Adaptive and Concurrent Secure Computation from New Notions of Non-Malleability

We present a unified framework for obtaining general secure computation that achieves adaptive- Universally Composable (UC)-security. Our framework captures essentially all previous results on adaptive concurrent secure computation, both in relaxed models (e.g., quasi-polynomial time simulation), as well as trusted setup models (e.g., the CRS model, the imperfect CRS model). This provides conceptual simplicity and insight into what is required for adaptive and concurrent security, as well as yielding improvements to set-up assumptions and/or computational assumptions. Moreover, using our framework we provide first constructions of concurrent secure computation protocols that are adaptively secure in the timing model, and in the non-uniform simulation model. Conceptually, our framework can be viewed as an adaptive analogue to the recent work of Lin, Pass and Venkitasubramaniam [STOC `09], who considered only non-adaptive adversaries. Their main insight was that stand-alone non-malleability was sufficient for UC-security. A main conceptual contribution of this work is, quite surprisingly, that it is indeed the case even when considering adaptive security. A key element in our construction is a commitment scheme that satisfies a new notion of non-malleability. The notion of concurrent equivocal non-malleable commitments, intuitively, guarantees that even when a man-in-the-middle adversary observes concurrent equivocal commitments and decommitments, the binding property of the commitments continues to hold for commitments made by the adversary. This notion is stronger than standard notions of concurrent non-malleable commitments which either consider only specific commits (e.g., statistically-binding) or specific scenarios (e.g., the commitment phase and the decommitment phase are executed in a non-overlapping manner). Previously, commitments that satisfy our definition, have been constructed in setup models, but either require existence of stronger encryption schemes such as CCA-secure encryption or require independent ``trapdoors\u27\u27 provided by the setup for every pair of parties to ensure non-malleability. We here provide a construction that eliminates these requirements and require only a single trapdoor

Improved Black-Box Constructions of Composable Secure Computation

We close the gap between black-box and non-black-box constructions of $\mathit{composable}$ secure multiparty computation in the plain model under the $\mathit{minimal}$ assumption of semi-honest oblivious transfer. The notion of protocol composition we target is $\mathit{angel\text{-}based}$ security, or more precisely, security with super-polynomial helpers. In this notion, both the simulator and the adversary are given access to an oracle called an $\mathit{angel}$ that can perform some predefined super-polynomial time task. Angel-based security maintains the attractive properties of the universal composition framework while providing meaningful security guarantees in complex environments without having to trust anyone. Angel-based security can be achieved using non-black-box constructions in $\max(R_{\mathsf{OT}},\widetilde{O}(\log n))$ rounds where $R_{\mathsf{OT}}$ is the round-complexity of the semi-honest oblivious transfer. However, currently, the best known $\mathit{black\text{-}box}$ constructions under the same assumption require $\max(R_{\mathsf{OT}},\widetilde{O}(\log^2 n))$ rounds. If $R_{\mathsf{OT}}$ is a constant, the gap between non-black-box and black-box constructions can be a multiplicative factor $\log n$. We close this gap by presenting a $\max(R_{\mathsf{OT}},\widetilde{O}(\log n))$-round black-box construction. We achieve this result by constructing constant-round 1-1 CCA-secure commitments assuming only black-box access to one-way functions

Concurrent Knowledge-Extraction in the Public-Key Model

Knowledge extraction is a fundamental notion, modelling machine possession of values (witnesses) in a computational complexity sense. The notion provides an essential tool for cryptographic protocol design and analysis, enabling one to argue about the internal state of protocol players without ever looking at this supposedly secret state. However, when transactions are concurrent (e.g., over the Internet) with players possessing public-keys (as is common in cryptography), assuring that entities ``know'' what they claim to know, where adversaries may be well coordinated across different transactions, turns out to be much more subtle and in need of re-examination. Here, we investigate how to formally treat knowledge possession by parties (with registered public-keys) interacting over the Internet. Stated more technically, we look into the relative power of the notion of ``concurrent knowledge-extraction'' (CKE) in the concurrent zero-knowledge (CZK) bare public-key (BPK) model.Comment: 38 pages, 4 figure

