# Cryptography without Security

The typical presentation of theoretical cryptography has one central goal: defining what it means for cryptographic objects to be “secure”. I think this goal is misguided.

In theoretical cryptography, you usually start by defining what “security” should mean, then you go about trying to prove that various constructions are secure. Sometimes, you can succeed perfectly, like with the one-time pad, but other times, you need to rely on assumptions, like with every other encryption scheme. Most often you then argue that more complicated schemes are conditionally secure, by reducing their security to that of other schemes, or basic assumptions.

I don’t think this focus on security is very useful.

My perspective is that theoretical cryptography should instead focus on reductions, in fact, we should even embrace the use of many cryptographic models, in order to prove both positive and negative results about reductions.

This reduction-centric perspective defers thinking about “security” as much as necessary. In any given model of cryptography, you’ll have assumptions about what things are secure, and then your web of reductions will let you draw implications from that. This web even exists independently of what you’re willing to assume. In that way, the reduction perspective subsumes the security perspective, since we have more information, and can even consider competing models of what security should mean.

The above paragraphs basically summarize the point I’m trying to make, but I doubt you’ll be convinced by just the few things I’ve said so far, so in the rest of this post I’ll be elaborating and explaining this perspective in more detail.

Let’s start by examining the most common perspective that presentations of theoretical cryptography share. I don’t actually have any statistics for this, but it is common across various theoretical tomes like Goldreich’s series of books, Boneh & Shoup, etc.

This modern perspective is about trying to define what it means for various cryptographic schemes to be secure. You want to have encryption schemes producing ciphertexts that are hard to decrypt, signature schemes producing signatures that are hard to forge, and so on.

The goal of theoretical cryptography, is then about:

• how to characterize the desirable properties of cryptographic schemes,
• how to define what it means for those properties to hold.

I think we’ve developed good tools for the former, namely the notion of security games, in particular, in the form of state-separable proofs.

It’s the latter that this blog post is about. Given a security game describing the properties a scheme should have, you can then define what it means for that scheme to be secure. This should guarantee that the properties of the scheme will hold, regardless of how the scheme is attacked.

This definition arises in a very natural way.

First, you characterize what properties a scheme should have by defining a game, that an adversary (some arbitrary algorithm / computer / whatever) can interact with. The scheme’s properties should be such that the game is hopefully not winnable.

For example, a game for signatures could involve an adversary trying to forge a signature on some message, winning if they succeed: a good signature scheme should not allow an adversary to win!

The first definition of secure that arises from this is something like: “a game is secure if no adversary can ever win”. One issue with this definition is that it’s much too restrictive. The two main ways it’s restrictive are that:

• The adversary cannot win, even with a small probability. For example, you could have a game where an adversary has to guess a value in $\{0, 1\}^{2000}$, which happens with probability $2^{-2000}$, an absurdly low number, but nonetheless enough to count as winning sometimes.
• The adversary has unbounded computational power, which will inherently break cryptographic assumptions.

The latter basically precludes most cryptography, restricting us to schemes like the one-time pad, where the key used for encrypting a message has to be at least as long as the message.

So, usually, we instead say that a game is secure if “no efficient adversary can win, except with some small probability”.

The notion of efficient computation is not very controversial, nor hard to define. What a “small” probability should mean is something we do need to think about and define.

The most common notion of smallness is that of being negligible. We measure the amount of time some algorithm takes relative to some (security) parameter $\lambda$. Efficient algorithms should only use $\mathcal{O}(\text{poly}(\lambda))$ worth of computation: i.e. only a polynomial amount. As $\lambda$ grows, so can the amount of computation. Some tasks are prohibited by this bound, like trying all values in the set $\{0, 1\}^\lambda$, which would take $2^\lambda$ steps, since this is exponential, and not polynomial in $\lambda$. A negligible amount is sort of like the opposite of this logic: some function $f(\lambda)$ is negligible if $1 / f(\lambda)$ grows faster than any polynomial function.

The reason this definition is useful is that it behaves well under composition. If you sum two negligible values together, you’ll get a negligible value, as long as you only do this operation a reasonable (i.e. $\text{poly}(\lambda)$) number of times. This is why we use this as our notion of what amount of success probability can be allowed while still having security: we can compose a bunch of little schemes together, knowing that if they’re all secure, the end result will be, because summing up all the negligible amounts of success probability we might have will still give us a negligible amount.

