International Association
for Cryptologic Research

The Linear Equivalence Problem (LEP) asks to find a linear isometry between a given pair of linear codes; in the Hamming weight this is known as a monomial map. LEP has been used in cryptography to design the family of LESS signatures, which includes also some advanced schemes, such as ring and identity-based signatures. All of these schemes are obtained applying the Fiat-Shamir transformation to a Sigma protocol, in which the prover's responses contain a description of how the monomial map acts on all code coordinates; such a description constitutes the vast majority of the signature size. In this paper, we propose a new formulation of LEP, which we refer to as Information-Set (IS)-LEP. Exploiting IS-LEP, it is enough for the prover to provide the description of the monomial action only on an information set, instead of all the coordinates. Thanks to this new formulation, we are able to drastically reduce signature sizes for all LESS signature schemes, without any relevant computational overhead. We prove that IS-LEP and LEP are completely equivalent (indeed, the same problem), which means that improvement comes with no additional security assumption, either.

We revisit the construction of IND-CCA secure key encapsulation mechanisms (KEM) from public-key encryption schemes (PKE). We give new, tighter security reductions for several constructions. Our main result is an improved reduction for the security of the $$U^{\not \bot }$$ -transform of Hofheinz, Hövelmanns, and Kiltz (TCC’17) which turns OW-CPA secure deterministic PKEs into IND-CCA secure KEMs. This result is enabled by a new one-way to hiding (O2H) lemma which gives a tighter bound than previous O2H lemmas in certain settings and might be of independent interest. We extend this result also to the case of PKEs with non-zero decryption failure probability and non-deterministic PKEs. However, we assume that the derandomized PKE is injective with overwhelming probability.In addition, we analyze the impact of different variations of the $$U^{\not \bot }$$ -transform discussed in the literature on the security of the final scheme. We consider the difference between explicit ( $$U^{\bot }$$ ) and implicit ( $$U^{\not \bot }$$ ) rejection, proving that security of the former implies security of the latter. We show that the opposite direction holds if the scheme with explicit rejection also uses key confirmation. Finally, we prove that (at least from a theoretic point of view) security is independent of whether the session keys are derived from message and ciphertext ( $$U^{\not \bot }$$ ) or just from the message ( $$U^{\not \bot }_m$$ ).