Authentication of Quantum Messages

Authentication is a well-studied area of classical cryptography: a sender S and a receiver R sharing a classical private key want to exchange a classical message with the guarantee that the message has not been modified by any third party with control of the communication line. In this paper we define and investigate the authentication of messages composed of quantum states. Assuming S and R have access to an insecure quantum channel and share a private, classical random key, we provide a non-interactive scheme that enables S both to encrypt and to authenticate (with unconditional security) an m qubit message by encoding it into m+s qubits, where the failure probability decreases exponentially in the security parameter s. The classical private key is 2m+O(s) bits. To achieve this, we give a highly efficient protocol for testing the purity of shared EPR pairs. We also show that any scheme to authenticate quantum messages must also encrypt them. (In contrast, one can authenticate a classical message while leaving it publicly readable.) This has two important consequences: On one hand, it allows us to give a lower bound of 2m key bits for authenticating m qubits, which makes our protocol asymptotically optimal. On the other hand, we use it to show that digitally signing quantum states is impossible, even with only computational security.Comment: 22 pages, LaTeX, uses amssymb, latexsym, time

A quantum key distribution protocol for rapid denial of service detection

We introduce a quantum key distribution protocol designed to expose fake users that connect to Alice or Bob for the purpose of monopolising the link and denying service. It inherently resists attempts to exhaust Alice and Bob's initial shared secret, and is 100% efficient, regardless of the number of qubits exchanged above the finite key limit. Additionally, secure key can be generated from two-photon pulses, without having to make any extra modifications. This is made possible by relaxing the security of BB84 to that of the quantum-safe block cipher used for day-to-day encryption, meaning the overall security remains unaffected for useful real-world cryptosystems such as AES-GCM being keyed with quantum devices.Comment: 13 pages, 3 figures. v2: Shifted focus of paper towards DoS and added protocol 4. v1: Accepted to QCrypt 201

SoK: Cryptographically Protected Database Search

Protected database search systems cryptographically isolate the roles of reading from, writing to, and administering the database. This separation limits unnecessary administrator access and protects data in the case of system breaches. Since protected search was introduced in 2000, the area has grown rapidly; systems are offered by academia, start-ups, and established companies. However, there is no best protected search system or set of techniques. Design of such systems is a balancing act between security, functionality, performance, and usability. This challenge is made more difficult by ongoing database specialization, as some users will want the functionality of SQL, NoSQL, or NewSQL databases. This database evolution will continue, and the protected search community should be able to quickly provide functionality consistent with newly invented databases. At the same time, the community must accurately and clearly characterize the tradeoffs between different approaches. To address these challenges, we provide the following contributions: 1) An identification of the important primitive operations across database paradigms. We find there are a small number of base operations that can be used and combined to support a large number of database paradigms. 2) An evaluation of the current state of protected search systems in implementing these base operations. This evaluation describes the main approaches and tradeoffs for each base operation. Furthermore, it puts protected search in the context of unprotected search, identifying key gaps in functionality. 3) An analysis of attacks against protected search for different base queries. 4) A roadmap and tools for transforming a protected search system into a protected database, including an open-source performance evaluation platform and initial user opinions of protected search.Comment: 20 pages, to appear to IEEE Security and Privac

Scalable and Secure Aggregation in Distributed Networks

We consider the problem of computing an aggregation function in a \emph{secure} and \emph{scalable} way. Whereas previous distributed solutions with similar security guarantees have a communication cost of $O(n^3)$, we present a distributed protocol that requires only a communication complexity of $O(n\log^3 n)$, which we prove is near-optimal. Our protocol ensures perfect security against a computationally-bounded adversary, tolerates $(1/2-\epsilon)n$ malicious nodes for any constant $1/2 > \epsilon > 0$ (not depending on $n$), and outputs the exact value of the aggregated function with high probability

Still Wrong Use of Pairings in Cryptography

Several pairing-based cryptographic protocols are recently proposed with a wide variety of new novel applications including the ones in emerging technologies like cloud computing, internet of things (IoT), e-health systems and wearable technologies. There have been however a wide range of incorrect use of these primitives. The paper of Galbraith, Paterson, and Smart (2006) pointed out most of the issues related to the incorrect use of pairing-based cryptography. However, we noticed that some recently proposed applications still do not use these primitives correctly. This leads to unrealizable, insecure or too inefficient designs of pairing-based protocols. We observed that one reason is not being aware of the recent advancements on solving the discrete logarithm problems in some groups. The main purpose of this article is to give an understandable, informative, and the most up-to-date criteria for the correct use of pairing-based cryptography. We thereby deliberately avoid most of the technical details and rather give special emphasis on the importance of the correct use of bilinear maps by realizing secure cryptographic protocols. We list a collection of some recent papers having wrong security assumptions or realizability/efficiency issues. Finally, we give a compact and an up-to-date recipe of the correct use of pairings.Comment: 25 page