[PRE REVIEW]: Hypercomplex: abstract & fast header-only C++ template library for lattice-based cryptosystems in high-dimensional algebras

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@AngryMaciek<!--end-author-handle-- (Maciej Bak) Repository: https://github.com/AngryMaciek/hypercomplex Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v2.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@olexandr-konovalov<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @vissarion, @ludopulles Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0443478cee3a845536aed90edd4f3517"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0443478cee3a845536aed90edd4f3517/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0443478cee3a845536aed90edd4f3517/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0443478cee3a845536aed90edd4f3517)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @AngryMaciek. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@AngryMaciek if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.11 s (243.4 files/s, 230098.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C/C++ Header                     3           3307           1713          14776
C++                              4            134            246           3293
Markdown                         8             98              0            327
YAML                             7             74              0            273
TeX                              1             11              0            120
XML                              1              2              4            101
make                             1             18             32             40
HTML                             1              0              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            26           3644           1995          18936
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1210

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-7643-7791-5_2 may be a valid DOI for title: Quaternions
- 10.1007/978-1-4419-7719-9_6 may be a valid DOI for title: Boost C++ libraries
- 10.1007/978-981-33-6781-4_6 may be a valid DOI for title: Generalization of Lattice-Based Cryptography on Hypercomplex Algebras
- 10.1007/bfb0054868 may be a valid DOI for title: NTRU: A ring-based public key cryptosystem
- 10.1109/cads.2010.5623536 may be a valid DOI for title: OTRU: A non-associative and high speed public key cryptosystem

INVALID DOIs

- None

[danielskatz]

👋 @AngryMaciek - note that your paper does not compile. Please follow the example paper and note that you can click on the error above to find out more about it. In this case, it appears to me that you are missing affiliation data in the header.

In addition, you could work on the possibly missing DOIs that editorialbot suggests, but note that some may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf after making changes to the .md file or when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[danielskatz]

👋 @olexandr-konovalov - would you be willing to edit this submission for JOSS? I know it may be a bit outside of your area, but I think you will be able to handle it.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot invite @olexandr-konovalov as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[AngryMaciek]

Hi @danielskatz : strange, the CI Action with paper draft compilation works fine in the repo... Well, I am not currently affiliated with any institution and I highly doubt that the previous ones would allow me to use their for a personal project. Is there any solution you would suggest in this situation?

[danielskatz]

@AngryMaciek - as the example paper shows for author 3, please use "Independent Researcher, Country" in this case

[olexandr-konovalov]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @olexandr-konovalov is now the editor

[olexandr-konovalov]

@danielskatz @AngryMaciek thanks - while the PDF can't be seen now, I had a look at its markdown source, and will be happy to handle it!

[olexandr-konovalov]

@AngryMaciek thank you for this submission! Please fix the problems with the PDF version, then I will be able to start looking for the reviewers.

[AngryMaciek]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[AngryMaciek]

Hi @olexandr-konovalov,

Thank you for agreeing to oversee this process.

The story behind this work is that I have already submitted once to JOSS, here is the revision (so this is a re-submission now). At that point in time I had a pretty solid framework for operations on hypercomplex numbers. However, that was too abstract and I could not provide a concrete example of a use case. I have withdrawn the submission and went back to my basement to study cryptography for three years. Now I come back with a library, which actually core feature is the support for cryptosystems based on polynomial quotient rings (like NTRU) but generalised on higher dimensions. Up to my knowledge such systems are not available yet, moreover - here we have a working implementation.

As we already went through the revisions once I have elevated the repository to a high standard in terms of scientific software engineering. What I am not 100% certain about is the novel cryptographic part. That is: the ecnryption/decryption procedures work, one may check in the unit test CI workflow (GitHub Actions). However, when it comes to the revision - I would kindly ask for mathematicians to double-check every character in the Cryptographic Application section; it may require some polish 😅

Kind Regards, Maciek

[olexandr-konovalov]

Hi @AngryMaciek, thank you for the background details!

Do you have any suggestions for potential reviewers? If so, you can mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @, please).

In addition, you can check our list of potential reviewers. They have already agreed to review for JOSS, and some of them may be suitable for your submission (please start the search from the bottom of the list).

[AngryMaciek]

Just looking through the spreadsheet (I don't know anyone):

• ceb8
• gcdeshpande
• vissarion
• kpeeters

[olexandr-konovalov]

@ceb8 and @kpeeters - would one or both of you be able to review this submission for JOSS, please?

If not, could you possibly recommend someone whom we may approach regarding this?

[olexandr-konovalov]

@vissarion @ceb8 @malb - would one or some of you be able to review this submission for JOSS, please? If not, could you possibly recommend someone whom we may approach regarding this?

[olexandr-konovalov]

@wbhart @fredrik-johansson - would one or some of you be able to review this submission for JOSS, please? If not, could you possibly recommend someone whom we may approach regarding this?

[malb]

@vissarion @ceb8 @malb - would one or some of you be able to review this submission for JOSS, please? If not, could you possibly recommend someone whom we may approach regarding this?

Sorry, not me.

[vissarion]

@vissarion @ceb8 @malb - would one or some of you be able to review this submission for JOSS, please? If not, could you possibly recommend someone whom we may approach regarding this?

I agree to review this.

[olexandr-konovalov]

@editorialbot add @vissarion as reviewer

@vissarion thank you very much!

[editorialbot]

@vissarion added to the reviewers list!

[olexandr-konovalov]

Hi @defeo, is there a chance that you would be able to review this submission for JOSS, please? If not, could you possibly recommend someone whom we may approach regarding this?

[defeo]

Oh, hi @olexandr-konovalov. Sorry, I'm currently swamped with reviews for Crypto. Maybe @gregorseiler or @lducas have time to review this paper?

[olexandr-konovalov]

Thank you @defeo! Hi @gregorseiler and @lducas - would one (or both) of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? If you haven't reviewed for JOSS before, here we have the Reviewer Guidelines.

[AngryMaciek]

Maybe ping again(?)

[olexandr-konovalov]

@ludopulles I have heard from @lducas that you might be willing to review this submission for JOSS - would you be happy to do this?

[ludopulles]

Yes, I will review this.

[olexandr-konovalov]

@editorialbot add @ludopulles as reviewer

@ludopulles many thanks!

[editorialbot]

@ludopulles added to the reviewers list!

[olexandr-konovalov]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5272.

[olexandr-konovalov]

@vissarion and @ludopulles - thanks again for agreeing to review this paper. The review is now started in #5272, please see further instructions there.