Skip to main content
replaced http://crypto.stackexchange.com/ with https://crypto.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

It remains that the expected number of cipher operations rises significantly above $2^{n+1}$ in the best (thus complex) improvements in the literature; it seems they are far from achieving what's quantitatively envisioned in this commentcomment (much more RAM and/or DES operations is needed). The advantages (pointed by that comment) of cycle-finding with distinguished points hold:

It remains that the expected number of cipher operations rises significantly above $2^{n+1}$ in the best (thus complex) improvements in the literature; it seems they are far from achieving what's quantitatively envisioned in this comment (much more RAM and/or DES operations is needed). The advantages (pointed by that comment) of cycle-finding with distinguished points hold:

It remains that the expected number of cipher operations rises significantly above $2^{n+1}$ in the best (thus complex) improvements in the literature; it seems they are far from achieving what's quantitatively envisioned in this comment (much more RAM and/or DES operations is needed). The advantages (pointed by that comment) of cycle-finding with distinguished points hold:

Missing word
Source Link
fgrieu
  • 145.5k
  • 12
  • 319
  • 611

Using little RAM by the above technique thus comes at the price of making about $2^{n-w/2+0.4}=2^{24.4}$ times more evaluations of $E^{(1)}$ or $D^{(2)}$ than in basic MitM, which is expected to perform about $2^{n+0.6}$ evaluations (I'm discounting cycle-finding overhead).

Using little RAM by the above technique thus comes at the price of making about $2^{n-w/2+0.4}=2^{24.4}$ more evaluations of $E^{(1)}$ or $D^{(2)}$ than in basic MitM, which is expected to perform about $2^{n+0.6}$ evaluations (I'm discounting cycle-finding overhead).

Using little RAM by the above technique thus comes at the price of making about $2^{n-w/2+0.4}=2^{24.4}$ times more evaluations of $E^{(1)}$ or $D^{(2)}$ than in basic MitM, which is expected to perform about $2^{n+0.6}$ evaluations (I'm discounting cycle-finding overhead).

typo
Source Link
fgrieu
  • 145.5k
  • 12
  • 319
  • 611

It remains that the expected number of cipher operations rises significantly above $2^{n+1}$ in the best (thus complex) improvements in the literature; it seems they are far from achieving what's quantitatively envisioned in this comment (much more RAM and/or DES operations is needed). The advantages (pointed by that comment) of cycle-finding with distinguished points holdshold:

It remains that the expected number of cipher operations rises significantly above $2^{n+1}$ in the best (thus complex) improvements in the literature; it seems they are far from achieving what's quantitatively envisioned in this comment (much more RAM and/or DES operations is needed). The advantages (pointed by that comment) of cycle-finding with distinguished points holds:

It remains that the expected number of cipher operations rises significantly above $2^{n+1}$ in the best (thus complex) improvements in the literature; it seems they are far from achieving what's quantitatively envisioned in this comment (much more RAM and/or DES operations is needed). The advantages (pointed by that comment) of cycle-finding with distinguished points hold:

State advantages of the technique
Source Link
fgrieu
  • 145.5k
  • 12
  • 319
  • 611
Loading
polish numbers and text
Source Link
fgrieu
  • 145.5k
  • 12
  • 319
  • 611
Loading
Did the math, and YES it is an improvment over MitM with partition
Source Link
fgrieu
  • 145.5k
  • 12
  • 319
  • 611
Loading
Introduce w for the width of the function iterated; expand, including per comment
Source Link
fgrieu
  • 145.5k
  • 12
  • 319
  • 611
Loading
Make a wish
Source Link
fgrieu
  • 145.5k
  • 12
  • 319
  • 611
Loading
fix D instead of E
Source Link
fgrieu
  • 145.5k
  • 12
  • 319
  • 611
Loading
Discuss increasing b
Source Link
fgrieu
  • 145.5k
  • 12
  • 319
  • 611
Loading
Fix that cost again; polish
Source Link
fgrieu
  • 145.5k
  • 12
  • 319
  • 611
Loading
Correct expected cost of MitM with memory split in multiple runs
Source Link
fgrieu
  • 145.5k
  • 12
  • 319
  • 611
Loading
More choice of links
Source Link
fgrieu
  • 145.5k
  • 12
  • 319
  • 611
Loading
Source Link
fgrieu
  • 145.5k
  • 12
  • 319
  • 611
Loading