Improved analysis of Kannan's shortest lattice vector algorithm

100Citations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The security of lattice-based cryptosystems such as NTRU, GGH and Ajtai-Dwork essentially relies upon the intractability of computing a shortest non-zero lattice vector and a closest lattice vector to a given target vector in high dimensions. The best algorithms for these tasks are due to Kannan, and, though remarkably simple, their complexity estimates have not been improved since over twenty years. Kannan's algorithm for solving the shortest vector problem (SVP) is in particular crucial in Schnorr's celebrated block reduction algorithm, on which rely the best known generic attacks against the lattice-based encryption schemes mentioned above. In this paper we improve the complexity upper-bounds of Kannan's algorithms. The analysis provides new insight on the practical cost of solving SVP, and helps progressing towards providing meaningful key-sizes. © International Association for Cryptologic Research 2007.

References Powered by Scopus

Factoring polynomials with rational coefficients

3146Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

NTRU: A ring-based public key cryptosystem

1363Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Closest point search in lattices

1157Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

BKZ 2.0: Better lattice security estimates

424Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Mathematics of public key cryptography

258Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Lattice enumeration using extreme pruning

194Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hanrot, G., & Stehlé, D. (2007). Improved analysis of Kannan’s shortest lattice vector algorithm. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 4622 LNCS, pp. 170–186). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74143-5_10

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 23

62%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

16%

Researcher 5

14%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

8%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 25

74%

Engineering 4

12%

Physics and Astronomy 3

9%

Mathematics 2

6%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free