Environmentally Friendly Composable Multi-Party Computation in the Plain Model from Standard (Timed) Assumptions

Starting with the work of Rivest et al. in 1996, timed assumptions have found many applications in cryptography, building e.g. the foundation of the blockchain technology. They also have been used in the context of classical MPC, e.g. to enable fairness. We follow this line of research to obtain composable generic MPC in the plain model. This approach comes with a major advantage regarding environmental friendliness, a property coined by Canetti et al. (FOCS 2013). Informally, this means that our constructions do not “hurt” game-based security properties of protocols that hold against polynomial-time adversaries when executed alone. As an additional property, they can be plugged into any UC-secure protocol without loss of security. Towards proving the security of our constructions, we introduce a variant of the UC security notion that captures timed cryptographic assumptions. Combining standard timed commitments and standard polynomial-time hardness assumptions, we construct a composable commitment scheme in the plain model. As this construction is constant-round and black-box, we obtain the first fully environmentally friendly composable constant-round black-box generic MPC protocol in the plain model from standard (timed) assumptions

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

Composable Adaptive Secure Protocols without Setup under Polytime Assumptions

All previous constructions of general multiparty computation protocols that are secure against adaptive corruptions in the concurrent setting either require some form of setup or non-standard assumptions. In this paper we provide the first general construction of secure multi-party computation protocol without any setup that guarantees composable security in the presence of an adaptive adversary based on standard polynomial-time assumptions. We prove security under the notion of ``UC with super-polynomial helpers\u27\u27 introduced by Canetti et al. (FOCS 2010), which is closed under universal composition and implies ``super-polynomial-time simulation\u27\u27. Moreover, our construction relies on the underlying cryptographic primitives in a black-box manner. Next, we revisit the zero-one law for two-party secure functions evaluation initiated by the work of Maji, Prabhakaran and Rosulek (CRYPTO 2010). According to this law, every two-party functionality is either trivial (meaning, such functionalities can be reduced to any other functionality) or complete (meaning, any other functionality can be reduced to these functionalities) in the Universal Composability (UC) framework. As our second contribution, assuming the existence of a simulatable public-key encryption scheme, we establish a zero-one law in the adaptive setting. Our result implies that every two-party non-reactive functionality is either trivial or complete in the UC framework in the presence of adaptive, malicious adversaries

The Significance of Evidence-based Reasoning in Mathematics, Mathematics Education, Philosophy, and the Natural Sciences

In this multi-disciplinary investigation we show how an evidence-based perspective of quantification---in terms of algorithmic verifiability and algorithmic computability---admits evidence-based definitions of well-definedness and effective computability, which yield two unarguably constructive interpretations of the first-order Peano Arithmetic PA---over the structure N of the natural numbers---that are complementary, not contradictory. The first yields the weak, standard, interpretation of PA over N, which is well-defined with respect to assignments of algorithmically verifiable Tarskian truth values to the formulas of PA under the interpretation. The second yields a strong, finitary, interpretation of PA over N, which is well-defined with respect to assignments of algorithmically computable Tarskian truth values to the formulas of PA under the interpretation. We situate our investigation within a broad analysis of quantification vis a vis: * Hilbert's epsilon-calculus * Goedel's omega-consistency * The Law of the Excluded Middle * Hilbert's omega-Rule * An Algorithmic omega-Rule * Gentzen's Rule of Infinite Induction * Rosser's Rule C * Markov's Principle * The Church-Turing Thesis * Aristotle's particularisation * Wittgenstein's perspective of constructive mathematics * An evidence-based perspective of quantification. By showing how these are formally inter-related, we highlight the fragility of both the persisting, theistic, classical/Platonic interpretation of quantification grounded in Hilbert's epsilon-calculus; and the persisting, atheistic, constructive/Intuitionistic interpretation of quantification rooted in Brouwer's belief that the Law of the Excluded Middle is non-finitary. We then consider some consequences for mathematics, mathematics education, philosophy, and the natural sciences, of an agnostic, evidence-based, finitary interpretation of quantification that challenges classical paradigms in all these disciplines