The security argument covers neither the specified function nor the submitted one
Security proof gap · Demonstrated · Cause: specification text
Property: the designers' security argument
Cost against claim: proof gap; no attack follows
The argument of §4.2 rests on combining a forward branch with its inverse. The specification's own Algorithm 2 is not an inverse of the forward round, and the transformation the official test vectors define is not the specified one either: MixColumns is applied un-inverted in the backward branch, a placement no reading of the text gives, and the round constants are RC[17..9] instead of the RC[0..8] of Algorithm 4. No reading among 589,824 tried reproduces the official data from the text.
| Parameter set | Claim | Attack cost | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| MasterCube-512, -768, -1024 | §4.2 security argument | none | Security proof gap |
Evidence
A model built from the specification agrees with the official test vectors only once those departures are applied; the inverse identity fails in both the specified and the submitted versions.
Cause in the specification: the attack also works on a model built from the specification alone.
Limits
No attack follows from this. It leaves the design without a valid security argument.
Credit
First public report: Cryptanalysts001 (ISCAS) (CryptHash forum, also ngcc.dev hash-17-2, 2026-09-22). Found independently by PQC-X.