Re: bilinear pairing between special groups
- From: magidin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Arturo Magidin)
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:56:07 +0000 (UTC)
In article <d8ppk3$n1c$04$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Zsuzsanna Doncho <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>thanks for your detailed explanation!
>
>> Is q still a prime? You might want to mention that explicitly, you know.
>Sorry, I forget ;). Yes q is a prime.
>
>> Obviously, you can let G_2 be ANY group that contains a cyclic group
>> of order q, or any group that is isomorphic to G_2.
>>
>> Assuming that, as in your post of June 7, q is a prime so G_1 is
>> cyclic of prime order, then what is n supposed to be?
>
>n is the product of 2 primes, for example n=pq, with the q used as the
>order of G_1.
Don't you think that would have been something important to mention?
>> However, the pairing will be surjective ONLY IF phi(n^2) = q.
>> The only time this happens is if n=2. For if n has any odd prime
>> factors, then phi(n^2) cannot be a prime, so n =2^a for some a, in
>> which case you get phi(2^{2a}) = 2^{2a-1} = 2^a if and only if a=1.
>
>The problem I want to solve is the following:
>
>In general it is not possible to calculate the discrete logarithm in
>groups of prime order (correct me if I am wrong).
You're wrong. It's not that "it is not possible to calculate the
discrete logarithm". It's that the discrete logarithm problem
->seems<- to be hard (all known deterministic algorithms run in
exponential time).
> So in fact, for 2
>given points Q_1, Q_2 \in G_1 (G_1 is of prime order q) and a given
>value a=e(Q_1,Q_2)^x in G_2, where G_2 is of prime order q, I can't
>calculate the value x (x in Z_q).
We do not know of any way to ->efficiently<- find it.
>As far as I know, it is possible to calculate the discrete logarithm of
>a=g^x mod n^2, where g has order n. Then it is possible to calculate the
>value x mod n.
I don't understand this sentence.
Do you mean, there are ->efficient<- algorithms to find the discrete
logarithm base g modulo n^2 when g has order n in (Z_{n^2})^*?
And what does the last sentence mean? An assertion that you can find
x, or a hope?
>What I now wanna do is the following:
>Given the values:
>c_1= e(Q_1, Q_2)^x * g^{m_1} mod n^2
>c_2= e(Q_1, Q_2)^{-x} * g^{m_2} mod n^2
>it is impossible to calculate m_1 and m_2 and x,
>From "The Princess Bride":
Vizzini: Inconceivable!
Inigo: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you
think it means.
You keep using that word ("impossible"). I do not think it means what
you think it means.
> but it is possible to
>calculate the following:
>c_1 * c_2 = e(Q_1, Q_2)^x * g^{m_1} * e(Q_1, Q_2)^{-x} * g^{m_2} mod n^2
>= g^{m_1+m_2} mod n^2, where g has order n, then it is possible to
>calculate m_1+m_2 mod n.
>
>Can I do such things?
I don't know what it is you think you can do, and what it is you hope
you can do, and what it is you think cannot be done, so I'm at a loss.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: bilinear pairing between special groups
- From: Aldar C-F. Chan
- Re: bilinear pairing between special groups
- From: Zsuzsanna Doncho
- Re: bilinear pairing between special groups
- References:
- bilinear pairing between special groups
- From: Zsuzsanna Doncho
- Re: bilinear pairing between special groups
- From: Zsuzsanna Doncho
- bilinear pairing between special groups
- Prev by Date: Re: Orlow cardinality question
- Next by Date: Re: bilinear pairing between special groups
- Previous by thread: Re: bilinear pairing between special groups
- Next by thread: Re: bilinear pairing between special groups
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading