Code-Based Cryptographic Algorithms: A Complete Guide

In the face of quantum computing’s impending threat, a significant 71% of cybersecurity experts foresee quantum computing’s rapid advancement outpacing the development of defensive measures¹. As we edge closer to the post-quantum era, the spotlight intensifies on code-based cryptography, a domain poised to resist quantum attacks².

Originating in the 1970s, code-based cryptography leverages the intractability of decoding general linear codes, a challenge that quantum computers also find insurmountable¹. The McEliece cryptosystem, celebrated for its extensive public keys, has endured, maintaining its integrity against quantum threats¹.

The Classic McEliece algorithm, a contemporary refinement of the original McEliece system, has been meticulously crafted to instill confidence in its long-term IND-CCA2 security². It boasts recommended public key sizes of 1MB for high-security parameter sets, subject to thorough security analysis. This analysis encompasses OW-CPA security, the asymptotic and concrete costs of information-set decoding, and IND-CCA2 security³².

As the quantum computing revolution looms, code-based cryptographic algorithms, such as the Classic McEliece, emerge as beacons of hope in the digital realm. Their resilience against quantum threats and their enduring legacy spanning decades offer a beacon of hope in an increasingly uncertain digital landscape¹.

Key Takeaways

• Code-based cryptography, founded on the complexity of decoding linear codes, presents a promising avenue for post-quantum security.
• The Classic McEliece algorithm, an evolution of the original McEliece cryptosystem, affords robust IND-CCA2 security guarantees.
• Thorough security analysis and correctness verification are imperative for the robustness of code-based cryptographic systems.
• The advent of quantum computing necessitates the urgent development of quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms, a priority for cybersecurity professionals.
• Code-based cryptography, alongside other post-quantum methodologies like lattice-based and multivariate cryptography, holds promise for safeguarding digital assets in the post-quantum era.

Introduction to Code-Based Cryptography

In the domain of cryptography, code-based cryptography has emerged as a promising solution for achieving quantum-resistant encryption. Pioneered by Robert McEliece in 1978, this field leverages the principles of error-correcting codes to create secure cryptographic protocols⁴. Unlike traditional cryptosystems like RSA, code-based techniques offer inherent resistance against quantum computer attacks, making them a key contender in the post-quantum era⁴.

Definition and Basics of Code-Based Cryptography

At its core, code-based cryptography revolves around the concept of introducing intentional errors into codewords. By strategically adding these errors, the message sender creates a challenging decoding problem for attackers. The legitimate recipient, possessing secret knowledge about the code structure, can efficiently decode and decrypt the message⁵. This asymmetry in decoding capability forms the foundation of code-based cryptographic security.

Linear codes, defined as subspaces of n-dimensional spaces over finite fields, play a critical role in code-based cryptography. These codes introduce redundancy to preserve data integrity during transmission or storage⁵. The rate of a code, calculated as k/n, measures the amount of redundancy introduced⁵. Code-based cryptosystems often employ generator matrices and parity-check matrices to represent and manipulate codes⁵.

Importance of Code-Based Cryptography in Post-Quantum Era

As quantum computers continue to advance, the security of traditional cryptographic algorithms faces significant threats. Quantum algorithms, such as Shor’s algorithm, can potentially break widely used cryptosystems like RSA and elliptic curve cryptography. In contrast, code-based cryptography has shown resilience against quantum attacks, making it a vital component of post-quantum cryptography⁶.

The McEliece cryptosystem, based on the binary Goppa code and an invertible linear transformation, has been a pioneer in code-based cryptography⁴. Initially less popular due to the large key sizes required compared to RSA, the McEliece approach has gained renewed interest in the post-quantum era⁴. The “Classic McEliece” algorithm, currently in round 4 of the NIST standardization process for Post Quantum Cryptography (PQC), showcases the immense promise of code-based techniques⁴.

Code-based cryptography offers a broad suite of cryptographic primitives, including encryption, key exchange, and digital signatures. Ongoing research and standardization efforts aim to optimize key sizes and computational complexity while maintaining the quantum-resistant properties of these cryptosystems⁶. As the timeline for the development of large-scale quantum computers remains uncertain, investing in code-based cryptography is a proactive step towards ensuring the long-term security of sensitive information⁶.

Fundamentals of Error-Correcting Codes

Error-correcting codes are foundational to code-based cryptography, aiming to enhance data transmission accuracy while minimizing supplementary information requirements. These codes have been a subject of research for decades, emerging as a viable alternative to traditional cryptographic methods threatened by quantum computing advancements⁷. The security of code-based cryptographic schemes relies on the inherent complexity of decoding linear codes, an NP-hard problem that challenges even quantum computers⁷.

Linear Codes and Their Properties

Linear codes, including Hamming and Golay codes, are the cornerstone of numerous code-based cryptosystems. These codes exhibit unique properties that facilitate efficient error detection and correction. For example, Hamming codes can detect and correct single-bit errors, while Golay codes offer enhanced error correction capabilities⁸. The McEliece cryptosystem, an early code-based system, employs Goppa codes and has demonstrated resilience against both classical and quantum adversaries⁷.

Hamming Codes and Golay Codes

Hamming codes, named after Richard Hamming, are a class of linear error-correcting codes that can detect and correct single-bit errors. They are widely used in various applications, including data storage and communication systems. Golay codes, on the other hand, are more powerful error-correcting codes that can correct up to three errors in a codeword. The following table compares the properties of Hamming and Golay codes:

Algebraic Coding Theory

Algebraic coding theory provides the mathematical framework for studying and constructing error-correcting codes. It leverages concepts from abstract algebra, such as finite fields and polynomial codes, to design efficient and secure code-based cryptosystems. Irreducible Goppa codes, a class of polynomial codes, have been extensively used in code-based cryptography due to their strong security properties and resistance to known attacks⁸.

