2
$\begingroup$

Assume a finite commutative base group $\mathbb B$, some $g$ in $\mathbb B$, and $\mathbb{G} = \langle g\rangle$ the subgroup that $g$ generates, with choice of $\mathbb B$ and $g$ such that ElGamal encryption would be secure for a random message in $\mathbb G$ (semantically/under CPA).

ElGamal encryption still allows decryption if we use a random message in $\mathbb B$ rather than in $\mathbb G$. How much information about the message can leak if we do this? If necessary to get a result, restrict to $\mathbb B=\mathbb Z^*_p$, perhaps with $p$ an odd prime, and/or to $\mathbb G$ of prime order.


Notation: order of $\mathbb G$ generated by $g\in \mathbb B$ (noted multiplicatively) is $q$; private key $x$ is uniformly random with $0<x<q$; public key is $h=g^x$. Encryption of $m$ random in the message space ($\mathbb G$ for the standard definition of ElGamal encryption, $\mathbb B$ in the question) generates one-time $y$ uniformly random with $0<y<q$, and computes $c_1=g^y$, $s=h^y=g^{x\,y}$, $c_2=m\,s$. Ciphertext is $(c_1,c_2)$. Decryption recomputes $m$ as $c_1^{q-x}\,c_2$.


It is known that if $\mathbb B=\mathbb Z^*_p$ with $p$ a large prime and $\mathbb G$ of prime order $(p-1)/2$, there's an information leak of one bit: we can determine from the ciphertext if the plaintext is a quadratic residue or not; but nothing else as far as we know. I'm unsure about the many other cases ($\mathbb G$ of smaller prime order, or not of prime order; other base groups).

My motivation for that problem came while answering this question.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "semantically, though not under CPA"? Isn't it the same thing? $\endgroup$ – Daniel Jan 23 '18 at 23:42
  • $\begingroup$ One could avoid randomness with $c_2^q = m^q$, and exactly this much an adversary would learn. Did you mean something more specific? $\endgroup$ – Vadym Fedyukovych Jan 24 '18 at 23:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Vadym Fedyukovych: without randomness, encryption would be deterministic, enabling Choosen Plaintext Attack. I'm considering standard ElGmal, with a per-message randomness $y$, with a single relaxation: message $m$ is in the base group $\mathbb B$, rather than the subgroup $\mathbb G$. $\endgroup$ – fgrieu Jan 25 '18 at 7:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @fgrieu For any $y$, $(h^y)^q = 1$, so I was saying like avoiding per-message randomness. With the same idea, for any message from the subgroup $\mathbb G$, $m^q = 1$ so no leaking. For messages from base group $m^q \ne 1$ facilitating Chosen Plaintext as you said. $\endgroup$ – Vadym Fedyukovych Jan 25 '18 at 22:28
1
$\begingroup$

Let a prime $p = 2qs + 1$. Consider the subgroup $\mathbb{G} = \langle g \rangle$ of order $q$. Public key is $h = g^x \bmod p$ while private key is $x \in \mathbb{Z}_q$. The encryption of $m$ is given by $(c_1, c_2)$ with $c_1 = g^r \bmod p$ and $c_2 = m \cdot h^r \bmod p$ for a random integer $r \gets \mathbb{Z}_q$. Semantic security mandates that message $m$ belongs to $\mathbb{G}$.

Let $z$ be a generator of $\mathbb{F}_p^*$. So we can write $m = z^M \bmod p$ for some $M \in \mathbb{Z}_{p-1}$.

  1. Raising $c_2$ to the power of $qs$ yields $${c_2}^{qs} \equiv z^{Mqs \bmod (p-1)} \equiv (z^{qs})^{M\bmod 2} \equiv (-1)^{M\bmod 2} \pmod p$$ The value of $(M \bmod 2)$ indicates whether or not message $m$ is a square in $\mathbb{F}_p^*$.
  2. Raising $c_2$ to the power of $2q$ yields $${c_2}^{2q} \equiv z^{M2q \bmod (p-1)} \equiv (z^{2q})^{M\bmod s} \pmod p$$ If $s$ is small or smooth, an attacker can recover the value of $(M \bmod s)$ as the discrete logarithm in $\mathbb{F}_p^*$ of ${c_2}^{2q}$ with respect to base $z^{2q}$.