One common example of a negligible value that shows up is when trying to guess a value sampled from $\{0, 1\}^\lambda$, which has success probability $2^{-\lambda}$, and is thus negligible, since $2^\lambda$ grows faster than any polynomial in $\lambda$.

Thus, the usual definition of security we end up with is: “A game is secure if no efficient adversary can win the game except with negligible probability”.

Some games can be shown directly to be secure: for example, a game which requires the adversary to guess some value in a large set. But, most games require some kind of hardness assumption for their security.

For example, the security of public key encryption will rely on a hardness assumption about things like factoring, or elliptic curves, and encryption will need to assume that some kind of block cipher or PRF is secure.

This kind of “conditional security” is known as a reduction. This is a proof that if some set of games are assumed to be secure, then some other game is also secure. For example, you might prove that if a block cipher is secure, then a larger mode of encryption using that cipher is secure as well.

In fact, most security results are of this second kind. We can’t prove most things to be secure in the abstract, but only secure relative to some assumptions.

In the classical view we’ve been talking about so far, cryptography is mainly about:

• Proving various large cryptographic schemes conditionally secure, ideally with the simplest assumptions possible.
• Developing and analyzing the best attacks against certain assumptions, until reasonable confidence is attained that they’re not insecure.

There’s usually a good consensus about what assumptions are reasonable. Many assumptions have “stood the test of time”, in that while attacks have improved, their success has satured at a comfortable level. Sometimes there is disagreement though, and novel attacks do of course get developed.

Now, here comes my opinion, which is that I am personally less interested in studying and analyzing assumptions than I am in studying reductions. Cryptanalysis is a fun and vibrant field of cryptography which—at the moment–I am happy to leave to other people. You don’t need that many assumptions to do a lot of cryptography, it turns out.

Now that we’ve crossed from the land of objective facts to that of my personal opinion, I guess I should share my perspective on what placing more focus on reduction should look like.

First, for applied cryptography it’s still important to have some some assumptions you can take to be “secure”, but otherwise this is something you don’t fret about too much, instead focusing on reducing the security of schemes to that of simple, and, if possible, existing assumptions.

Since reductions are so common, you really should develop better syntax for talking about them. Very often, a reduction will be written down in a paper as: “We show that for all efficient adversaries $\mathscr{A}$ against $H_b$, there exists a an efficient adversary $\mathscr{B}$ against $G_b$ such that $\text{Advantage}[\mathscr{A}, H_B] \leq f(\text{Advantage}[\mathscr{B}, G_b])$”. Of course, assuming that the advantage of an efficient $\mathscr{B}$ is negligible, i.e. secure, implies the same for $\mathscr{A}$ against $H_b$, provided $f(\langle \texttt{negligible} \rangle) = \langle \texttt{negligible} \rangle$.

One way I like writing this is instead: “We show that $H_b \leq f(G_b)$”.

From this perspective, cryptography is (usually) about proving statements of this form. You build some cryptographic scheme to accomplish some task, then show that it reduces to some well-known assumption, or even to another scheme people have constructed before. You slowly build up a web of reductions this way. This web exists regardless of what assumptions you make. Even if something is not secure, reductions to that assumption still remain valid, although they may not be useful anymore.

I think this web of reductions is interesting to study and develop on its own merits, although one should still have some eye towards what assumptions are worth reducing to, since applications do actually care about whether or not these are secure.

I think there are two somewhat different philosophies as to why this reduction-centric approach is a good direction to take.

The first philosophy is that the focus on reduction is good because it allows a more precise accounting of the security of various constructions.

Instead of the asymptotic approach to security we developed in the “classical” view, instead you focus on the concrete security of a given assumption. For example, you might assume that an adversary requires $2^{128}$ units of “work” in order to be guaranteed to win a given security game. This is also called having “128 bits of security”, roughly speaking. There’s a natural tradeoff between the probability of success, and the amount of work done. In the example mentioned above, one might imagine adversaries that do $2^{127}$ units of work for a $1/2$ probability of success, or $2^{64}$ work for $2^{-64}$ success, etc.

