2
$\begingroup$

So there's this concept within the realm of RSA cryptography called an RSA UFO. It is an extremely important function in the context of cryptocurrency. When starting up a cryptocurrency the creator(s) need an initial cryptographic setup. Worst case scenario an untrustworthy initiator uses the startup information to wreak havoc on the cryptocurrency. Its better to have a number of people collectively create the startup information, but you still can't trust them. An RSA UFO allows the creation of the initial cryptography in such a way that even the creator doesn't know the initial values; trustless setup of a cryptocurrency.

Lately with all the fuss about quantum-safe cryptography, especially lattice-based cryptography, I was just wondering if a functional equivalent to an RSA UFO exists in the realm of lattice-based cryptography.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

According to your link, RSA UFO means:

Random moduli are also called RSA UFOs (Unkown Factorisation Objects).

If the definition of an RSA UFO is a modulus generated so that no one knows the factorization, this issue does obviously not exist in lattice-based cryptography, since the factorization problem is never used there. More generally, it is much easier to securely and distributively generate the random parameters of various cryptographic constructions in lattice-based cryptography; distributively and securely generating an RSA modulus with unknown factorisation is a notoriously very hard problem, whose solutions are usually quite inefficient (the link you give ends up with a modulus of total size 81kbits, which is quite huge). In contrast, public parameters in lattice-based cryptography will in general just need to be primes and some public random matrix, which is easy to generate securely and efficiently.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I interpreted OPs question to be asking if it is possible to generate a public key for a lattice-based scheme in a untrusted distributed manner rather than generating public parameters for the scheme. $\endgroup$ – Ella Rose Jun 20 at 14:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well its not distributed, but you are partially correct. My question is that can a trustless setup of cryptographic primitives be achieved in lattice-based cryptography without the use of trusted individuals to create them. $\endgroup$ – Steve Mucci Jun 21 at 16:02

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.