Abstract
SASAKI Y, et al used message modification technology to differentiate attack on 51-step RIPEMD-160(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7341), but they did not consider the influence of modular subtraction difference on differential routes, and could not guarantee that the probability of the validation of the first half of the left and right operations is 1, which led to the error in the complexity of RIPEMD-160. For this reason, RIPEMD-160 differentiator is constructed by 2-dimension sums method and an improved distinguishing attack complexity analysis method is proposed. Sufficient conditions are given to ensure the validation of modular subtraction difference in differential routes. The probability of the validation of the first half of differential routes of left and right operations is increased from 2-7. 717 to 1 after message modification. The probability of the validation of differential routes of the second half is obtained through experimental tests. The analysis results show that the complexity of distinguishing attacks on 51-step RIPEMD-160 is 2152. 672.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 147-152 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Jisuanji Gongcheng/Computer Engineering |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Sep 2019 |
Keywords
- Boomerang distinguisher
- Message modification
- Modular subtraction difference
- RIPEMD-160 algorithm
- Sufficient condition
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Complexity analysis of distinguishing attack on 51-step RIPEMD-160'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver