Separating Two-Round Secure Computation From Oblivious Transfer

We consider the question of minimizing the round complexity of protocols for secure multiparty computation (MPC) with security against an arbitrary number of semi-honest parties. Very recently, Garg and Srinivasan (Eurocrypt 2018) and Benhamouda and Lin (Eurocrypt 2018) constructed such 2-round MPC protocols from minimal assumptions. This was done by showing a round preserving reduction to the task of secure 2-party computation of the oblivious transfer functionality (OT). These constructions made a novel non-black-box use of the underlying OT protocol. The question remained whether this can be done by only making black-box use of 2-round OT. This is of theoretical and potentially also practical value as black-box use of primitives tends to lead to more efficient constructions. Our main result proves that such a black-box construction is impossible, namely that non-black-box use of OT is necessary. As a corollary, a similar separation holds when starting with any 2-party functionality other than OT. As a secondary contribution, we prove several additional results that further clarify the landscape of black-box MPC with minimal interaction. In particular, we complement the separation from 2-party functionalities by presenting a complete 4-party functionality, give evidence for the difficulty of ruling out a complete 3-party functionality and for the difficulty of ruling out black-box constructions of 3-round MPC from 2-round OT, and separate a relaxed "non-compact" variant of 2-party homomorphic secret sharing from 2-round OT

An Error in the Mixed Adversary Protocol by Fitzi, Hirt and Maurer

We point out an error in the protocol for mixed adversaries andzero error from the Crypto 98 paper by Fitzi, Hirt and Maurer. Weshow that the protocol only works under a stronger requirement on theadversary than the one claimed. Hence the bound on the adversary'scorruption capability given there is not tight. Subsequent work hasshown, however, a new bound which is indeed tight

Going Beyond Dual Execution: MPC for Functions with Efficient Verification

The dual execution paradigm of Mohassel and Franklin (PKC\u2706) and Huang, Katz and Evans (IEEE \u2712) shows how to achieve the notion of 1-bit leakage security at roughly twice the cost of semi-honest security for the special case of two-party secure computation. To date, there are no multi-party computation (MPC) protocols that offer such a strong trade-off between security and semi-honest performance. Our main result is to address this shortcoming by designing 1-bit leakage protocols for the multi-party setting, albeit for a special class of functions. We say that function f(x,y) is efficiently verifiable by g if the running time of g is always smaller than f and g(x,y,z)=1 if and only if f(x,y)=z. In the two-party setting, we first improve dual execution by observing that the ``second execution\u27\u27 can be an evaluation of g instead of f, and that by definition, the evaluation of g is asymptotically more efficient. Our main MPC result is to construct a 1-bit leakage protocol for such functions from any passive protocol for f that is secure up to additive errors and any active protocol for g. An important result by Genkin et al. (STOC \u2714) shows how the classic protocols by Goldreich et al. (STOC \u2787) and Ben-Or et al. (STOC \u2788) naturally support this property, which allows to instantiate our compiler with two-party and multi-party protocols. A key technical result we prove is that the passive protocol for distributed garbling due to Beaver et al. (STOC \u2790) is in fact secure up to additive errors against malicious adversaries, thereby, yielding another powerful instantiation of our paradigm in the constant-round multi-party setting. As another concrete example of instantiating our approach, we present a novel protocol for computing perfect matching that is secure in the 1-bit leakage model and whose communication complexity is less than the honest-but-curious implementations of textbook algorithms for perfect matching

MPC with Friends and Foes

Classical definitions for secure multiparty computation assume the existence of a single adversarial entity controlling the set of corrupted parties. Intuitively, the definition requires that the view of the adversary, corrupting $t$ parties, in a real-world execution can be simulated by an adversary in an ideal model, where parties interact only via a trusted-party. No restrictions, however, are imposed on the view of honest parties in the protocol, thus, if honest parties obtain information about the private inputs of other honest parties -- it is not counted as a violation of privacy. This is arguably undesirable in many situations that fall into the MPC framework. Nevertheless, there are secure protocols (e.g., the 2-round multiparty protocol of Ishai et al.~[CRYPTO 2010] tolerating a single corrupted party) that instruct the honest parties to reveal their private inputs to all other honest parties (once the malicious party is somehow identified). In this paper, we put forth a new security notion, which we call \textit{FaF-security}, extending the classical notion. In essence, $(t,h^*)$-FaF-security requires the view of a subset of up to $h^*$ honest parties to also be simulatable in the ideal model (in addition to the view of the malicious adversary, corrupting up to $t$ parties). This property should still hold, even if the adversary leaks information to honest parties by sending them non-prescribed messages. We provide a thorough exploration of the new notion, investigating it in relation to a variety of existing security notions. We further investigate the feasibility of achieving FaF-security and show that every functionality can be computed with (computational) $(t,h^*)$-FaF full-security, if and only if $2t+ h^*<m$. Interestingly, the lower-bound result actually shows that even fair FaF-security is impossible in general when $2t+ h^*\ge m$ (surprisingly, the view of the malicious attacker is not used as the trigger for the attack). We also investigate the optimal round complexity for $(t,h^*)$-FaF-secure protocols and give evidence that the leakage of private inputs of honest parties in the protocol of Ishai et al.~[CRYPTO 2010] is inherent. Finally, we investigate the feasibility of statistical/perfect FaF-security, employing the viewpoint used by Fitzi et al.~[ASIACRYPT 1999] for \textit{mixed-adversaries}