Formal Definitions
Security in terms of indistinguishability has many definitions, depending on assumptions made about the capabilities of the attacker. It is normally presented as a game, where the cryptosystem is considered secure if no adversary can win the game with significantly greater probability than an adversary who must guess randomly. The most common definitions used in cryptography are indistinguishability under chosen plaintext attack (abbreviated IND-CPA), indistinguishability under (non-adaptive) chosen ciphertext attack (IND-CCA), and indistinguishability under adaptive chosen ciphertext attack (IND-CCA2). Security under either of the latter definition implies security under the previous ones: a scheme which is IND-CCA secure is also IND-CPA secure, and a scheme which is IND-CCA2 secure is both IND-CCA and IND-CPA secure. Thus, IND-CCA2 is the strongest of the three definitions of security.
Read more about this topic: Ciphertext Indistinguishability
Famous quotes containing the words formal and/or definitions:
“It is in the nature of allegory, as opposed to symbolism, to beg the question of absolute reality. The allegorist avails himself of a formal correspondence between “ideas” and “things,” both of which he assumes as given; he need not inquire whether either sphere is “real” or whether, in the final analysis, reality consists in their interaction.”
—Charles, Jr. Feidelson, U.S. educator, critic. Symbolism and American Literature, ch. 1, University of Chicago Press (1953)
“The loosening, for some people, of rigid role definitions for men and women has shown that dads can be great at calming babies—if they take the time and make the effort to learn how. It’s that time and effort that not only teaches the dad how to calm the babies, but also turns him into a parent, just as the time and effort the mother puts into the babies turns her into a parent.”
—Pamela Patrick Novotny (20th century)