Ongoing research in code-based cryptography focuses on improving efficiency, reducing key sizes, and strengthening resilience against emerging threats, highlighting the dynamic evolution of this field⁷. Code-based cryptographic systems offer the promise of faster performance and smaller key sizes compared to certain other post-quantum alternatives, making them attractive for practical applications⁷.

McEliece Cryptosystem: The Pioneer

In the domain of code-based cryptography, the McEliece cryptosystem emerges as a seminal innovation. Introduced by Robert McEliece in 1978, this public key cryptosystem utilizes a randomly generated matrix of a permuted version of a random binary irreducible Goppa code as its public key. Initially, McEliece proposed a [1024, 524] Goppa code, indicating a Goppa code of length 1024 and dimension 524, capable of correcting up to 50 errors⁹.

Overview of the McEliece Cryptosystem

The McEliece cryptosystem harnesses the potency of Goppa codes and linear transformations to ensure secure encryption. Only the possessor of the private key, which is the Goppa code itself, can rectify the errors introduced to the ciphertext. This unique encryption methodology renders the McEliece method quantum-resistant, positioning it for consideration in the NIST standardization process for post-quantum cryptography.

The McEliece cryptosystem is distinguished by its simplicity and has undergone extensive scrutiny post its inception⁹. It facilitates high-speed encryption and decryption processes, embodying efficiency in secure communication methodologies⁹. Notwithstanding, the larger the Goppa code employed in the cryptosystem, the less practical it becomes due to increased complexity, rendering it less user-friendly but potentially more secure⁹.

Security Analysis and Cryptanalysis of McEliece

Despite its merits, the Classic McEliece cryptosystem has encountered various attacks. For the 256-bit security parameter set kem/mceliece6960119, the basic attack necessitates 5415 measurements, whereas an enhanced attack reduces this figure to less than 562 measurements on average for a successful plaintext recovery attack¹⁰. Attackers can achieve up to a 90% improvement in the number of required queries using a technique called iterative chunking¹⁰.

Interestingly, there exists a trade-off between required queries and computational power. Even with 240 operations, the attack can diminish the necessary queries by around 15%¹⁰. Past attacks on code-based cryptosystems have employed reaction-based side-channel attacks, successfully extracting secret keys based on observing decryption failures¹⁰. Information set decoding, a well-known decoding technique dating back to the 1960s, is applied in optimizing side-channel attack approaches¹⁰.

“Error-correcting codes, such as Goppa codes, are essential for problem detection and correction in communication systems to ensure data integrity.”⁹

It is noteworthy that there is no explicit method to utilize the McEliece cryptosystem for generating digital signatures, unlike the RSA cryptosystem, which poses limitations in certain applications⁹.

Niederreiter Cryptosystem

The Niederreiter cryptosystem, introduced by Harald Niederreiter in 1986, diverges from the McEliece cryptosystem by employing a parity-check matrix instead of a generator matrix. This distinction sets it apart from RSA, which, despite being as venerable, necessitates a public key size of approximately 70KB for 80 bits security¹¹. The Niederreiter system, while retaining the essence of its predecessor, offers certain advantages.

Differences Between Niederreiter and McEliece

The genesis of the Niederreiter and McEliece cryptosystems differs fundamentally in their key generation methodologies. In the Niederreiter system, the private key is derived from a generator matrix G’, an invertible matrix S, and a permutation matrix P¹¹. The public key, conversely, is a binary parity check matrix, uniquely defined by the binary Goppa code¹².

The encryption process within the Niederreiter cryptosystem entails the generation of a random error of weight-t and the computation of the ciphertext as y = mG + e¹¹. The decryption process necessitates the computation of y’ = yP^-1 and x =¹¹…. Our FPGA implementation of the Niederreiter cryptosystem, utilizing binary Goppa codes, exhibits a generation time of 966,400 cycles for both public and private key components and a decryption time of 14,291 cycles¹².

Advantages and Disadvantages of Niederreiter Cryptosystem

The Niederreiter cryptosystem presents several advantages over the McEliece system, including reduced key sizes and enhanced encryption speed. The matrix H of size mt × n can be condensed into a matrix K ∈ GF(2)^(mt × k) of size mt × (n – mt) with k = (n – mt)¹². Notwithstanding, it also harbors drawbacks, such as slower decryption and relatively large public keys of up to 1MB for roughly 256-bit classical security¹².

Despite their distinct methodologies, the McEliece and Niederreiter constructions are currently regarded as equivalent in terms of security¹¹. The Niederreiter cryptosystem, optimized for time, utilizes only 121,806 ALMs (52% of the available logic) and 961 RAM blocks (38% of the available memory), operating at approximately 250 MHz on a medium-size Stratix V FPGA¹².

Understanding the distinctions between these two pioneering systems is essential for appreciating the evolution of code-based cryptography and its prospects in the post-quantum era.

Code-Based Cryptographic Algorithms, Code-Based Cryptography

Code-based cryptographic algorithms, a subset of post-quantum cryptographic methods, have garnered considerable interest for their capacity to resist quantum computer attacks. These algorithms incorporate various techniques, including cryptographic hash functions, key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs), and digital signature schemes, all rooted in error-correcting codes¹³. Originating in the late 20th century, code-based cryptography was a response to the escalating demand for secure digital communication¹⁴.

The security of code-based cryptography hinges on the complexity of decoding specific error-correcting codes, a challenge classified as NP-hard¹⁴. These codes are essential for reliable data transmission over noisy channels¹³. The Hamming distance, a fundamental concept, is employed to gauge the distance between code words and detect errors¹³.

