> Now if I actually brought these questions to an interview the interviewee could ruin my day by asking "what's the runtime complexity?" This completely undermines the author's main point. Constraint solvers don't solve…
This is not quite true: the mathematical problems upon which they base their security, though related, have some important differences. Most significantly, the problem upon which this new implementation is based…
To build off of the comments below, this attack is foiled by the fact that one message can be encrypted to one of a large number of ciphertexts. As mentioned below, this is true for ElGamal. It is also true for all…
"If you need extra data to prove this "yes" in polynomial time, then the answer isn't a boolean anymore, but a boolean plus the extra data, so how can you still call that a yes/no problem?" You are combining two…
> Now if I actually brought these questions to an interview the interviewee could ruin my day by asking "what's the runtime complexity?" This completely undermines the author's main point. Constraint solvers don't solve…
This is not quite true: the mathematical problems upon which they base their security, though related, have some important differences. Most significantly, the problem upon which this new implementation is based…
To build off of the comments below, this attack is foiled by the fact that one message can be encrypted to one of a large number of ciphertexts. As mentioned below, this is true for ElGamal. It is also true for all…
"If you need extra data to prove this "yes" in polynomial time, then the answer isn't a boolean anymore, but a boolean plus the extra data, so how can you still call that a yes/no problem?" You are combining two…