International Association
for Cryptologic Research

Streaming algorithms are algorithms for processing large data streams, using only a limited amount of memory. Classical streaming algorithms typically work under the assumption that the input stream is chosen independently from the internal state of the algorithm. Algorithms that utilize this assumption are called oblivious algorithms. Recently, there is a growing interest in studying streaming algorithms that maintain utility also when the input stream is chosen by an adaptive adversary, possibly as a function of previous estimates given by the streaming algorithm. Such streaming algorithms are said to be adversarially-robust. By combining techniques from learning theory with cryptographic tools from the bounded storage model, we separate the oblivious streaming model from the adversarially-robust streaming model. Specifically, we present a streaming problem for which every adversarially-robust streaming algorithm must use polynomial space, while there exists a classical (oblivious) streaming algorithm that uses only polylogarithmic space. This is the first general separation between the capabilities of these two models, resolving one of the central open questions in adversarial robust streaming.

In 1974, Ralph Merkle proposed the first unclassified protocol for secure communications over insecure channels. When legitimate communicating parties are willing to spend an amount of computational effort proportional to some parameter  N , an eavesdropper cannot break into their communication without spending a time proportional to  $$N^2$$ N 2 , which is quadratically more than the legitimate effort. In a quantum world, however, Merkle’s protocol is immediately broken by Grover’s algorithm, but it is easily repaired if we are satisfied with a quantum protocol against which a quantum adversary needs to spend a time proportional to $$N^{3/2}$$ N 3 / 2 in order to break it. Can we do better? We give two new key establishment protocols in the spirit of Merkle’s. The first one, which requires the legitimate parties to have access to a quantum computer, resists any quantum adversary who is not willing to make an effort at least proportional to  $$N^{5/3}$$ N 5 / 3 , except with vanishing probability. Our second protocol is purely classical, yet it requires any quantum adversary to work asymptotically harder than the legitimate parties, again except with vanishing probability. In either case, security is proved for a typical run of the protocols: the probabilities are taken over the random (or quantum) choices made by the legitimate participants in order to establish their key as well as over the random (or quantum) choices made by the adversary who is trying to be privy to it.

Quantum computers, that may become available one day, would impact many scientific fields, most notably cryptography since many asymmetric primitives are insecure against an adversary with quantum capabilities. Cryptographers are already anticipating this threat by proposing and studying a number of potentially quantum-safe alternatives for those primitives. On the other hand, symmetric primitives seem less vulnerable against quantum computing: the main known applicable result is Grover’s algorithm that gives a quadratic speed-up for exhaustive search. In this work, we examine more closely the security of symmetric ciphers against quantum attacks. Since our trust in symmetric ciphers relies mostly on their ability to resist cryptanalysis techniques, we investigate quantum cryptanalysis techniques. More specifically, we consider quantum versions of differential and linear cryptanalysis. We show that it is usually possible to use quantum computations to obtain a quadratic speed-up for these attack techniques, but the situation must be nuanced: we don’t get a quadratic speed-up for all variants of the attacks. This allows us to demonstrate the following non-intuitive result: the best attack in the classical world does not necessarily lead to the best quantum one. We give some examples of application on ciphers LAC and KLEIN. We also discuss the important difference between an adversary that can only perform quantum computations, and an adversary that can also make quantum queries to a keyed primitive.