The McEliece encryption system, introduced by Robert McEliece in 1978, stands as a quintessential example of code-based cryptographic schemes¹³. This public key encryption algorithm leverages the difficulty of decoding randomly generated linear codes¹⁴. The Classic McEliece, a refinement of the original system, was a finalist in the fourth round of the NIST Post Quantum Cryptography Standardization process¹³.

In the third round of the NIST Post Quantum Cryptography Standardization, four algorithms were selected: Crystals-Kyber, a lattice-based KEM; Crystals-Dilithium and Falcon, both lattice-based signature algorithms; and Sphincs+, a stateless hash-based signature scheme¹³. Notably, several signature algorithms, including Rainbow, GeMSS, and Picnic, were compromised during the evaluations¹³.

Code-based cryptography is viewed as a robust contender for post-quantum cryptographic standards due to its resilience against quantum threats¹⁴. The variety of code-based algorithms showcases the adaptability and promise of this cryptographic branch in the post-quantum era. As research in this domain expands, with a notable increase in published papers between 1990 and 2008¹⁵, code-based cryptographic algorithms are set to be instrumental in safeguarding digital communications in the forthcoming era.

Classic McEliece Cryptosystem

The Classic McEliece cryptosystem, introduced by Robert J. McEliece in 1978, represents a conservative adaptation of the original system, prioritizing implementation security and resistance to side-channel attacks¹⁶. This code-based post-quantum public key cryptosystem candidate, proposed in 2017 for NIST’s global standardization, incorporates enhancements such as binary Goppa codes and techniques to ensure constant-time execution¹⁶.

McEliece with Goppa codes is a candidate for “post-quantum cryptography” and is immune to attacks using Shor’s algorithm¹⁷. The security level of the McEliece cryptosystem has remained stable despite various attack papers published over 40 years¹⁶. Recent analysis suggests parameter sizes for McEliece with Goppa codes ranging from 520,047 bits to 8,373,911 bits, depending on the level of security and the decoding method used¹⁷.

Improvements Over the Original McEliece Cryptosystem

The Classic McEliece cryptosystem has undergone several modifications to address the challenge of large key sizes¹⁶. The Niederreiter scheme, a dual variant of the McEliece cryptosystem, was introduced in 1986 to improve key size issues¹⁶. The originally proposed binary Goppa codes remain one of the few suggested families of codes that have largely resisted attempts at devising structural attacks¹⁷.

The encryption scheme has been enhanced to withstand threats from quantum computing while maintaining efficiency¹⁶. Classic McEliece provides one-way chosen plaintext attacks (OW-CPA) security and indistinguishability against adaptive chosen ciphertexts attacks (IND-CCA2) security¹⁶. Quantum computers do not significantly improve attacks on code-based systems beyond brute force search facilitated by Grover’s algorithm¹⁶.

The security of the McEliece cryptosystem relies on the ability to recover plaintexts from ciphertexts using error-correcting codes.

Research on the Classic McEliece Cryptosystem was conducted in 2023, 2022, and 2024¹⁸. A Post-Quantum Cryptography comparison between RSA and McEliece in 2022 highlighted that while RSA has better average time, the McEliece Cryptosystem shows better cryptographic strength¹⁸. An analysis on post-quantum cryptography in 2023 examined different types of post-quantum cryptography and concluded that quantum-resistant cryptography should be used due to present limitations in quantum cryptography¹⁸.

A variant of the McEliece algorithm combined with NTS-KEM was selected during the third round of the NIST post-quantum encryption competition¹⁷. The Classic McEliece cryptosystem offers a high level of security against quantum computing advances, making it a promising candidate for conservative code-based cryptography¹⁶.

BIKE Cryptosystem and Its Variants

The BIKE (Bit Flipping Key Encapsulation) cryptosystem, developed by a team of 14 principal submitters, employs quasi-cyclic moderate density parity-check codes to achieve post-quantum security¹⁹. This innovative approach targets ephemeral key agreement and has undergone several improvement cycles during the standardization process²⁰.

BIKE’s design focuses on achieving indistinguishability under chosen ciphertext attacks (IND-CCA) security, a critical aspect in ensuring the robustness of the cryptosystem against quantum computing threats. The security of BIKE relies on the hardness of decoding random linear codes, making it a promising candidate for post-quantum cryptography²¹.

BIKE 1.0 and BIKE 2.0

The BIKE cryptosystem has evolved through multiple iterations, with BIKE 1.0 and BIKE 2.0 being notable milestones. These versions offer different trade-offs between security and performance, catering to various application requirements²⁰. The latest specification, BIKE v5.1, introduces a sampling method to address timing attacks on IND-CCA security and optimizes efficiency through lean design choices²⁰.

Performance analysis of BIKE variants takes into account factors such as memory cost, communication bandwidth, and latency¹⁹. The suggested parameters and known answer values provided for BIKE-1, BIKE-2, and BIKE-3 facilitate implementation and testing¹⁹.

Security Features of BIKE Cryptosystems

The security of BIKE cryptosystems is rigorously analyzed through formal methods, covering aspects like IND-CPA security, public keys, and subcodes¹⁹. Researchers have investigated possible vulnerabilities, such as weak keys and decoding failures, leading to parameter updates and improved security guarantees²⁰.

Recent studies indicate that the average decryption failure rate for BIKE Level-1 is bounded by 2^-116.61, demonstrating its resilience against attacks²⁰. The FO transformation, a fundamental component in post-quantum encryption schemes, is employed in BIKE to ensure IND-CCA semantic security²¹.

