Cryptography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for software developers, mathematicians and others interested in cryptography. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Two highly-critical papers by Koblitz and Menezes (two well-regarded mathematicians who've contributed to the crypto community) were published years ago: Another Look at “Provable Security” in 2004, Another Look at “Provable Security”. II in 2006.

Have these papers had any noticeable impact on how research is conducted in the provable-security community? Or have these papers largely been ignored?

share|improve this question
I found several things in the paper interesting and useful. So it has certainly affected my way of thinking. I think we will only see long-term effects. One thing I can foresee is the rebirth of random-oracle model. – Jus12 Sep 30 '11 at 6:48

My impression (which is limited) is that the most researchers are pretty content with the state of security proofs, and it did not have much impact on changing the research agenda of the community. In fact, a related paper was strongly opposed by leading cryptographers. That is not to say the papers were ignored. They generated lots of discussion and maybe some self-reflection.

They are also, unfortunately, sometimes cited by people who do not really understand the issues and just have an axe to grind against papers being too technical.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.