random oracle in the security proof. Our main result is that there is no tight reduction of the security of any such “Schnorr-like” scheme to any group-based assumption that holds generically. We also show that this result itself is tight, in the sense that non-tightly secure schemes exist. Similarly, already for a slightly generalized definition of “extended Schnorr-like” schemes, tightly secure schemes exist. Our main result employs a meta-reduction with a new “filtering” technique that may be of independent interest.

eprint.iacr.org

Post-quantum schemes hiding behind independent-noise estimates have a modeling debt: convolution creates thorns where failures concentrate. Attackers don’t need average risk, they need geometry.

Thorns in Polynomial Convolution: Correlation, Large Deviations, and Applications

When estimating the decryption failure rate (DFR) of structured lattice-based cryptography, some schemes implicitly assume that the coefficients of the decryption noise are independent. In practice, however, the decryption noise typically contains terms arising from convolutions of small polynomials, which introduce correlations among coefficients. These correlations can create a non-negligible gap between independence-based estimates and empirical failure rates, leading to underestimated DFRs, overestimated security levels, and exploitable attack surfaces. They also obscure the effect of error-correcting mechanisms in structured lattice-based encryption designs. To date, there has been no practical framework for characterizing such correlations. In this paper, we give the first systematic characterization of correlations among the coefficients of convolved polynomials with Gaussian coefficients, using the canonical embedding as the central viewpoint. We establish large-deviation results for the coefficients of the resulting polynomial. Our analysis shows that, as the norm grows, convolutional polynomials asymptotically concentrate near a finite set of fixed two-dimensional planes. This gives rise to directional tail structures in the n-dimensional joint probability density, which we call thorns. As a direct application, we prove that existing decryption-failure attacks succeed precisely by forcing the noise to lie on these thorns. This phenomenon endows the noise with extremely strong correlations, ultimately triggering decryption failures. Furthermore, adopting the canonical embedding perspective allows us to comprehensively illustrate how the independence assumption distorts the true noise distribution. We prove that the independence assumption systematically underestimates the noise norm, and we derive an analytic expression for the probability density function of the Euclidean norm of the decryption noise.

eprint.iacr.org

Not sure what phase of my life I’m in, but here’s that modelling balloon icosidodecahedron nobody asked for! In theory it could be made out of a single modelling balloon, although in reality they don’t make balloons long enough :(