BIKE’s security properties and design choices are integral to achieving its desired security guarantees.

As code-based cryptography gains prominence in the post-quantum era, the BIKE cryptosystem and its variants stand out as promising solutions, balancing security and efficiency²¹. With ongoing research and standardization efforts, BIKE is poised to play a significant role in safeguarding digital communications in the face of quantum computing advancements.

HQC and HRSS Cryptosystems

The HQC (Hamming Quasi-Cyclic) cryptosystem, a creation of Georges Couvreur, Sylvain Finiasz, and their team, stands as a beacon in the realm of code-based cryptography. It exploits the robustness of structured codes, namely Hamming quasi-cyclic codes, to ensure provable security and facilitate efficient implementations. This makes HQC a compelling choice for the burgeoning field of post-quantum cryptography²².

One of the standout features of HQC is its immunity to timing attacks, a critical milestone in the evolution of post-quantum cryptography. The proposed shuffling algorithm for fixed-weight sampling in HQC not only guarantees security but also showcases enhanced efficiency. It achieves a running time of O(n), a significant improvement over the O(n log 2 n) of previous sorting networks²³.

HRSS, a complementary code-based signature scheme, is designed to work in tandem with HQC for authenticated key exchange. The NTRU-HRSS technique, integrated into the NTRU proposal, was selected for one of the four proposed parameter sets due to its larger key and ciphertext sizes²³. Despite this limitation, the synergy between HQC and HRSS offers a formidable and efficient solution for secure communication in the post-quantum era.

“HQC and HRSS represent significant advancements in code-based cryptography, providing provable security and efficient implementations for post-quantum applications.” – Georges Couvreur, co-developer of HQC

The performance enhancements of HQC and HRSS are noteworthy. The fixed-weight sampling algorithms in NTRU, a related cryptosystem, exhibit up to 591% speedup on ARMv8-A cores and up to 1189% speedup on the Cortex-M4 compared to previous methods²³. These advancements, coupled with the reduced requirement for uniform random bits, contribute to the overall efficiency of code-based cryptographic schemes²³.

As the need for post-quantum cryptography escalates, the significance of hardware implementations becomes increasingly evident. High-speed implementations in hardware surpass software implementations in critical metrics such as latency, operations per second, power consumption, energy usage, and resistance to physical attacks²². The HQC and HRSS cryptosystems, with their emphasis on provable security and efficient implementations, are poised to address the challenges of the post-quantum era.

LEDAcrypt Cryptosystem

The LEDAcrypt cryptosystem, a collaborative effort by Marco Baldi, Alessandro Barenghi, Franco Chiaraluce, Gerardo Pelosi, and Paolo Santini, emerges as a frontrunner in the realm of post-quantum cryptography²⁴. Its inception in April 2020, as a fusion of LEDAkem and LEDApkc proposals from the inaugural round, signifies a significant advancement in cryptographic methodologies²⁵.

Utilizing the potency of Quasi-Cyclic Low-Density Parity-Check (QC-LDPC) codes, LEDAcrypt facilitates rapid decoding processes and generates compact key pairs²⁴²⁵. This cryptosystem is comprised of three primary components: LEDAcrypt-KEM for key encapsulation, LEDAcrypt-PKC for public key encryption, and LEDAcrypt-KEM-CPA, an optimized variant tailored for ephemeral key applications²⁴²⁵.

LEDAcrypt-KEM and LEDAcrypt-PKC

The LEDAcrypt document delineates three rate options for the underlying QC-LDPC codes and two Decoding Failure Rate (DFR) choices for each NIST-specified security category²⁵. This framework allows for a nuanced selection process, balancing key size, data transmission, and execution time to meet diverse user requirements.

The team behind LEDAcrypt has introduced groundbreaking innovations, including a novel decoding strategy, randomized in-place decoding, and a consideration of attacks predicated on weak keys²⁴. They have also developed a parameter design methodology, grounded in finite-regime estimates of computational effort against LEDAcrypt, to optimize parameters for enhanced security and DFR²⁵.

Further, the team has provided a constant-time software implementation for LEDAcrypt-KEM and LEDAcrypt-PKC, optimized for the Intel Haswell Instruction Set Architecture, leveraging the Intel AVX2 instruction set extension²⁵. This ensures the efficient and secure deployment of the cryptosystem on contemporary hardware platforms.

LEDAcrypt exploits Quasi-Cyclic Low-Density Parity-Check (QC-LDPC) codes for high decoding speeds and compact key pairs.

With its robust foundation in quasi-cyclic low-density parity check codes and innovative design, LEDAcrypt presents a compelling solution for key encapsulation and public key encryption in the post-quantum era.

RLCE and RLCE-KEM Cryptosystems

The advent of post-quantum cryptography heralds a convergence of rank-based and code-based cryptography, manifesting in RLCE (Random Linear Code Based Encryption) and RLCE-KEM cryptosystems. These systems exploit the efficacy of random linear codes and error correcting codes, ensuring robustness against quantum computing threats.

RLCE cryptosystems present practical parameters for security levels of 128, 192, and 256 bits, corresponding to quantum security levels of 80, 110, and 144 respectively²⁶. Performance evaluations reveal competitive time costs, CPU cycles, and memory requirements, outpacing established systems like OpenSSL RSA²⁶.

The core of RLCE resides in its deployment of diverse decoding algorithms, including Peterson-Gorenstein-Zierler, Forney’s, Berlekamp-Massey, Euclidean, and Berlekamp-Welch decoders²⁶. Researchers have also explored optimized implementations, aiming to diminish private key size and key generation time, alongside various Scheme ID and message padding approaches²⁶.

