1
$\begingroup$

enter image description here

This is from Dan Boneh's Coursera Lectures - Week 6 - Constructions. https://www.coursera.org/learn/crypto/lecture/nTRhL/constructions

Here he picks a random x from X. And then Hashes X to get the session key k from K
k = H(x).

Why not just pick a random k from K instead of first picking x from X & then hashing it to get k? What is the necessity of the Hashing function here?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ @kelalaka - What is the problem if it's used both in F & E? $\endgroup$ – user93353 Jan 26 at 7:18
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry I've misread the eq. This is like RSA-KEM. One reason, the key is needed to be larger than the required and $F$ may not be secure sending small keys directly as RSA ( you need padding). Whereas RSA-KEM can be used without padding and the all key material should be used with KDF ( better than hashing, or see KDF-1 poormans KDF) $\endgroup$ – kelalaka Jan 26 at 7:24
  • $\begingroup$ I guess it plays a role only in the security reduction, where modelling the hash as a random oracle (and programming it) is key. $\endgroup$ – Occams_Trimmer Jan 26 at 8:00
  • $\begingroup$ Suppose you pick a random k: what do you do with y then? Do you set y to F(pk,k) directly? I'd suggest you try it and go through the security analysis to see why it's not clear anymore how to prove security of the resulting scheme. $\endgroup$ – Geoffroy Couteau Jan 27 at 21:52

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.