Encryption Schemes Secure under Selective Opening Attack

We provide the first public key encryption schemes proven secure against selective opening attack (SOA). This means that if an adversary obtains a number of ciphertexts and then corrupts some fraction of the senders, obtaining not only the corresponding messages but also the coins under which they were encrypted then the security of the other messages is guaranteed. Whether or not schemes with this property exist has been open for many years. Our schemes are based on a primitive we call lossy encryption. Our schemes have short keys (public and secret keys of a fixed length suffice for encrypting an arbitrary number of messages), are stateless, are non-interactive, and security does not rely on erasures. The schemes are without random oracles, proven secure under standard assumptions (DDH, Paillier’s DCR, QR, lattices), and even efficient. We are able to meet both an indistinguishability (IND-SOA-C) and a simulation-style, semantic security (SS-SOA-C) definition

Standard Security Does Not Imply Indistinguishability Under Selective Opening

In a selective opening attack (SOA) on an encryption scheme, the adversary is given a collection of ciphertexts and selectively chooses to see some subset of them ``opened\u27\u27, meaning that the messages and the encryption randomness are revealed to her. A scheme is SOA secure if the data contained in the unopened ciphertexts remains hidden. A fundamental question is whether every CPA secure scheme is necessarily also SOA secure. The work of Bellare et al. (EUROCRYPT \u2712) gives a partial negative answer by showing that some CPA secure schemes do not satisfy a simulation-based definition of SOA security called SIM-SOA. However, until now, it remained possible that every CPA secure scheme satisfies an indistinguishability-based definition of SOA security called IND-SOA. In this work, we resolve the above question in the negative and construct a highly contrived encryption scheme which is CPA (and even CCA) secure but is not IND-SOA secure. In fact, it is broken in a very obvious sense by a selective opening attack as follows. A random value is secret-shared via Shamir\u27s scheme so that any t out of n shares reveal no information about the shared value. The n shares are individually encrypted under a common public key and the n resulting ciphertexts are given to the adversary who selectively chooses to see t of the ciphertexts opened. Counter-intuitively, this suffices for the adversary to completely recover the shared value. Our contrived scheme relies on strong assumptions: public-coin differing inputs obfuscation and a certain type of correlation intractable hash functions. We also extend our negative result to the setting of SOA attacks with key opening (IND-SOA-K) where the adversary is given a collection of ciphertexts under different public keys and selectively chooses to see some subset of the secret keys

Encryption schemes secure against chosen-ciphertext selective opening attacks

Imagine many small devices send data to a single receiver, encrypted using the receiver's public key. Assume an adversary that has the power to adaptively corrupt a subset of these devices. Given the information obtained from these corruptions, do the ciphertexts from uncorrupted devices remain secure? Recent results suggest that conventional security notions for encryption schemes (like IND-CCA security) do not suffice in this setting. To fill this gap, the notion of security against selective-opening attacks (SOA security) has been introduced. It has been shown that lossy encryption implies SOA security against a passive, i.e., only eavesdropping and corrupting, adversary (SO-CPA). However, the known results on SOA security against an active adversary (SO-CCA) are rather limited. Namely, while there exist feasibility results, the (time and space) complexity of currently known SO-C

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

暗号要素技術の一般的構成を介した高い安全性・高度な機能を備えた暗号要素技術の構成

Recent years have witnessed an active research on cryptographic primitives with complex functionality beyond simple encryption or authentication. A cryptographic primitive is required to be proposed together with a formal model of its usage and a rigorous proof of security under that model.This approach has suffered from the two drawbacks: (1) security models are defined in a very specific manner for each primitive, which situation causes the relationship between these security models not to be very clear, and (2) no comprehensive ways to confirm that a formal model of security really captures every possible scenarios in practice.This research relaxes these two drawbacks by the following approach: (1) By observing the fact that a cryptographic primitive A should be crucial for constructing another primitive B, we identify an easy-to-understand approach for constructing various cryptographic primitives.(2) Consider a situation in which there are closely related cryptographic primitives A and B, and the primitive A has no known security requirement that corresponds to some wellknown security requirement (b) for the latter primitive B.We argue that this situation suggests that this unknown security requirement for A can capture some practical attack. This enables us to detect unknown threats for various cryptographic primitives that have been missed bythe current security models.Following this approach, we identify an overlooked security threat for a cryptographic primitive called group signature. Furthermore, we apply the methodology (2) to the “revocable”group signature and obtain a new extension of public-key encryption which allows to restrict a plaintext that can be securely encrypted.通常の暗号化や認証にとどまらず, 複雑な機能を備えた暗号要素技術の提案が活発になっている. 暗号要素技術の安全性は利用形態に応じて, セキュリティ上の脅威をモデル化して安全性要件を定め, 新方式はそれぞれ安全性定義を満たすことの証明と共に提案される.既存研究では, 次の問題があった: (1) 要素技術ごとに個別に安全性の定義を与えているため, 理論的な体系化が不十分であった. (2) 安全性定義が実用上の脅威を完全に捉えきれているかの検証が難しかった.本研究は上記の問題を次の考え方で解決する. (1) ある要素技術(A) を構成するには別の要素技術(B) を部品として用いることが不可欠であることに注目し, 各要素技術の安全性要件の関連を整理・体系化して, 新方式を見通し良く構成可能とする. (2) 要素技術(B)で考慮されていた安全性要件(b) に対応する要素技術(A) の安全性要件が未定義なら, それを(A) の新たな安全性要件(a) として定式化する. これにより未知の脅威の検出が容易になる.グループ署名と非対話開示機能付き公開鍵暗号という2 つの要素技術について上記の考え方を適用して, グループ署名について未知の脅威を指摘する.また, 証明書失効機能と呼ばれる拡張機能を持つグループ署名に上記の考え方を適用して, 公開鍵暗号についての新たな拡張機能である, 暗号化できる平文を制限できる公開鍵暗号の効率的な構成法を明らかにする.電気通信大学201

Design and Analysis of Opaque Signatures

Digital signatures were introduced to guarantee the authenticity and integrity of the underlying messages. A digital signature scheme comprises the key generation, the signature, and the verification algorithms. The key generation algorithm creates the signing and the verifying keys, called also the signer’s private and public keys respectively. The signature algorithm, which is run by the signer, produces a signature on the input message. Finally, the verification algorithm, run by anyone who knows the signer’s public key, checks whether a purported signature on some message is valid or not. The last property, namely the universal verification of digital signatures is undesirable in situations where the signed data is commercially or personally sensitive. Therefore, mechanisms which share most properties with digital signatures except for the universal verification were invented to respond to the aforementioned need; we call such mechanisms “opaque signatures”. In this thesis, we study the signatures where the verification cannot be achieved without the cooperation of a specific entity, namely the signer in case of undeniable signatures, or the confirmer in case of confirmer signatures; we make three main contributions. We first study the relationship between two security properties important for public key encryption, namely data privacy and key privacy. Our study is motivated by the fact that opaque signatures involve always an encryption layer that ensures their opacity. The properties required for this encryption vary according to whether we want to protect the identity (i.e. the key) of the signer or hide the validity of the signature. Therefore, it would be convenient to use existing work about the encryption scheme in order to derive one notion from the other. Next, we delve into the generic constructions of confirmer signatures from basic cryptographic primitives, e.g. digital signatures, encryption, or commitment schemes. In fact, generic constructions give easy-to-understand and easy-to-prove schemes, however, this convenience is often achieved at the expense of efficiency. In this contribution, which constitutes the core of this thesis, we first analyze the already existing constructions; our study concludes that the popular generic constructions of confirmer signatures necessitate strong security assumptions on the building blocks, which impacts negatively the efficiency of the resulting signatures. Next, we show that a small change in these constructionsmakes these assumptions drop drastically, allowing as a result constructions with instantiations that compete with the dedicated realizations of these signatures. Finally, we revisit two early undeniable signatures which were proposed with a conjectural security. We disprove the claimed security of the first scheme, and we provide a fix to it in order to achieve strong security properties. Next, we upgrade the second scheme so that it supports a iii desirable feature, and we provide a formal security treatment of the new scheme: we prove that it is secure assuming new reasonable assumptions on the underlying constituents