Sealing the leak on classical NTRU signatures

Initial attempts to obtain lattice based signatures were closely related to reducing a vector modulo the fundamental parallelepiped of a secret basis (like GGH [9], or NTRUSign [12]). This approach leaked some information on the secret, namely the shape of the parallelepiped, which has been exploited on practical attacks [24]. NTRUSign was an extremely efficient scheme, and thus there has been a noticeable interest on developing countermeasures to the attacks, but with little success [6]. In [8] Gentry, Peikert and Vaikuntanathan proposed a randomized version of Babai’s nearest plane algorithm such that the distribution of a reduced vector modulo a secret parallelepiped only depended on the size of the base used. Using this algorithm and generating large, close to uniform, public keys they managed to get provably secure GGH-like lattice-based signatures. Recently, Stehlé and Steinfeld obtained a provably secure scheme very close to NTRUSign [26] (from a theoretical point of view). In this paper we present an alternative approach to seal the leak of NTRUSign. Instead of modifying the lattices and algorithms used, we do a classic leaky NTRUSign signature and hide it with gaussian noise using techniques present in Lyubashevky’s signatures. Our main contributions are thus a set of strong NTRUSign parameters, obtained by taking into account latest known attacks against the scheme, a statistical way to hide the leaky NTRU signature so that this particular instantiation of CVP-based signature scheme becomes zero-knowledge and secure against forgeries, based on the worst-case hardness of the O~(N1.5)-Shortest Independent Vector Problem over NTRU lattices. Finally, we give a set of concrete parameters to gauge the efficiency of the obtained signature scheme.

AITPM Email Newsletter Volume 0905, May 2009: Presidents Message

President’s Message Hello fellow AITPM members, We’ve been offered a lot of press lately about the Federal Government’s plan for the multibillion dollar rollout of its high speed broadband network, which at the moment is being rated to a speed of 100Mb/s. This seems fantastic in comparison to the not atypical 250 to 500kb/s that I receive on my metropolitan cable broadband, which incidentally my service provider rates at theoretical speeds of up to 8 Mb/s. I have no doubt that such a scheme will generate significant advantages to business and consumers. However, I also have some reservations. Only a few of years ago I marvelled at my first 256Mb USB stick, which cost my employer about $90. Last month I purchased a 16Gb stick with a free computer carry bag for $80, which on the back of my envelope has given me about 72 times the value of my first USB stick not including the carry bag! I am pretty sure the technology industry will find a way to eventually push a lot more than 100Mb/s down the optic fibre network just as they have done with pushing several Mb/s ADSL2 down antique copper wire. This makes me wonder about the general problem of inbuilt obsolescence of all things high-tech due to rapid advances in the tech industry. As a transport professional I then think to myself that our industry has been moving forward at somewhat of a slower pace. We certainly have had major milestones having significant impacts, such as the move from horse and cart to the self propelled motor vehicle, sealing and formal geometric design of roads, development of motorways, signalisation of intersections, coordination of networks, to simulation modelling for real time adaptive control (perhaps major change has been at a frequency of 30 years or so?). But now with ITS truly penetrating the transport market, largely thanks to the in-car GPS navigator, smart phone, e-toll and e-ticket, I believe that to avoid our own obsolescence we’re going to need to “plan for ITS” rather than just what we seem to have been doing up until now, that is, to get it out there. And we’ll likely need to do it at a faster pace. It will involve understanding how to data mine enormous data sets, better understanding the human/machine interface, keeping pace with automotive technology more closely, resolving the ethical and privacy chestnuts, and in the main actually planning for ITS to make peoples’ lives easier rather than harder. And in amongst this we’ll need to keep pace with the types of technology advances similar to my USB stick example above. All the while we’ll be making a brand new set of friends in the disciplines that will morph into ITS along with us. Hopefully these will all be “good” problems for our profession to have. I should close in reminding everyone again that AITPM’s flagship event, the 2009 AITPM National Conference, Traffic Beyond Tomorrow, is being held in Adelaide from 5 to 7 August. www.aitpm.com has all of the details about how to register, sponsor a booth, session, etc. Best regards all, Jon Bunker

Pavement management: Capturing surface treatment effectiveness

Acquiring detailed knowledge of surface treatments effectiveness is required to improve performance-based decisions for allocating resources to preserve and maintain pavements on any road network. Measurement of treatment effectiveness is a complex task that requires historical records of treatments with observations of before and after performance trends. Lack of data is often an obstacle that impedes development and incorporation of surface maintenance treatments into pavement management. This paper analyzes the effect of surface treatments on asphalt paved arterial roads for several control sections of New Brunswick. The method uses a Transition Probability Matrix to capture main effects by mapping mean trends of surface improvement and pavement structure decay. It was found that surface treatments have an immediate effect reducing the rate of loss of structural capacity. Pavements with international roughness index (IRI) smaller than 1.4 m/km did not seem to benefit from surface treatments. Those with IRI higher than 1.66 m/km gained from 6 to 8 years of additional life. Reset value for surface treatments fall between 1.18 and 1.29 m/km. This paper aims to serve to practitioners seeking to capture and incorporate effectiveness of surface treatments (i.e., crack-sealing) into Pavement Management.