Re: [Pqc] [CFRG] [lamps] [EXTERNAL] Re: CMS Kyber: include PK and CT in the KDF?

> And with regards to implicit key authentication in base mode, is it a
problem if one can make a (enc, ct) pair that decrypts under any of
private keys corresponding to some given set of multiple public keys?

Set? HPKE encrypts to a single PK. And if you are encrypting to a
particular PK but your KEM ct (and thus the HPKE payload) is decryptable by
/any/ decaps key (which the IND-CCA KEM Classic McEliece allows), you have
lost implicit authentication.

https://opensourcecryptowork.shop/2024/Going%20Post-Quantum.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaC6OuLDMFE&pp=ygUJY2ZyZyBpZXRm

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 11:23 AM Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 10:17:01AM -0400, Deirdre Connolly wrote:
> > > The only new thing is draft-connolly-cfrg-hpke-mlkem proposing adding
> > > some extra hashing to KEM because it does not consider IND-CCA2 to be
> > > enough (there is now proof that IND-CCA2 is enough).
> >
> > To match IND-CCA2 security of HPKE alone. There is evidence that the MAL-
> > bindings of DHKEM are actually desired security properties of HPKE that
> > came 'for free' in all the original formal analysis of HPKE, and that it
> > was a unfortunate mistake to not build into HPKE as part of the
> KeySchedule
> > vs purely inside DHKEM (it fixed DHKEM's IND-CCA security, but). There is
> > remaining work to do but, beyond matching DHKEM's MAL binding properties
> > because variance of expectations isn't great, I wouldn't be surprised if
> we
> > find that HPKE KEMs require X-BIND-K-PK to get implicit key
> authentication
> > in base mode, which seems table-stakes.
>
> At least with HPKE one can not do that "replace recipient" thingy, but
> how would MAL-bindings of KEM manifest at HPKE level (or the
> corresponding LEAK-bindings if there are no malicious keys)?
>
> I think auth and authPSK modes are pretty much exclusive to DHKEM. And I
> think there was some might-be-useful property for PSK mode that needed
> LEAK-BIND-K-PK.
>
> Regarding unfortunate mistakes, I consider it unfortunate that HPKE does
> not combine KEM and KDF. Right now, for each KEM there is at most one
> sane KDF.
>
> And with regards to implicit key authentication in base mode, is it a
> problem if one can make a (enc, ct) pair that decrypts under any of
> private keys corresponding to some given set of multiple public keys?
>
>
>
>
> -Ilari
>
> _______________________________________________
> CFRG mailing list
> CFRG@irtf.org
> https://mailman.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>