Time Space Tradeoffs for Attacks against One-Way Functions and PRGs

  • Anindya De
  • Luca Trevisan
  • Madhur Tulsiani
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6223)


We study time space tradeoffs in the complexity of attacks against one-way functions and pseudorandom generators.

Fiat and Naor [7] show that for every function f: [N]→[N], there is an algorithm that inverts f everywhere using (ignoring lower order factors) time, space and advice at most N 3/4.

We show that an algorithm using time, space and advice at most
$$ \max \{ \epsilon^{\frac 54} N^{\frac 34} \ , \ \sqrt{\epsilon N} \} $$
exists that inverts f on at least an ε fraction of inputs. A lower bound of \(\tilde \Omega(\sqrt { \epsilon N })\) also holds, making our result tight in the “low end” of \(\epsilon \leq \sqrt[3]{\frac{1}{N}}\).

(Both the results of Fiat and Naor and ours are formulated as more general trade-offs between the time and the space and advice length of the algorithm. The results quoted above correspond to the interesting special case in which time equals space and advice length.)

We also show that for every length-increasing generator G:[N] →[2N] there is a algorithm that achieves distinguishing probability ε between the output of G and the uniform distribution and that can be implemented in polynomial (in logN) time and with advice and space O(ε 2 ·NlogN). We prove a lower bound of S·T ≥ Ω(ε 2 N) where T is the time used by the algorithm and S is the amount of advice. This lower bound applies even when the distinguisher has oracle access to G.

We prove stronger lower bounds in the common random string model, for families of one-way permutations and of pseudorandom generators.


One-way functions pseudorandom generators random permutations time-space tradeoffs 


  1. 1.
    Aaronson, S.: Lower bounds for local search by quantum arguments. SIAM Journal of Computing 35(4), 804–824 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alon, N., Goldreich, O., Håstad, J., Peralta, R.: Simple constructions of almost k-wise independent random variables. Random Structures and Algorithms 3(3), 289–304 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andreev, A.E., Clementi, A.E.F., Rolim, J.D.P.: Optimal bounds for the approximation of boolean functions and some applications. Theoretical Computer Science 180, 243–268 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barkan, E., Biham, E., Shamir, A.: Rigorous bounds on cryptanalytic time/memory tradeoffs. In: Dwork, C. (ed.) CRYPTO 2006. LNCS, vol. 4117, pp. 1–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bennett, C., Bernstein, E., Brassard, G., Vazirani, U.: Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing. SIAM Journal on Computing 26(5), 1510–1523 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Capalbo, M.R., Reingold, O., Vadhan, S.P., Wigderson, A.: Randomness conductors and constant-degree lossless expanders. In: Proceedings of the 34th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 659–668 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fiat, A., Naor, M.: Rigorous time/space trade-offs for inverting functions. SIAM Journal on Computing 29(3), 790–803 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gennaro, R., Trevisan, L.: Lower bounds on the efficiency of generic cryptographic constructions. In: Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 305–313 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldreich, O., Levin, L.: A hard-core predicate for all one-way functions. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 25–32 (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Golynski, A.: Cell probe lower bounds for succinct data structures. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 625–634 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grover, L.: A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 212–219 (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hellman, M.: A cryptanalytic time-memory trade-off. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 26(4), 401–406 (1980)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joux, A., Lucks, S.: Improved generic algorithms for 3-collisions. In: Matsui, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5912, pp. 347–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ostlin, A., Pagh, R.: Uniform hashing in constant time and linear space. In: Proceedings of the 35th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 622–628 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siegel, A.: On universal classes of extremely random constant-time hash functions. SIAM Journal of Computing 33(3), 505–543 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Oorschot, P.C., Wiener, M.J.: Parallel Collision Search with Cryptanalytic Applications. Journal of Cryptology 12, 1–28 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wee, H.: On obfuscating point functions. In: Proceedings of the 37th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 523–532 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yao, A.: Coherent functions and program checkers. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 84–94 (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anindya De
    • 1
  • Luca Trevisan
    • 2
  • Madhur Tulsiani
    • 3
  1. 1.University of California at Berkeley 
  2. 2.University of California at Berkeley and Stanford University 
  3. 3.Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton 

Personalised recommendations