Let a cryptographic function $H \colon \mathbb{G} \to \mathbb{F}_p^*$ viewed as a random oracle. Semantic security can be met with message space $\mathbb{F}_{p}^*$ by defining the ciphertext as the pair $(c_1, c_2)$ with $c_1 = g^r \bmod p$ and $c_2 = [m \cdot H(h^r \bmod p)] \bmod p$ for a random integer $r \gets \mathbb{Z}_q$. Decryption of $(c_1, c_2)$ is obtained as $m = [c_2 /H({c_1}^x \bmod p)] \bmod p$.


Another option to get semantic security without random oracles is to take $s = 1$ ($p = 2q+1$ is a safe prime). The set of valid messages is restricted to $\mathcal{M} = \{1, \dotsc, (p-1)/2\}$. The encryption of a message $m \in \mathcal{M}$ is given by the pair $(c_1, c_2)$ with $c_1 = g^r \bmod p$ and $c_2 = m^2 \cdot h^r \bmod p$ for a random integer $r \gets \mathbb{Z}_q$. Decryption of $(c_1, c_2)$ is obtained in two steps as $m^2 = c_2 /{c_1}^x \bmod p$ and then $m$ as the square root (modulo $p$) of $m^2$ in the set $\mathcal{M}$. Note that if $m \in \mathcal{M}$ then $-m \bmod p = p-m \notin \mathcal{M}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This covers $\mathbb G=\mathbb{F}_p^*=\mathbb{Z}_p^*$ with $p$ prime . Can we say that when $p = qs+1$ with $p$, $q$ and $s/2$ large randomly seeded primes, a single bit leaks? $\endgroup$ – fgrieu Jan 25 '18 at 7:15
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, in this case a single bit would leak, assuming that DDH holds in both the subgroup of order $q$ and the subgroup of order $s$. Note that this amounts to using ElGamal over a composite order group, something which is done quite often in the literature as composite-order elliptic curves have several nice properties. $\endgroup$ – Geoffroy Couteau Jan 25 '18 at 20:18
  • $\begingroup$ Let $p = 2qs + 1$. Do you mean taking $\mathbb{G} = \langle g \rangle$ of order $qs$ for large primes $q$ and $s$? Using the above methodology, you have semantic security under DDH (in a composite-order group). $\endgroup$ – user94293 Jan 25 '18 at 20:19
1
$\begingroup$

In general, if you use $\mathbb{Z}_p^*$ with $p = q\cdot \prod_{i=1}^t p_i + 1$, where the $p_i$ are distinct small prime numbers, then you will have $O(t)$ bits of leakage. So, intuitively, a lot of information can leak if we do this: up to $O(\log p)$ with this approach, hence up to a constant fraction of all the bits of your message. As pointed in the other answer, that's relatively easy to avoid in general though.

EDIT: as pointed by Vadym Fedyukovych in the comments, a more precise evaluation of the leakage for $p$ of the form above, including the low order terms, is $O(t\log\log p)$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For a small $p_i$, one would recover $(y \pmod{p_i})$ from $c_1^{\frac{p-1}{q p_i}}$ rather than a single bit, followed by $h^{\frac{p-1}{q p_i}}$ and $m^{\frac{p-1}{q p_i}}$. Looks like $\log(p_i)$ bits of $m$ to me. $\endgroup$ – Vadym Fedyukovych Jan 25 '18 at 22:47
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed, I oversimplified a bit by ignoring low order terms. Each $p_i$ is of size bounded by $\log p$, hence the leakage with $t$ such $p_i$ is more precisely $O(t\log\log p)$. But as $t$ can be at most $\log p / \log\log p$, this still gives a maximal leakage of a constant fraction of the bits, which is the largest possible leakage anyway. $\endgroup$ – Geoffroy Couteau Jan 26 '18 at 8:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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