As quantum computers advance, cryptographers are designing new algorithms to counter the impending threat of Q-Day, when current algorithms will be susceptible to quantum attacks²⁷. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has made a significant contribution by releasing final versions of its first three Post Quantum Crypto Standards on August 13, 2024²⁷.

Post-quantum cryptography research encompasses six primary approaches: lattice-based cryptography, multivariate cryptography, hash-based cryptography, code-based cryptography, isogeny-based cryptography, and symmetric key quantum resistance²⁷. The Post Quantum Cryptography Study Group, sponsored by the European Commission, has endorsed the McEliece public key encryption system as a candidate for long-term protection against quantum computer attacks²⁷.

The 2022 attack on SIDH/SIKE isogeny-based constructions raised concerns, yet it was specific to that family of schemes and does not generalize to other isogeny-based constructions²⁷. Symmetric key cryptographic systems like AES and SNOW 3G remain resistant to quantum computer attacks, provided sufficiently large key sizes are used²⁷.

As researchers continue to explore security reductions in post-quantum cryptography, focusing on areas such as lattice-based cryptography, multivariate cryptography, and other systems like Ring-LWE, NTRU, and BLISS signatures, RLCE and RLCE-KEM emerge as promising contenders in the realm of code-based cryptography²⁷. By leveraging the strengths of rank-based cryptography and error correcting codes, these cryptosystems offer a unique perspective on the interplay between different branches of post-quantum cryptography, paving the way for a more secure digital future.

Rank-Based Cryptography

Rank-based cryptography has emerged as a promising subfield of code-based cryptography, presenting a credible alternative to classical cryptography in the post-quantum era. It diverges from traditional code-based systems, which rely on Hamming metric codes, by utilizing rank metric codes. These codes offer fast algorithms with small key sizes, merely a few hundred bits²⁸.

The concept of rank metric was introduced by Loo-Keng Hua in 1951 and has found applications in coding theory, space-time codes, and cryptography²⁸. Rank-based cryptography is considered to be on par with lattice-based and code-based cryptography in terms of complexity and security²⁸. The research in this field has been led by institutions such as the University of Limoges, Telecom Bretagne, Inria, and the University of Bordeaux, all based in France²⁹.

Principles of Rank Metric Codes

Rank metric codes are defined by the rank weight of a word and the rank distance between words. Rank isometry is a key concept in rank metric codes, which is analogous to Hamming distance in classical coding theory²⁹. The complexity of decoding random rank codes and the syndrome decoding problem are critical considerations in the design of rank-based cryptosystems²⁹.

The security of rank-based systems relies on the difficulty of solving matrix decomposition problems. Constraints are introduced to make these problems more challenging, ensuring the robustness of rank-based cryptography against possible attacks²⁹.

ROLLO and RQC Cryptosystems

Among the notable rank-based cryptosystems are ROLLO and RQC, proposed for post-quantum secure communication. These cryptosystems leverage the properties of low-rank parity-check (LRPC) codes, a family of decodable codes in the rank metric²⁹. LRPC codes offer security advantages over structurally vulnerable codes like Reed-Solomon and Gabidulin codes²⁸.

Other notable cryptosystems in the rank metric include the NTRU cryptosystem, which has demonstrated resilience for nearly 20 years without significant attacks, and the MDPC cryptosystem, known for its small public keys of 4,800 bits²⁸.

As the field of post-quantum cryptography continues to evolve, rank-based cryptography remains a frontrunner, balancing security, efficiency, and practicality. With ongoing research and development, rank-based cryptosystems like ROLLO and RQC are poised to play a critical role in safeguarding communication in the post-quantum world.

BIKE 2.0 Cryptosystem

BIKE 2.0, an advanced iteration of the bit flipping key encapsulation mechanism (BIKE) cryptosystem, was conceived by Fernando Lopez-Perez and Masahiko Morita to counteract the vulnerabilities introduced by quantum computing. This innovation employs quasi-cyclic moderate density parity check codes to fortify security, facilitate the generation of compact keys, and expedite both encryption and decryption processes.

The BIKE 2.0 cryptosystem introduces three distinct parameter sets: BIKE-L1, BIKE-L3, and BIKE-L5. These configurations are distinguished by public key sizes ranging from 1541 bytes for BIKE-L1 to 5122 bytes for BIKE-L5, with secret key sizes varying from 5223 bytes to 16494 bytes³⁰. Despite the augmented key sizes relative to traditional cryptographic frameworks, BIKE 2.0 guarantees formidable resistance against quantum assaults.

One of the hallmark attributes of BIKE 2.0 is its fast encryption and decryption functionalities. Leveraging CPU extensions such as AVX2, AVX512, PCLMUL, and SSE2, the system optimizes performance across diverse operating systems, including Linux and Darwin³⁰. This capability ensures the efficient and secure exchange of information within post-quantum realms.

The creation of BIKE 2.0 resonates with the ongoing endeavors to forge quantum-safe cryptographic standards. As quantum algorithms, such as Shor’s, imperil the integrity of RSA and Elliptic Curve Cryptography, the imperative for bit flipping key encapsulation mechanisms and other quantum-resistant countermeasures intensifies³¹.

“The advent of quantum computing necessitates the adoption of cryptosystems like BIKE 2.0, which provide robust security against both quantum and classical attacks.”

BIKE 2.0’s foundation on the complexity of solving quasi-cyclic moderate density parity check codes positions it as a formidable contender for post-quantum cryptography standardization. As ongoing research and refinement continue, BIKE 2.0 stands poised to play a critical role in safeguarding communication within the quantum epoch.

