SO-CCA Secure PKE in the Quantum Random Oracle Model or the Quantum Ideal Cipher Model

Selective opening (SO) security is one of the most important security notions of public key encryption (PKE) in a multi-user setting. Even though messages and random coins used in some ciphertexts are leaked, SO security guarantees the confidentiality of the other ciphertexts. Actually, it is shown that there exist PKE schemes which meet the standard security such as indistinguishability against chosen ciphertext attacks (IND-CCA security) but do not meet SO security against chosen ciphertext attacks. Hence, it is important to consider SO security in the multi-user setting. On the other hand, many researchers have studied cryptosystems in the security model where adversaries can submit quantum superposition queries (i.e., quantum queries) to oracles. In particular, IND-CCA secure PKE and KEM schemes in the quantum random oracle model have been intensively studied so far. In this paper, we show that two kinds of constructions of hybrid encryption schemes meet simulation-based SO security against chosen ciphertext attacks (SIM-SO-CCA security) in the quantum random oracle model or the quantum ideal cipher model. The first scheme is constructed from any IND-CCA secure KEM and any simulatable data encapsulation mechanism (DEM). The second one is constructed from any IND-CCA secure KEM based on Fujisaki-Okamoto transformation and any strongly unforgeable message authentication code (MAC). We can apply any IND-CCA secure KEM scheme to the first one if the underlying DEM scheme meets simulatability, whereas we can apply strongly unforgeable MAC to the second one if the underlying KEM is based on Fujisaki-Okamoto transformation

All-but-many lossy trapdoor functions from lattices and applications

“All-but-many lossy trapdoor functions” (ABM-LTF) are a powerful cryptographic primitive studied by Hofheinz (Eurocrypt 2012). ABM-LTFs are parametrised with tags: a lossy tag makes the function lossy; an injective tag makes the function injective, and invertible with a trapdoor. Existing ABM-LTFs rely on non-standard assumptions. Our first result is an ABM-LTF construction from lattices, based on the learning-with-errors (LWE) problem. Unlike the previous schemes which behaved as “encrypted signatures”, the core of our construction is an “encrypted, homomorphic-evaluation-friendly, weak pseudorandom function”. The weak pseudorandom function outputs matrices, where the lossy tags are preimages of the zero matrix, and the injective tags are preimages of random full-rank matrices. Our second result is a public-key system tightly secure against “selective opening” attacks, where an attacker gets many challenges and can ask to see the random bits of any of them. Following the steps of Hemenway et al. (Asiacrypt 2011) and Hofheinz (Eurocrypt 2012), our ABM-LTF gives the first lattice-based, compact public-key encryption (PKE) scheme that has indistinguishability against adaptive chosen-ciphertext and selective opening attacks (IND-SO-CCA2), with tight security, and whose public-key size and security reduction are independent of the number of decryption queries and ciphertext challenges. Meanwhile, this result provides an alternative solution to the problem of building pairing-free IND-CCA2 PKE schemes with tight security in the multi-challenge setting, which was firstly answered by Gay et al. (Eurocrypt 2016). Additionally, our ABM-LTF answers the open question of constructing (non-necessarily lossy) all-but-many trapdoor functions from lattices, first asked by Alperin-Sheriff and Peikert (PKC 2012)

Simulation-Based Selective Opening Security for Receivers under Chosen-Ciphertext Attacks

Security against selective opening attack (SOA) for receivers requires that in a multi-user setting, even if an adversary has access to all ciphertexts, and adaptively corrupts some fraction of the users to obtain the decryption keys corresponding to some of the ciphertexts, the remaining (potentially related) ciphertexts retain their privacy. In this paper, we study simulation-based selective opening security for receivers of public key encryption (PKE) schemes under chosen-ciphertext attacks (RSIM-SO-CCA). Concretely, we first show that some known PKE schemes meet RSIM-SO-CCA security. Then, we introduce the notion of master-key SOA security for identity-based encryption (IBE), and extend the Canetti-Halevi-Katz (CHK) transformation to show generic PKE constructions achieving RSIM-SO-CCA security. Finally, we show how to construct an IBE scheme achieving master-key SOA security

SoK: Public Key Encryption with Openings

When modelling how public key encryption can enable secure communication, we should acknowledge that secret information, such as private keys or the randomness used for encryption, could become compromised. Intuitively, one would expect unrelated communication to remain secure, yet formalizing this intuition has proven challenging. Several security notions have appeared that aim to capture said scenario, ranging from the multi-user setting with corruptions, via selective opening attacks (SOA), to non-committing encryption (NCE). Remarkably, how the different approaches compare has not yet been systematically explored. We provide a novel framework that maps each approach to an underlying philosophy of confidentiality: indistinguishability versus simulatability based, each with an a priori versus an a posteriori variant, leading to four distinct philosophies. In the absence of corruptions, these notions are largely equivalent; yet, in the presence of corruptions, they fall into a hierarchy of relative strengths, from IND-CPA and IND-CCA at the bottom, via indistinguishability SOA and simulatability SOA, to NCE at the top. We provide a concrete treatment for the four notions, discuss subtleties in their definitions and asymptotic interpretations and identify limitations of each. Furthermore, we re-cast the main implications of the hierarchy in a concrete security framework, summarize and contextualize other known relations, identify open problems, and close a few gaps. We end on a survey of constructions known to achieve the various notions. We identify and name a generic random-oracle construction that has appeared in various guises to prove security in seemingly different contexts. It hails back to Bellare and Rogaway\u27s seminal work on random oracles (CCS\u2793) and, as previously shown, suffices to meet one of the strongest notions of our hierarchy (single-user NCE with bi-openings)

