Incompressible Functions, Relative-Error Extractors, and the Power of Nondeterministic Reductions

Applebaum, Benny; Artemenko, S. N.; Shaltiel, Ronen; Yang, Guang

doi:10.1007/s00037-016-0128-9

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, they require that the PRG, G , is secure even when given the seed (seed extending), i.e., no nondeterministic circuit of bounded polynomial size can distinguish

from a uniformly random string and s is a prefix of

. The existence of such PRGs follows from Assumption A1 [ 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 ].…”

Section: Application: Non-malleable Codes For Computable Tamperingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Construct an Arthur–Merlin protocol (with bounded poly-size Arthur), that distinguishes between input

being random or pseudorandom. Such a protocol can then be transformed into a non-deterministic polynomial bounded circuit (this follows from classical results:

[ 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 ]). Intuitively, Arthur can efficiently compute all the values needed to simulate the tampering experiment except for

, which is obtained from Merlin.…”

Section: Application: Non-malleable Codes For Computable Tamperingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Construct an Arthur–Merlin protocol (with bounded poly-size Arthur), that distinguishes between input

being random or pseudorandom. Such a protocol can then be transformed into a non-deterministic polynomial bounded circuit (this follows from classical results:

[ 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 ]).…”

Section: Application: Non-malleable Codes For Computable Tamperingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Non-Malleable Code in the Split-State Model

Aggarwal

Ball

Obremski

2022

Entropy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-malleable codes are a natural relaxation of error correction and error detection codes applicable in scenarios where error-correction or error-detection is impossible. Over the last decade, non-malleable codes have been studied for a wide variety of tampering families. Among the most well studied of these is the split-state family of tampering channels, where the codeword is split into two or more parts and each part is tampered with independently. We survey various constructions and applications of non-malleable codes in the split-state model.

show abstract

“…In particular, they require that the PRG, G , is secure even when given the seed (seed extending), i.e., no nondeterministic circuit of bounded polynomial size can distinguish

from a uniformly random string and s is a prefix of

. The existence of such PRGs follows from Assumption A1 [ 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 ].…”

Section: Application: Non-malleable Codes For Computable Tamperingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Construct an Arthur–Merlin protocol (with bounded poly-size Arthur), that distinguishes between input

being random or pseudorandom. Such a protocol can then be transformed into a non-deterministic polynomial bounded circuit (this follows from classical results:

[ 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 ]). Intuitively, Arthur can efficiently compute all the values needed to simulate the tampering experiment except for

, which is obtained from Merlin.…”

Section: Application: Non-malleable Codes For Computable Tamperingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Construct an Arthur–Merlin protocol (with bounded poly-size Arthur), that distinguishes between input

being random or pseudorandom. Such a protocol can then be transformed into a non-deterministic polynomial bounded circuit (this follows from classical results:

[ 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 ]).…”

Section: Application: Non-malleable Codes For Computable Tamperingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation