We give a proof of a theorem on the common divisibility of polynomials and permuted polynomials (over GF(2)) by a polynomial g(x)

Le Dantec, Claude

McEliece, Robert J.

Piret, Philippe M.

English

Caltech Authors - Main

1206 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 47, NO. 3, MARCH 2001
Permutations Preserving Divisibility
Robert J. McEliece, Fellow, IEEE, Claude Le Dantec, Member, IEEE,
and Philippe M. Piret, Member, IEEE
Abstract—We give a proof of a theorem on the common divisibility of
polynomials and permuted polynomials (over GF (2)) by a polynomial
( ).
Index Terms—Divisibility, permuted polynomials, self-termination,
trellis, turbo codes.
I. INTRODUCTION
Let
g(x) = 1 +
m 1
i=0
gix
i + xm
be a fixed polynomial over GF (2) and let An(g) be the set of polyno-
mials
a(x) =
n 1
i=0
aix
i
of formal degree n  1 over GF (2) that are divisible by g(x). Let also
: Zn ! Zn: i! (i) be a permutation and, for any a(x) 2 An(g),
define
a(x) =
n 1
i=0
aix
(i): (1)
In [1], a theorem (which generalizes [2], [3]) is given without proof,
that characterizes those permutations  such that a(x) 2 An(g) for
all a(x) 2 An(g). In this correspondence, we give a proof of this
statement.
II. PERMUTATIONS AND DIVISIBILITY
For any g(x) with a nonzero constant term, it is well known that
there exists some N0(g) (= N0), such that g(x) divides xN  1 if and
only if N is a multiple of N0. Let us first assume that n is a multiple
of N0: n = MN0. We associate to any a(x) of formal degree n   1,
the two-variable polynomial
b(y; z) =
N  1
j=0
bj(y)zj
with
bj(y) =
M 1
i=0
aiN +jy
i:
Obviously, one has a(x) = b(xN ; x).
Manuscript received July 31, 2000; revised September 1, 2000.
R. J. McEliece is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91103 USA (e-mail: rjm@systems.cal-
tech.edu).
C. Le Dantec was with Canon CRF, F-35517, Cesson-Sévigné Cedex, France.
He is now with Vidon, Cesson-Sévigné, France.
P. M. Piret is with Canon CRF, F-35517, Cesson-Sévigné Cedex, France
(e-mail: piret@crf.canon.fr).
Communicated by J. Justessen, Associate Editor for Coding Theory.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0018-9448(01)01350-5.
Lemma 1: The polynomial a(x) is in An(g) if and only if g(x) is
a divisor of b(1; x).
Proof: b(1; x) is the residue of a(x) mod xN  1, and g(x) is
a factor of xN   1.
Lemma 2: If i  j mod N0, then any  that preserves An(g) (for
(1)) satisfies (i)  (j) mod N0.
Proof: xi + xj (resp., x(i) + x(j)) is divisible by g(x) if and
only if i  j (resp., (i)  (j)) modN0.
For j = 0; . . . ; N0   1, let j : i 7! j(i) be an arbitrary per-
mutation of the coefficients of bj(y) and for  = (0; . . . ; N  1),
denote by a(x) 7! a(x) the permutation of the coefficients of a(x) =
b(xN ; x) induced by the action of those N0 permutations j on the
corresponding N0 polynomials bj(y).
Lemma 3: Any such  preserves An(g):
a(x) 2 An(g)) a
(x) 2 An(g):
Proof: Check that such a  does not modify b(1; x) and apply
Lemma 1.
The set of all those  is a group (denoted by S).
Let : j 7! (j) be an arbitrary permutation of f0; . . . ; N0   1g
and let it permute the coefficients bj(y) of b(y; z):
b(y; z) 7! b(y; z) =
j
b(j)(y)zj :
Denote by a(x) 7! a(x) the permutation of the coefficients of a(x) =
b(xN ; x) induced by this , and by Aut (g; N0) the automorphism
(permutation) group of the binary cyclic codeC of lengthN0 generated
by g(x).
Lemma 4: Any such  preservesAn(g) if and only if it is an element
of Aut (g; N0).
Proof: By definition, if  =2 Aut (g; N0), there exists a polyno-
mial a(x) of degree  N0   1 that is a multiple of g(x) while a(x)
is not a multiple of g(x). Conversely, any  2 Aut (g; N0) preserves
the divisibility of b(1; x) by g(x). Then apply Lemma 1.
In the sequel, the group Aut (g; N0) is denoted by R.
As an easy consequence, one obtains the following theorem.
Theorem 5: Any permutation  of f0; . . . ; n   1g leaves
An(g) invariant if and only if it can be written as a finite product
 = 112233   , where all s are in S and all r are in R.
It is obvious that R \ S only contains the identity and that for any
(; ) there is some (0; 0) such that a(x) = a  (x). Hence any
 in Theorem 5 may be written in a unique way as  =  (or as
 = 00). The set of those products  =  is a group which is often
called the semidirect product of R and S. See [4, pp. 20-25] for further
comments.
In the more general case, where n is not a multiple of N0 (n =
MN0 + r with 1  r  N0   1), the first r polynomials bj(y)
have formal degree M and the last N0   r ones have formal degree
M   1. Define then Sr as the set of all  = (0; . . . ; N  1) where,
for j  r   1, j acts on polynomials of degree M , and for j 
r, j acts on polynomials of degree M   1. Define also Rr as the
subset of the elements of Aut (g; N0) that preserve (as a set) the r
first components of C . For example, with g(x) = 1 + x2 + x3 and
r = 5, the permutations (04)(12) and (0421)(56) are in the subset R5
of R, while (051)(324) is in R but not in R5. The detailed proof of the
following corollary is omitted.
0018–9448/01$10.00 © 2001 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 47, NO. 3, MARCH 2001 1207
Corollary 6: For n=MN+r, any permutation  of f0; . . . ; n 1g
leaves An(g) invariant if and only if it can be written as =  with
 2 Sr and  2Rr .
III. APPLICATION TO TURBO CODES
Theorem 5 and Corollary 6 characterize which turbo code inter-
leavers are spontaneously “self-terminating,” (see also [6]). Some of
them seem to be very good [5] but it is not yet clear whether this self-ter-
minating property does imply some loss in the performances at high
signal-to-noise ratio.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
McEliece’s contribution to this correspondence was performed at the
Sony Corporation in Tokyo, Japan, while he was a holder of a Sony Sab-
batical Chair. Thanks are due to the referees for their useful comments,
and the suggestion to include Corollary 6 in the correspondence.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Hattori, J. Murayama, and R. J. McEliece, “Pseudorandom and self-
terminating interleavers for turbo codes,” presented at the Winter 1998
Information Theory Workshop, San Diego, CA, Feb. 1998.
[2] A. S. Barbulescu and S. S. Pietrobon, “Terminating the trellis of turbo
codes in the same state,” Electron. Lett., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 22–23, Jan.
1995.
[3] W. J. Blackert, E. K. Hall, and S. G. Wilson, “Turbo code termination and
interleaver conditions,” Electron. Lett., vol. 31, no. 24, pp. 2082–2084,
Nov. 1995.
[4] J. L. Alperin and R. B. Bell, Groups and Representations. New York:
Springe-Verlag, 1995.
[5] C. Le Dantec and P. Piret, “Algebraic and combinatorial methods pro-
ducing good interleavers,” in Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Turbo Codes and Re-
lated Topics, Brest, France, Sept. 2000.
[6] M. van Dijk, S. Egner, R. Motwani, and A. Koppelaer, “Simultaneous
zero-tailing of parallel convolutional codes,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp.
Information Theory, Sorrento, Italy, June 2000.
Weak Keys in the McEliece Public-Key Cryptosystem
Pierre Loidreau and Nicolas Sendrier, Member, IEEE
Abstract—We show that it is possible to know whether the secret Goppa
code of an instance of the McEliece public-key cryptosystem was chosen
with a binary generator polynomial. Furthermore, whenever such a weak
key is used, we present an attack which can be completed, for codes of
length 1024 and dimension 524, with a large, but feasible amount of com-
putation.
Index Terms—Automorphism group of a code, Goppa codes, McEliece
cryptosystem, support splitting algorithm.
I. INTRODUCTION
In this correspondence, we consider the security of the McEliece
public-key cryptosystem [1]. In this system, the public key is a gen-
erator matrix of a linear code. The encryption consists in choosing a
codeword in this code to which an error vector of a given weight is
added. The decryption is the decoding of these errors. The trap is the
knowledge of a decoder for the public code. The security of the cryp-
tosystem lies in the following two assumptions:
• the parameters of the public code are large enough to avoid de-
coding by a general purpose decoder;
• it is difficult to build a fast (polynomial-time) decoder from the
knowledge of the public code alone.
The issues regarding the first assumption were investigated at length
in [2]–[4]. Here we deal with attacks related to the second assumption.
In the original construction of the McEliece system, the secret code  
is picked in a family of binary Goppa codes of length n = 2m and
error-correcting capability t where m = 10 and t = 50. The public
code is obtained by permuting the coordinates of  .
The support splitting algorithm [5] allows the computation of the
permutation between two equivalent binary linear codes. Hence, this
algorithm can be used to derive an attack by enumerating all the Goppa
codes with suitable parameters. Because of the huge number of Goppa
codes, this attack remains unrealistic (for McEliece parameters it can
be roughly estimated at 10130 years on a workstation). However, sub-
families of Goppa codes can be recognized—the weak keys—thanks to
their particular structure. Namely, by applying the support splitting al-
gorithm to Goppa codes with a binary generator polynomial one detects
their nontrivial automorphism group. This allows an attack by enumer-
ating the Goppa codes with such a property. Once again, this attack re-
mains unfeasible since it would require an unreasonable computation
time (about 105 years on a workstation). Still, there is a way to greatly
reduce its complexity by constructing the much shorter (length about
n=m) projected idempotent subcode. We present a nontrivial lower
bound for this subcode. From this bound we deduce the nontriviality
of the code whenever the generator polynomial is binary. Finally, we
show how to modify the attack by using the properties of the projected
idempotent subcode. With half size parameters (m = 9, t = 28) our
implementation of the attack ran 15 min on a standard workstation. For
Manuscript received April 16, 1999; revised January 20, 2000. The material in
this correspondence was presented in part at the IEEE International Symposium
in Information Theory, Cambridge, MA, August 1998.
The authors are with Project CODES, INRIA Rocquencourt, Domaine
de Voluceau, B.P. 105, 78 153 Le Chesnay CEDEX, France (e-mail: Pierre.
Loidreau@inria.fr; Nicolas.Sendrier@inria.fr).
Communicated by R. M. Roth, Associate Editor for Coding Theory.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0018-9448(01)01517-6.
0018–9448/01$10.00 © 2001 IEEE


Permutations preserving divisibility

Algebraic and combinatorial methods producing good interleavers,” in

Groups and Representations.

Pseudorandom and selfterminating interleavers for turbo codes,” presented at the Winter

Terminating the trellis of turbo codes in the same state,”

Turbo code termination and interleaver conditions,”

https://authors.library.caltech.edu/1284/1/MCEieeetit01.pdf

Permutations preserving divisibility

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Caltech Authors - Main