Anthropic의 새로운 암호 해독 연구 결과에 대한 분석

Yesterday Anthropic published two new cryptanalysis results , both outputs of Claude Mythos, their (still) unreleased advanced model. The first of these results attacks a signature scheme called HAWK, while the second is an improved attack against reduced-round AES. Anthropic also released a blog post describing the research process that produced these results. A few people online have asked me what this all means. While I'm not sure I have all the answers, I figured it wouldn't hurt to write a bit about my current understanding. These are only my thoughts and other folks will probably differ (including domain experts in the two areas at issue) so take them for what they are. The two new results cover two very different areas, and are overall just very different in quality. Before we get to broad statements about the world, and whether you should sell all your cryptocurrency, let's take a minute to talk about the substance. Hawk. The first is a new key recovery algorithm against the non-standard signature scheme HAWK . HAWK is a proposed post-quantum-safe signature scheme that's based on the module Lattice Isomorphism Problem (module-LIP). For a brief Claude-written summary of the result itself, see here . There are five things you need to know about this result: HAWK is not a deployed or standards-adopted algorithm, it's a proposed algorithm . It is related to the Falcon signature scheme , which is being standardized, but the attack does not transfer to that setting (which is based on a different hard problem.) However, HAWK was somewhat far along in the process of being evaluated for a future standard. The attack does not break "real deployed" HAWK in the sci-fi sense. The resulting attack is still exponential time, but roughly halves the number of "bits" of security in the algorithm. That means it could theoretically be fixed by doubling key sizes. The downside is that this makes the scheme less efficient, and, since HAWK is entirely justified by being more efficient than alternatives, that makes the existence of the scheme much harder to justify. The attack produced real code that runs in a few hours of wall-clock time against a weakened "challenge instance" of HAWK that the authors provided for this purpose . While this instance doesn't use the parameters that were proposed for real deployment, it does demonstrate the cryptanalytic weakness well enough. What's particularly concerning (and so especially ripe for AI) is that the attack does not invent fundamentally new mathematics. It simply extends a bunch of tools that were lying around and well-known, and gets a good result. This last part is important. I asked Claude for its thoughts, and it doesn't mince words: "what makes this genuinely interesting — and, frankly, a little embarrassing for the field — is that none of the ingredients are exotic." The TL;DR is that someone just did a much more thorough job applying all of our known tools. In short: the sort of things that attack AIs are wonderful at. AES. The second result is a new attack on reduced-round AES. This result initially sounds more exciting, since most people hear "attack on AES" and panic. However, this is also the result that's much, much less interesting. Most folks reading this blog will know that AES is a standard block cipher that's used just about everywhere. It's been a standard since 2001, and the deployed version has so far withstood everything significant that's been thrown at it: that includes a substantial amount of non-public testing performed by the NSA . Since attacking full ciphers is very difficult, it's standard for cryptanalysts to do their work against weakened, or "reduced-round" versions of a cipher. The full AES cipher runs for either 10, 12 or 14 rounds depending on key size. The new Anthropic result attacks a weaker 7-round variant of the cipher. Critically, attacks against 7-round AES are not new: there have been several of these. In fact, this new Anthropic result is a modest constant-factor improvement on previous work from back in 2013 . To give you a sense of how far these attacks are from really "breaking" AES, I'd note the headline results: the new attack requires 2 89 cipher operations and, even worse, this work is only possible after you've somehow convinced a real encryptor to produce 2 105 encryptions of chosen plaintexts under their secret key! Neither of these things is remotely practical in the real world. And while the new result modestly speeds up this attack over the previous result, it's not even clear how "real" the speedup in this result is: since the actual attack requires 2 89 operations and can't really be "run", what we have is an on-paper analysis that may or may not yield an actual runtime improvement if all details are actually worked out. This does not make the result bad! In fact it's still interesting from a techniques point of view. But it is very much a small increment in our knowledge, not a practical new attack like the HAWK work. So TL;DR: no wildly new mathematical results here. But still, real cryptanalytic progress of the sort that make scientists excited. And certainly the HAWK result is very meaningful, since that scheme had a real chance at standardization and is now (very likely) not going to be. Now let's talk about how we got here, and what it all means. How did Anthropic get these results? The Anthropic post is detailed about what they did, and honestly, it's kind of hilarious. No, the team at Anthropic was not a large set of domain experts that carefully tuned their AI to find novel results. They appear to have just told it to get some results and then strapped its nose to the grindstone until it found some. If you doubt me, here are some examples of the prompts they used (cited from their post): So yes, the AIs are getting pretty good. In short: they are now capable of understanding existing cryptanalysis results, synthesizing them into real new attacks, and even extending them. They can apparently do this without detailed human intervention. This isn't yet super-intelligent cryptanalysis. but it's pretty damn impressive. Verifiability is now the bottleneck As a researcher I've also been spending a lot of time with models, talking through various ideas. I don't think I will surprise anyone when I say that they're obviously getting better, even over the course of the past few months. While I don't have Mythos and $100k to spend, I have been able to query at least one new advanced unreleased model, and I also have received some surprising new "results" to questions that I've been interested in for a few years. Which brings me to the real problem: just because a model spits out an apparent new result, this does not mean the result is real . Even if models are good at producing real results, they're much better at producing results that look real but are misleading. This can be enormously frustrating, and often means that human attention is more necessary than ever. There are exceptions to this rule: for "full" attacks like HAWK, where the attack runs in a few hours (against a weaker version of the scheme), verification is extremely easy. You can just send over the code and let anyone check that it recovers keys and signs real chosen messages. For more subtle speedup attacks like the AES result, checking validity is not so easy. Here the approach is more specific: formally-verifiable Lean proofs can help here, but (even where these proofs are easy to make), such proofs are still highly sensitive to how you've formulated the theorem statement , and that often requires human experts to check. You'll probably notice that many of the exciting recent mathematical results have had this flavor: they either include a machine-checkable proof of a well-understood theorem, or (like the Jacobian conjecture) they involve finding a simple counterexample you can compute on. Alternatively, a bunch of experts spent a lot of time reviewing the result and were eventually convinced