# Sage Code for GGH Cryptanalysis by Hu and Jia

Recently, Yupu Hu and Huiwen Jia put a paper on the Cryptology ePrint Archive which describes a successful attack of the GGH (and GGHLite) candidate multilinear map. The attack does not try to recover the secret $g$ or any other secret parameter of the map. Instead, it solves the Extraction $\kappa$-graded CDH (Ext-GCDH) problem directly.

For GGHLite the Ext-GCDH problem is defined as computing the higher order bits of $v = h/g \cdot \prod_{i=0}^{\kappa} e_i$ from $u_i = e_i \cdot y + \rho_{i0} x_0 + \rho_{i1} x_1$, $x_0 = b_0 \cdot g/z$, $x_1 = b_1 \cdot g/z$, $y = (1+a \cdot g)/z$ and $p_{zt} = h \cdot z^\kappa/g$.

All elements involving a $z$ live in $R_q = \mathbb{Z}_q[x]/(x^n+1)$ where $n$ is a power of two, the other elements live in $R = \mathbb{Z}[x]/(x^n+1)$. All elements except for $z$ and $h$ are small: $z$ is random in $R_q$ and $\Vert h \Vert \approx \sqrt{q}$. We define “levels” by the powers of $z$, e.g. $(e_0 +cg)/z^i$ is a level- $i$ encoding of $e_0$ for some $c \in R$.

In a non-interactive key exchange (NIKE) based on GGH-like maps, the higher order bits of the value $v$ are essentially the shared secret. Let’s look at a simple Sage implementation of non-interactive key echange based on a GGH-like multilinear map.

class NIKESloppy:
"""
A sloppy implementation of NIKE for testing.

By "sloppy" we mean that we do not care about distributions,
verifying some properties or exact sizes.
"""

def __init__(self, n, kappa):
"""
Initialise a new sloppy GGHLite instance.

:param n: dimension (must be power of two)
:param kappa: multilinearity level κ
"""
self.n = ZZ(n)
if not n.is_power_of(2):
raise ValueError
self.kappa = ZZ(kappa)

self.R = ZZ["x"]
self.K = CyclotomicField(2*n, "x")
self.f = self.R.gen()**self.n + 1

self.sigma = self.n
self.sigma_p = round(self.n**(ZZ(5)/2) * self.sigma)
self.sigma_s = round(self.n**(ZZ(3)/2) * self.sigma_p**2)

self.q = next_prime((3*self.n**(ZZ(3)/2) * self.sigma_s*self.sigma_p)**(3*self.kappa))
self.Rq = self.R.change_ring(IntegerModRing(self.q))

g = self.discrete_gaussian(self.sigma)
# we enforce primality to ensure we can invert mod ⟨g⟩
while not self.K(g).is_prime():
g = self.discrete_gaussian(self.sigma)

h = self.discrete_gaussian(sqrt(self.q))
z = self.Rq.random_element(degree=n-1)

# encoding of one
a = self.discrete_gaussian(self.sigma_p/self.sigma)
self.y = ((1+a*g) * z.inverse_mod(self.f)) % self.f

# encoding of zero
b0 = self.discrete_gaussian(self.sigma_p/self.sigma)
self.x0 = ((b0*g) * z.inverse_mod(self.f)) % self.f

# encoding or zero
b1 = self.discrete_gaussian(self.sigma_p/self.sigma)
self.x1 = ((b1*g) * z.inverse_mod(self.f)) % self.f

# zero testing parameter
self.pzt = h*z**kappa * self.Rq(g).inverse_mod(self.f)

# we migh as well give these to the attacker, as they can be computed
# easily
self.G = self.canonical_basis(g)
self.I = self.K.ideal([self.R(row.list()) for row in self.G.rows()])


Logarithms of Euclidean norms are useful as “small” and “not-so-small” are what distinguishes between secret and not-so-secret.

    @staticmethod
def norm(f):
"Return log of Euclidean norm of f"
return log(max(map(abs, f)), 2.).n()


It is easy to compute a canonical basis for $\langle g \rangle \in R$ from publically available information. In this simplified version we simply give this canonical basis to the attacker.

    def canonical_basis(self, g):
"Return HNF of g"
x = self.R.gen()
n = self.n
G = [x**n + ((x**i * g) % self.f) for i in range(n)]
G = [r.list()[:-1] for r in G]
G = matrix(ZZ, n, n, G)
return G.hermite_form()


It will be useful below to compute short remainders modulo some number ring element. We use Babai’s rounding trick for that.