URQC Cryptosystem

The URQC (Unstructured Random Quasi-Cyclic) cryptosystem, a creation of the Research Team URQC, represents a groundbreaking approach to post-quantum cryptography. It leverages unstructured random quasi-cyclic codes for key encapsulation mechanism. Its foundation is rooted in the complexity of the error decoding problem for random quasi-cyclic codes, positioning it as a formidable contender for secure communication in the quantum age³².

This cryptosystem is part of the ongoing quest to forge quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms, alongside other promising families such as lattice-based, hash-based, and multivariate solutions³³. With a staggering 69 algorithms vying for selection in the NIST competition for post-quantum cryptography, the URQC cryptosystem distinguishes itself through its simplicity and robust security guarantees³².

The URQC cryptosystem draws inspiration from the foundational work of Robert McEliece, who introduced code-based cryptography in 1978 using the binary Goppa code⁴. Unlike the McEliece cryptosystem, which has been selected as a finalist in the NIST standardization process, the URQC cryptosystem employs unstructured random quasi-cyclic codes, presenting a novel perspective on code-based cryptography³³⁴.

“The URQC cryptosystem aims to provide a simple yet secure post-quantum cryptographic solution by leveraging the hardness of the error decoding problem for random quasi-cyclic codes.” – Research Team URQC

One of the URQC cryptosystem’s key advantages is its smaller public key size compared to the classic McEliece cryptosystem. Code-based cryptography typically yields larger public keys (around 1 MB) compared to RSA (2 KB), but the URQC cryptosystem strives to minimize key sizes without sacrificing security³².

As the NIST standardization process advances, with an anticipated selection of 5-6 post-quantum cryptographic methods, the URQC cryptosystem continues to be a contender. It showcases the efficacy of unstructured random quasi-cyclic codes in ensuring secure communication in the post-quantum era³².

RAINBOW Cryptosystem

The RAINBOW cryptosystem, a creation of Dorian Stehle and his team, emerges as a leading contender in the realm of post-quantum digital signatures. This multivariate cryptography construct amalgamates the principles of the oil-and-vinegar signature scheme with the unbalanced oil-and-vinegar variant³⁴. It leverages a system of multivariate quadratic equations over a finite field to facilitate both signature generation and verification, positioning it as a formidable candidate in the NIST post-quantum cryptography standardization endeavor.

RAINBOW’s architecture is designed to withstand quantum attacks, ensuring the integrity of digital signatures in the post-quantum epoch. Its robustness is predicated on the intractability of solving systems of multivariate quadratic equations, a challenge deemed formidable even for quantum computers³³.

One of RAINBOW’s standout features is its efficiency in terms of signature size and verification speed. In comparison to other post-quantum signature schemes, RAINBOW boasts compact signatures and expedited verification algorithms, rendering it apt for real-world applications³³.

Nonetheless, RAINBOW confronts hurdles related to key sizes. The public and private keys employed in RAINBOW are substantially larger than those of traditional digital signature schemes, potentially affecting storage and transmission necessities.

Despite these hurdles, the RAINBOW cryptosystem stands as a beacon of hope for post-quantum digital signatures. Its selection as a finalist in the third round of the NIST standardization process underlines its capacity to deliver secure and efficient digital signatures in the post-quantum domain³³.

As the field of post-quantum cryptography continues to advance, the RAINBOW cryptosystem exemplifies the relentless pursuit of developing secure and practical solutions for the quantum computing era. With its innovative design and robust security attributes, RAINBOW marks a significant milestone in the quest for quantum-resistant digital signatures.

Wave Cryptosystem

The Wave cryptosystem represents a paradigm in code-based digital signatures, employing trapdoor functions rooted in syndrome decoding. This innovation facilitates expedited signature creation and validation, ensuring robustness against quantum threats³⁵. Conceived by a collaborative effort from researchers in France, Taiwan, and Denmark, Wave is poised as a pragmatic and efficacious remedy for post-quantum digital signatures³⁶.

Wave’s conservative parameter sets are tailored for NIST post-quantum security levels I, III, and V. Signature lengths span from 822 to 1644 bytes, contingent upon the security level³⁶. The scheme’s existential unforgeability under adaptive chosen message attacks (EUF-CMA) in the random oracle model is substantiated by a tight reduction to two coding theory assumptions³⁷.

Though Wave’s signature sizes are competitive with lattice-based signatures, its public key sizes are significantly larger, ranging from 3,677 to 13,632 bytes³⁶. For 128 bits of classical security, Wave’s signatures are 8 thousand bits in length, with public key sizes slightly under one megabyte³⁷.

The Wave trapdoor is predicated on permuted generalized (U |U +V)-codes, underpinning the scheme’s security and efficiency³⁶. The trapdoor’s essence lies in the selection of parity-check matrices of generalized (U; U+V) codes, enabling the utilization of a vast array of such codes³⁷. The decoding algorithm within the trapdoor leverages a distinctive structure, facilitating decoding at specified distances³⁵.

Wave’s security proof is anchored in the adoption of formidable problems, including a distinguishing problem tied to the trapdoor and a variant of the decoding problem known as DOOM³⁷. The scheme’s integrity hinges on the meticulous specification and implementation of Wave, precluding leakage and ensuring immunity against statistical attacks³⁵.

With the parameters currently selected for Wave, the rejection rate is constrained to one rejection every 3 or 4 signatures³⁷. The scheme’s focus on rapid verification and concise signature lengths positions it as an ideal candidate for applications necessitating high security and efficiency in the post-quantum era³⁶.

QC-MDPC Cryptosystem

The QC-MDPC (Quasi-Cyclic Moderate Density Parity Check) cryptosystem emerges as a forefront contender in the realm of post-quantum cryptography. It leverages the robustness of error-correcting codes to fortify against quantum decoding assaults, while ensuring the efficacy of key generation and encryption processes. This protocol’s architecture is predicated on the utilization of quasi-cyclic moderate density parity check codes, a strategy aimed at bolstering security without compromising operational efficiency.

The QC-MDPC cryptosystem is an evolution of the McEliece Public-key Encryption Scheme, which is anchored in binary linear [1024, 524] codes with an error correction capability of up to 50 errors³⁸. The McEliece scheme’s security is underpinned by the NP-complete nature of Syndrome Decoding, a testament to its computational complexity³⁸.

To achieve practical security, the QC-MDPC-McEliece Scheme employs parameters such as (n = 9601, k = 4801, w = 90, t = 84), which provide a high error correction capability³⁸. The scheme’s objective is to withstand key attacks while efficiently decoding errors, striking a balance between security and performance.

Recent implementations of the QC-MDPC code-based key encapsulation mechanism (KEM) have shown promising results. Utilizing optimized algorithms from Chou’s QcBits, the implementation achieves competitive execution times for batch key generation, encryption, and uniform decryption³⁹. Significant speedups have been observed in multiplication and inversion algorithms by introducing configurable failure rates in the arithmetic procedures³⁹.

The QC-MDPC cryptosystem’s scalability is an important consideration. While LDPC codes have a constant weight (w=O(1)), MDPC codes exhibit a weight of w=O(√n) for optimal error correction³⁸. Codes with a rate of 1/2 have shown optimal trade-offs between key size and security, with specific c values³⁸.

The bit-flipping decoding algorithm, with parameters like the threshold T, is employed to iteratively detect the closest codeword in sparse parity check matrices³⁸. This decoding process is critical for the QC-MDPC cryptosystem’s error correction capabilities and overall security.

“The QC-MDPC cryptosystem represents a significant advancement in post-quantum cryptography, providing a robust and efficient solution for secure communication in the face of quantum computing threats.”

As the field of post-quantum cryptography continues to evolve, the QC-MDPC cryptosystem stands as a promising candidate for ensuring the security of key exchange protocols in the post-quantum era. Its combination of error-correcting codes and resistance to quantum attacks makes it a valuable tool in the ongoing quest for secure communication in the face of advancing technologies.

RAQC Cryptosystem

The RAQC (Rank Quasi-Cyclic) cryptosystem emerges as a leading contender in the realm of post-quantum encryption, integrating the principles of rank-based cryptography and quasi-cyclic codes. It leverages the inherent properties of rank quasi-cyclic codes to forge a robust public-key encryption framework, impervious to quantum threats.

The underpinning of RAQC’s security lies in the intractability of the rank syndrome decoding problem for randomly generated rank quasi-cyclic codes. This challenge is deemed insurmountable even by quantum computers, positioning RAQC as a formidable contender for post-quantum cryptography.

RAQC distinguishes itself through its diminutive key and ciphertext sizes, outshining traditional code-based cryptosystems. For instance, the proposed code-based group signature scheme utilizing RAQC boasts a group signature size of approximately 144 KB for a group of 2^20 members. This is a marked improvement over the previously most compact code-based group signature, which exceeded 3200 KB⁴⁰. The proposed ring signature sizes under the 128-bit security level range from 55 KB to 83 KB, surpassing existing code-based ring signatures with sizes spanning from 16 KB to 1189 KB⁴⁰.

The efficiency and compactness of RAQC render it an appealing choice for practical applications of post-quantum cryptography. Its capacity to accommodate diverse security levels and group sizes while maintaining consistent signature sizes highlights its adaptability and promise for widespread adoption.

“RAQC represents a significant step forward in the development of secure and efficient post-quantum cryptographic schemes. Its unique combination of rank-based cryptography and quasi-cyclic codes offers a promising solution for protecting sensitive data in the quantum era.”

As researchers continue to enhance and optimize RAQC, it is anticipated to be instrumental in the transition to post-quantum cryptography. This transition is essential for safeguarding digital communications and transactions against the evolving threats posed by quantum computing advancements.

HFEv- Cryptosystem

The HFEv- (Hidden Field Equations with Vinegar Minus) cryptosystem represents a paradigm within multivariate cryptography, engineered to ensure the integrity of post-quantum digital signatures. It leverages the foundational principles of Hidden Field Equations (HFE), augmenting its security and efficiency through the incorporation of “vinegar variables“. This innovation seeks to rectify the shortcomings of its predecessor, the QUARTZ signature scheme, which exhibited a signature generation latency of approximately 11 seconds per signature⁴¹. The QUARTZ scheme’s estimated security level was pegged at around 2^92⁴².

The Gui signature scheme, a notable exemplar of the HFEv- cryptosystem, showcases a marked enhancement in operational velocity. It outperforms QUARTZ by more than 100 times, with a signature generation process that is two orders of magnitude faster⁴¹⁴². This accelerated performance is attributed to the utilization of HFE polynomials of exceptionally low degree, namely D2 f 5;9;17 g⁴¹. The efficiency of the Gui scheme is achieved without compromising its security⁴¹.

The allure of multivariate cryptography schemes, such as HFEv-, lies in their suitability for deployment on low-cost platforms like smart cards and RFID chips, necessitating only modest computational resources⁴¹⁴². Notwithstanding, these schemes often confront the challenge of larger public key sizes relative to traditional schemes like RSA⁴³. Researchers are engaged in the exploration of techniques such as key compression and perturbation to address these challenges and bolster the security of multivariate cryptosystems against various attacks, including those potentially specific to quantum computing⁴³.