Concurrent Non-Malleable Commitments (and More) in 3 Rounds

The round complexity of commitment schemes secure against man-in-the-middle attacks has been the focus of extensive research for about 25 years. The recent breakthrough of Goyal et al. [22] showed that 3 rounds are sufficient for (one-left, one-right) non-malleable commitments. This result matches a lower bound of [41]. The state of affairs leaves still open the intriguing problem of constructing 3-round concurrent non-malleable commitment schemes. In this paper we solve the above open problem by showing how to transform any 3-round (one-left one-right) non-malleable commitment scheme (with some extractability property) in a 3-round concurrent nonmalleable commitment scheme. Our transform makes use of complexity leveraging and when instantiated with the construction of [22] gives a 3-round concurrent non-malleable commitment scheme from one-way permutations secure w.r.t. subexponential-time adversaries. We also show a 3-round arguments of knowledge and a 3-round identification scheme secure against concurrent man-in-the-middle attacks

New-Age Cryptography

We introduce new and general complexity theoretic hardness assumptions. These assumptions abstract out concrete properties of a random oracle and are significantly stronger than traditional cryptographic hardness assumptions; however, assuming their validity we can resolve a number of longstandingopen problems in cryptography

Four-Round Concurrent Non-Malleable Commitments from One-Way Functions

How many rounds and which assumptions are required for concurrent non-malleable commitments? The above question has puzzled researchers for several years. Pass in [TCC 2013] showed a lower bound of 3 rounds for the case of black-box reductions to falsifiable hardness assumptions with respect to polynomial-time adversaries. On the other side, Goyal [STOC 2011], Lin and Pass [STOC 2011] and Goyal et al. [FOCS 2012] showed that one-way functions (OWFs) are sufficient with a constant number of rounds. More recently Ciampi et al. [CRYPTO 2016] showed a 3-round construction based on subexponentially strong one-way permutations. In this work we show as main result the first 4-round concurrent non-malleable commitment scheme assuming the existence of any one-way function. Our approach builds on a new security notion for argument systems against man-in-the-middle attacks: Simulation-Witness-Independence. We show how to construct a 4-round one-many simulation-witnesses-independent argument system from one-way functions. We then combine this new tool in parallel with a weak form of non-malleable commitments constructed by Goyal et al. in [FOCS 2014] obtaining the main result of our work

Non-Malleability vs. CCA-Security: The Case of Commitments

In this work, we settle the relations among a variety of security notions related to non-malleability and CCA-security that have been proposed for commitment schemes in the literature. Interestingly, all our separations follow from two generic transformations. Given two appropriate security notions X and Y from the class of security notions we compare, these transformations take a commitment scheme that fulfills notion X and output a commitment scheme that still fulfills notion X but not notion Y. Using these transformations, we are able to show that some of the known relations for public-key encryption do not carry over to commitments. In particular, we show that, surprisingly, parallel non-malleability and parallel CCA-security are not equivalent for commitment schemes. This stands in contrast to the situation for public-key encryption where these two notions are equivalent as shown by Bellare et al. at CRYPTO ‘99

Trapdoor commitment schemes and their applications

Informally, commitment schemes can be described by lockable steely boxes. In the commitment phase, the sender puts a message into the box, locks the box and hands it over to the receiver. On one hand, the receiver does not learn anything about the message. On the other hand, the sender cannot change the message in the box anymore. In the decommitment phase the sender gives the receiver the key, and the receiver then opens the box and retrieves the message. One application of such schemes are digital auctions where each participant places his secret bid into a box and submits it to the auctioneer. In this thesis we investigate trapdoor commitment schemes. Following the abstract viewpoint of lockable boxes, a trapdoor commitment is a box with a tiny secret door. If someone knows the secret door, then this person is still able to change the committed message in the box, even after the commitment phase. Such trapdoors turn out to be very useful for the design of secure cryptographic protocols involving commitment schemes. In the first part of the thesis, we formally introduce trapdoor commitments and extend the notion to identity-based trapdoors, where trapdoors can only be used in connection with certain identities. We then recall the most popular constructions of ordinary trapdoor protocols and present new solutions for identity-based trapdoors. In the second part of the thesis, we show the usefulness of trapdoors in commitment schemes. Deploying trapdoors we construct efficient non-malleable commitment schemes which basically guarantee indepency of commitments. Furthermore, applying (identity-based) trapdoor commitments we secure well-known identification protocols against a new kind of attack. And finally, by means of trapdoors, we show how to construct composable commitment schemes that can be securely executed as subprotocols within complex protocols