    def rem(self, h, g):
"""
Compute a small remainder of h modulo g

:param h: a polynomial in ZZ[x]/x^n+1
:param g: a polynomial in ZZ[x]/x^n+1
:returns: small representative of h mod g

"""
g_inv = g.change_ring(QQ).inverse_mod(self.f)
q = (h * g_inv) % self.f
q = self.R([round(c) for c in q.coefficients()])
r = (h - q*g) % self.f
return r


We do not care about distributions of elements in our toy example, so we simply return random polynomials where the coefficients are bounded by $\sigma$.

    def discrete_gaussian(self, sigma):
"""
sample element with coefficients bounded by sigma

.. note:: this is obviously *not* a discrete Gaussian, but we don't care here.
"""
sigma = round(sigma)
return self.R.random_element(x=-sigma, y=sigma, degree=self.n-1)


We need a function to sample new encodings:

    def sample(self):
"""
Sample level-0 and level-1 encodeing.
"""
e0 = self.discrete_gaussian(self.sigma_p)
r0 = self.discrete_gaussian(self.sigma_s)
r1 = self.discrete_gaussian(self.sigma_s)

u0 = ((e0*self.y + r0*self.x0 + r1*self.x1)) % self.f
return e0, u0


For the final step we need to extract a representation over the Integers from our representation modulo $q$. Sage does not normalise to $[-\lfloor q/2 \rfloor,\dots, \lfloor q/2 \rfloor]$ but to $[0,\dots,q)$. We work around this behaviour. Also, lower order bits are noisy so we discard them.

    def extract(self, p, mul_pzt=True, drop_noise=True):
"""
Convert mod q element to element over the integers

:param p: a polynomial in ZZ[x]/x^n+1
:param mul_pzt: multiply by pzt
:param drop_noise: remove lower order terms
"""
p = p % self.f
if mul_pzt:
p = (self.pzt*p) % self.f
q = parent(p).base_ring().order()
f = []
for c in p.change_ring(ZZ).list():
if c<q/2:
f.append(c)
else:
f.append(c-q)

if drop_noise:
f = [f[i] >> floor(log(self.q//2, 2)) for i in range(self.n)]
return ZZ['x'](f)


Finally, we implement NIKE: we multiply $\kappa$ level-1 encodings and our secret level-0 encoding to produce a level- $\kappa$ encoding of $\prod_{i=0}^\kappa e_i$ from which we then extract our shared key.

    def __call__(self, e0, U):
"""
Run NIKE with e_0 and U

:param e0: a level-0 encoding
:param U: κ level-1 encodings
"""
if len(U) != self.kappa:
raise ValueError

t = prod(U) % self.f
t = t * e0 % self.f
t = self.extract(t)
return tuple(t.list())


Let me stress once more that the above is not a proper implementation of a GGH-like candidate multilinear maps. For starters, the method called discrete_gaussian does not return elements following a discrete Gaussian distribution. We also skipped several tests from the GGH and GGHLite specifications. However, this simplified variant is sufficient to explain the attack of Hu and Jia.

The attack proceeds in two steps. The first step was already known as the “weak discrete log attack”. (Update: Hu and Jia do not present the first step of their attack this way. Instead, they give another way of computing a “kind of” level-0 encoding from a, say, level-1 encoding. Damien Stéhle was the first to point out to me that this step can be replaced by the “normal” weak discrete log attack.) Say, we have some level- $1$ encoding $u_0 = e_0 \cdot y + \rho_{00} x_0 + \rho_{01} x_1$. We can compute: $v_0 = \left(u_0 \cdot x_0 \cdot y^{\kappa-2} \cdot p_{zt}\right) \mod q = e_0\, b_0\, h + \xi_0 g$

for some $\xi_0$. Note that the right hand side has no modular reduction modulo $q$. Also note that $e_0\, b_0\, h + \xi_0 g \equiv e_0\, b_0\, h \mod \langle g \rangle$, i.e. we have a representative of $e_0\, b_0\, h$.

Similarly, we can compute: $v_{-1} = \left(x_0 \cdot y^{\kappa-1} \cdot p_{zt}\right) \mod q = b_0\, h + \xi_1 g \equiv b_0\, h \mod \langle g \rangle$

Now, assume $v_{-1}$ is invertible modulo $\langle g\rangle$, then we can compute $\tilde{v}_{-1} = v_{-1}^{-1} \mod \langle g \rangle$ and $\tilde{v}_{-1} \cdot v_0 \mod \langle g \rangle \equiv e_0 \mod \langle g \rangle$. In other words, we can compute a representative of $e_0$ “kind of” at level-0. Here’s some Sage code implementing this step:

def weak_dlog(params, u):
"""
Weak discrete log attack from [EC:GarGenHal13]_

:param params: GGH parameters
:param u: a level-1 encoding
"""
kappa = params.kappa
v0 = params.extract(u*params.x0*params.y**(kappa-2), drop_noise=False)
vn = params.extract(params.y**(kappa-1)*params.x0, drop_noise=False)

v0 = params.K(v0).mod(params.I)
vn = params.K(vn).mod(params.I)

r =  (v0 * vn.inverse_mod(params.I)).mod(params.I)
return r.polynomial().change_ring(ZZ)


Now, compute representivatives $v_i$ for all $i \in \{0,\dots,\kappa\}$ and finally $\eta = \prod_{i=0}^{\kappa} v_i$. This produces a “kind of” level-0 encoding of $\prod_{i=0}^{\kappa} e_i$, where “kind of” stands for “not small”. If $\eta$ was small, we could simply compute $\eta \cdot y^{\kappa} \cdot p_{zt}$ to solve the Ext-GCDH problem. However, $\eta$ is not small.

This is where Hu and Jia come in with a clever and remarkably simple step two. They define:

• $Y = \left(y^{\kappa-1} x_1 p_{zt}\right) \mod q = h \cdot (1+ag)^{\kappa-1}\cdot b_1$
• $X_i = \left(y^{\kappa-2} x_i x_1 p_{zt}\right) \mod q = h \cdot (1+ag)^{\kappa-2}\cdot b_1 \cdot b_i \cdot g$

Again, note that the right hand sides have no modular reductions modulo $q$ because they are “somewhat short”.

Recall that $\eta = \prod_{i=0}^{\kappa} e_i + \zeta_0 g$ for some $\zeta_0 \in R$ and compute:

1. $\eta' := Y \cdot \eta= Y\cdot\prod_{i=0}^\kappa e_i + \zeta_1\, b_1\, g$. Note that $Y$ is a multiple of $b_1\, g$.
2. $\eta'' := \eta' \mod X_1 = Y\cdot\prod_{i=0}^\kappa e_i + \zeta_2\, b_1 g$ which holds because $X_1$ is a multiple of $b_1\,g$. Note that $\eta''$ has roughly the same size as $X_1$, which is “somewhat short”.
3. $\eta''' := \eta' \cdot y \cdot (x_1)^{-1} \eta'' \mod q$ This effectively replaces the factor $x_1$ in $Y$ by $y$. Consequently, we have $\eta''' = y^\kappa\cdot p_{zt} \cdot \prod_{i=0}^\kappa e_i + \zeta_2 (1+ag) \mod q$

where the second summand is small. In other words, we have computed $h/g\cdot \prod_{i=0}^\kappa e_i + \textnormal{something small} \mod q,$

i.e. we have solved the Ext-GCDH problem.

Here’s some Sage code implementing these three steps:

def ggh_break(params, U):
"""
Attack from [EPRINT:HuJia15]_

:param params: GGH parameters
:param U: κ+1 level-1 encodings
"""
if len(U) != params.kappa + 1:
raise ValueError

kappa = params.kappa

# large "level-0" encodings of U
V = [weak_dlog(params, u) for u in U]

# large "level-0" encoding of prod(U)
eta = prod(V) % params.f

# Y = (b_0 ⋅ h ⋅ (1+ag))^(κ-2) ⋅ (1+ag)
Y = params.extract(params.y**(kappa-1) * params.x0, drop_noise=False)
# X = (b_0 ⋅ h ⋅ (1+ag))^(κ-2) ⋅ (b_0⋅g)
X = params.extract(params.y**(kappa-2) * params.x0**2, drop_noise=False)

# η'' = (Y ∏ u_i) mod X
eta_ = (eta * Y) % params.f
eta__ = params.rem(eta_, X)

# η''' = η'' ⋅ y/x
xy = params.y * params.x0.inverse_mod(params.f) % params.f
eta___ = params.extract(xy * eta__, mul_pzt=False)
return tuple(eta___.list())


Finally, let’s put everything together and run the attack. If everything is well, then the following code should print the same tuple three times.

def run(n, kappa):
params = NIKESloppy(n, kappa)
EU = [params.sample() for i in range(kappa+1)]
E = [eu for eu in EU]
U = [eu for eu in EU]
# fist make sure NIKE is correct, by running it twice
print params(E, U[1:])
print params(E[-1], U[:-1])
# now run the attack
print ggh_break(params, U)


## One thought on “Sage Code for GGH Cryptanalysis by Hu and Jia”

1. Emi says:

Reblogged this on Pathological Handwaving.