As the landscape of post-quantum cryptography evolves, the HFEv- cryptosystem and its variants, alongside other multivariate schemes, lattice-based systems, and error-correcting codes, are undergoing rigorous research and development. This endeavor aims to furnish robust security against the advent of quantum computing capabilities⁴³. The concerted efforts of organizations such as NIST towards the establishment of standards for post-quantum cryptography underscore the critical role of schemes like HFEv- in safeguarding digital communications within the quantum era⁴³.

Source Links

1. Comprehensive Guide to Post-Quantum Cryptography: Types and Applications – https://pqabelian.medium.com/comprehensive-guide-to-post-quantum-cryptography-types-and-applications-32dabd971c84
2. PDF – https://classic.mceliece.org/mceliece-security-20221023.pdf
3. PDF – https://classic.mceliece.org/mceliece-impl-20221023.pdf
4. What is Code-based Cryptography? – https://utimaco.com/service/knowledge-base/post-quantum-cryptography/what-code-based-cryptography
5. Code-based Cryptography: Lecture Notes – https://hal.science/hal-04311471v1/document
6. Code-based Cryptography – https://www.cbcrypto.org/cbcrypto.html
7. Code-based cryptography – (Quantum Computing) – Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable – https://fiveable.me/key-terms/quantum-computing/code-based-cryptography
8. PDF – https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/16df48d1-bc35-4fb2-86a9-f995f69c159c/download
9. Goppa Codes and Their Use in the McEliece Cryptosystems – https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1846&context=honors_capstone
10. PDF – https://iacr.org/archive/asiacrypt2020/12491193/12491193.pdf
11. PDF – https://pkic.org/events/2023/pqc-conference-amsterdam-nl/pkic-pqcc_simona-samardjiska_radboud-university_code-based-cryptography.pdf
12. PDF – https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1180.pdf
13. Post-quantum cryptography: Code-based cryptography – https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/post-quantum-cryptography-code-based-cryptography
14. Code-based cryptography – (Coding Theory) – Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable – https://fiveable.me/key-terms/coding-theory/code-based-cryptography
15. Code-based cryptography – https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-88702-7_4
16. PDF – https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.12754
17. McEliece cryptosystem – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEliece_cryptosystem
18. [PDF] Code based Cryptography: Classic McEliece | Semantic Scholar – https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Code-based-Cryptography:-Classic-McEliece-Singh/09a4bdf55d0ca5046a2cb868ef74dfb1a021a28d
19. PDF – https://bikesuite.org/files/BIKE.pdf
20. A lean BIKE KEM design for ephemeral key agreement – https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/Events/2024/fifth-pqc-standardization-conference/documents/papers/a-lean-bike-kem.pdf
21. Structural analysis of code-based algorithms of the NIST post-quantum call – https://academic.oup.com/jigpal/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jigpal/jzae071/7686751
22. High-Speed Hardware Architectures and Fair FPGA Benchmarking – https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Events/third-pqc-standardization-conference/documents/accepted-papers/gaj-high-speed-hardware-gmu-pqc2021.pdf
23. Efficient isochronous fixed-weight sampling with applications to NTRU – https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/548.pdf
24. PDF – https://www.ledacrypt.org/documents/LEDAcrypt_spec_2_5.pdf
25. PDF – https://www.ledacrypt.org/documents/LEDAcrypt_v3.pdf
26. PDF – http://quantumca.org/RLCEspec.pdf
27. Post-quantum cryptography – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography
28. Rank based Cryptography: a credible post-quantum alternative to classical crypto – https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/events/workshop-on-cybersecurity-in-a-post-quantum-world/documents/papers/session1-gaborit-paper.pdf
29. Rank based cryptography : a credible post-quantum alternative to classical cryptography – https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/events/workshop-on-cybersecurity-in-a-post-quantum-world/documents/presentations/session1-gaborit-philippe.pdf
30. BIKE – https://openquantumsafe.org/liboqs/algorithms/kem/bike.html
31. Quantum-safe cryptography | IBM Quantum Learning – https://learning.quantum.ibm.com/course/practical-introduction-to-quantum-safe-cryptography/quantum-safe-cryptography
32. PQC- Lattices, Codes, and Hashes – https://medium.com/@aditi.rupade/pqc-lattices-codes-and-hashes-1d0a7965c4ae
33. Post-Quantum and Code-Based Cryptography—Some Prospective Research Directions – https://www.mdpi.com/2410-387X/5/4/38
34. Post Quantum Cryptography – https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/post-quantum-cryptography
35. WAVE – A Code-based Hash and Sign Signature Scheme – https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/documents/pqc-seminars/presentations/9-wave-debris-alazard-11072023.pdf
36. WAVE Specification Document – https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/Projects/pqc-dig-sig/documents/round-1/spec-files/wave-spec-web.pdf
37. Wave: A New Code-Based Signature Scheme – https://inria.hal.science/hal-01958175/document
38. QC-MDPC-McEliece: A public-key code-based encryption scheme – https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/events/workshop-on-cybersecurity-in-a-post-quantum-world/documents/presentations/session1-tillich-jean-pierre.pdf
39. Optimized-implementation-of-QC-MDPC-code-based-cryptography – https://github.com/antoniocgj/Optimized-implementation-of-QC-MDPC-code-based-cryptography
40. PDF – https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/093.pdf
41. PDF – https://www.iacr.org/archive/asiacrypt2015/94520213/94520213.pdf
42. Gui: Revisiting Multivariate Digital Signature Schemes based on – https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/events/workshop-on-cybersecurity-in-a-post-quantum-world/documents/papers/session1-ding-paper.pdf
43. No title found – https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202409.1874/v1