Cryptology in the Crowd

Uhell skjer: Kanskje mistet du nøkkelen til huset, eller hadde PIN-koden til innbruddsalarmen skrevet på en dårlig plassert post-it lapp. Og kanskje endte de slik opp i hendene på feil person, som nå kan påføre livet ditt all slags ugagn: Sikkerhetssystemer gir ingen garantier når nøkler blir stjålet og PIN-koder lekket. Likevel burde naboen din, hvis nøkkel-og-PIN-kode rutiner er heller vanntette, kunne føle seg trygg i vissheten om at selv om du ikke evner å sikre huset ditt mot innbrudd, så forblir deres hjem trygt. Det er tilsvarende for kryptologi, som også lener seg på at nøkkelmateriale hemmeligholdes for å kunne garantere sikkerhet: Intuitivt forventer man at kjennskap til ett systems hemmelige nøkkel ikke burde være til hjelp for å bryte inn i andre, urelaterte systemer. Men det har vist seg overraskende vanskelig å sette denne intuisjonen på formell grunn, og flere konkurrerende sikkerhetsmodeller av varierende styrke har oppstått. Det blir dermed naturlig å spørre seg: Hvilken formalisme er den riktige når man skal modellere realistiske scenarioer med mange brukere og mulige lekkasjer? Eller: hvordan bygger man kryptografi i en folkemengde? Artikkel I begir seg ut på reisen mot et svar ved å sammenligne forskjellige flerbrukervarianter av sikkerhetsmodellen IND-CCA, med og uten evnen til å motta hemmelige nøkler tilhørende andre brukere. Vi finner et delvis svar ved å vise at uten denne evnen, så er noen modeller faktisk å foretrekke over andre. Med denne evnen, derimot, forblir situasjonen uavklart. Artikkel II tar et sidesteg til et sett relaterte sikkerhetsmodeller hvor, heller enn å angripe én enkelt bruker (ut fra en mengde av mulige ofre), angriperen ønsker å bryte kryptografien til så mange brukere som mulig på én gang. Man ser for seg en uvanlig mektig motstander, for eksempel en statssponset aktør, som ikke har problemer med å bryte kryptografien til en enkelt bruker: Målet skifter dermed fra å garantere trygghet for alle brukerne, til å gjøre masseovervåking så vanskelig som mulig, slik at det store flertall av brukere kan forbli sikret. Artikkel III fortsetter der Artikkel I slapp ved å sammenligne og systematisere de samme IND-CCA sikkerhetsmodellene med en større mengde med sikkerhetsmodeller, med det til felles at de alle modellerer det samme (eller lignende) scenarioet. Disse modellene, som går under navnene SOA (Selective Opening Attacks; utvalgte åpningsangrep) og NCE (Non-Committing Encryption; ikke-bindende kryptering), er ofte vesentlig sterkere enn modellene studert i Artikkel I. Med et system på plass er vi i stand til å identifisere en rekke hull i litteraturen; og dog vi tetter noen, etterlater vi mange som åpne problemer.Accidents happen: you may misplace the key to your home, or maybe the PIN to your home security system was written on an ill-placed post-it note. And so they end up in the hands of a bad actor, who is then granted the power to wreak all kinds of havoc in your life: the security of your home grants no guarantees when keys are stolen and PINs are leaked. Nonetheless your neighbour, whose key-and-pin routines leave comparatively little to be desired, should feel safe that just because you can’t keep your house safe from intruders, their home remains secured. It is likewise with cryptography, whose security also relies on the secrecy of key material: intuitively, the ability to recover the secret keys of other users should not help an adversary break into an uncompromised system. Yet formalizing this intuition has turned out tricky, with several competing notions of security of varying strength. This begs the question: when modelling a real-world scenario with many users, some of which may be compromised, which formalization is the right one? Or: how do we build cryptology in a crowd? Paper I embarks on the quest to answer the above questions by studying how various notions of multi-user IND-CCA compare to each other, with and without the ability to adaptively compromise users. We partly answer the question by showing that, without compromise, some notions of security really are preferable over others. Still, the situation is left largely open when compromise is accounted for. Paper II takes a detour to a related set of security notions in which, rather than attacking a single user, an adversary seeks to break the security of many. One imagines an unusually powerful adversary, for example a state-sponsored actor, for whom brute-forcing a single system is not a problem. Our goal then shifts from securing every user to making mass surveillance as difficult as possible, so that the vast majority of uncompromised users can remain secure. Paper III picks up where Paper I left off by comparing and systemizing the same security notions with a wider array of security notions that aim to capture the same (or similar) scenarios. These notions appear under the names of Selective Opening Attacks (SOA) and Non-Committing Encryption (NCE), and are typically significantly stronger than the notions of IND-CCA studied in Paper I. With a system in place, we identify and highlight a number of gaps, some of which we close, and many of which are posed as open problems.Doktorgradsavhandlin