In this perspective, you want to make sure that you keep track of the exact parameters of a reduction. For example, a reduction of the form $H_b \leq 2 G_b$ means that one bit of security is lost. If we want $H_b$ to have 128 bits of security, then $G_b$ needs to have 129 bits, because of the factor of $2$.

Sometimes, reductions might have somewhat bad factors in front of the reduction, like $H_b \leq Q^2 \cdot G_b$, with $Q$ being the number of “queries” to some relevant scheme. For example, the number of times a given encryption key is used. In this case, security can actually degrade somewhat rapidly if many queries are allowed. A system designer particularly enamoured with the number 128 might specify an explicit bound on the number of possible times a key is used to encrypt messages, such that as long this bound isn’t reached, you still reach this magical 128 bits of security. For example, allowing $2^{16}$ uses only, before generating a new key, would mean that you need 160 bits of security in the original assumption now.

Because of this, many people often focus on developing so called “tight” reductions, which lose a minimal amount of security relative to their assumptions. This allows one to get the most “bang for the buck” out of cryptographic assumptions.

To really embrace this approach you’d also want a way to account for the amount of work the reduction itself does. Each reduction would then account for the “loss” in security, as well as the amount of work performed. This kind of framework would then allow precise fine-tuning of the security level required in the various assumptions in order to guarantee a specific security level in the final scheme.

A puritan version of this framework isn’t all that common, but a looser version of this idea is still a common way parameter choices are thought about for applications. For example, guidelines about when symmetric keys need to be changed are based on a framework like this one.

Now, I will admit that my presentation of this kind of concrete security framework is perhaps not entirely accurate, in part because it’s not my main philosophical reason for preferring a reduction-centric view of cryptography.

# Some Like Meta-Cryptography

Instead, my perspective is more so that of a recent appreciation for what might be called “meta-cryptography”.

In this perspective, you don’t really commit to one single “model” of what cryptography is. Instead, you consider cryptography to be about the study of all of these models, and how they relate to one another.

These models can differ in very simply ways, such as which problems they assume to be secure, but can also differ in more fundamental ways, like allowing for unbounded adversaries, or not allowing reductions to rewind adversaries, and other things like that.

In this perspective, you naturally have to take a reduction-centric view, since focusing on reductions allows considering a gamut of models which differ only in the assumptions they make. This perspective goes beyond the “web of reductions” mentioned earlier, in that not only do you look at this web in one model, but you might also look at webs in alternate models, and try and relate them together.

This might sound esoteric, but is actually somewhat common. For example, many schemes are analyzed in things like the “random oracle model”, or the “generic group model”. These can be seen as specific cryptographic models in which certain objects are modeled in an idealized manner. In this case, hash functions are modeled as random functions, and groups are modeled as perfectly opaque abstractions, respectively. One way of looking at what’s going on here is that you define a stronger model, in which all the reductions in the standard model hold, but some new reductions become possible because of the idealized assumption. The utility here is that a reduction being possible in the stronger model provides some indication that it might be possible in the standard model, but more importantly, that if a reduction is impossible in the stronger model, then it also must be impossible in the standard model.

For example, if a reduction doesn’t even hold in the generic group model, then it has no hope of being possible with real groups.

Note that this kind of model-shifting perspective doesn’t really get explored if one is focused too much on “security”. Once you step into an alternate model “security” goes out the window, because you’re now longer even pretending to model the real world. Nonetheless, modelling hypothetical and idealized worlds is useful for understanding the real one. My point here is that even if one’s goal is to develop a concrete notion of security, one can understand a lot more about cryptography by simply studying reductions in various models, and the connections between these models.

Also, I find this perspective fun.

# Conclusion

To summarize:

• Theoretical cryptography is often framed in terms of being about formally defining and modelling what it means to be “secure”.
• This notion of security, in practice, will basically always depend on what you’re willing to assume.
• I would argue that this makes reductions the central notion of theoretical cryptography, rather than security itself.
• There’s utility in studying reductions on their own merit because they allow for better accounting of concrete security loss and the resource usage of adversaries.
• My personal view is that studying “meta-cryptography”, and embracing many cryptographic models is a very enlightening perspective towards understanding cryptography, even if one only cares about “security” in the standard model.