Tamper Detection and Continuous Non-Malleable Codes

We consider a public and keyless code (\Enc,\Dec) which is used to encode a message $m$ and derive a codeword c = \Enc(m). The codeword can be adversarially tampered via a function f \in \F from some tampering function family \F, resulting in a tampered value $c\u27 = f(c)$. We study the different types of security guarantees that can be achieved in this scenario for different families \F of tampering attacks. Firstly, we initiate the general study of tamper-detection codes, which must detect that tampering occurred and output \Dec(c\u27) = \bot. We show that such codes exist for any family of functions \F over $n$ bit codewords, as long as |\F| < 2^{2^n} is sufficiently smaller than the set of all possible functions, and the functions f \in \F are further restricted in two ways: (1) they can only have a few fixed points $x$ such that $f(x)=x$, (2) they must have high entropy of $f(x)$ over a random $x$. Such codes can also be made efficient when |\F| = 2^{\poly(n)}. For example, \F can be the family of all low-degree polynomials excluding constant and identity polynomials. Such tamper-detection codes generalize the algebraic manipulation detection (AMD) codes of Cramer et al. (EUROCRYPT \u2708). Next, we revisit non-malleable codes, which were introduced by Dziembowski, Pietrzak and Wichs (ICS \u2710) and require that \Dec(c\u27) either decodes to the original message $m$, or to some unrelated value (possibly $\bot$) that doesn\u27t provide any information about $m$. We give a modular construction of non-malleable codes by combining tamper-detection codes and leakage-resilient codes. This gives an alternate proof of the existence of non-malleable codes with optimal rate for any family \F of size |\F| < 2^{2^n}, as well as efficient constructions for families of size |\F| = 2^{\poly(n)}. Finally, we initiate the general study of continuous non-malleable codes, which provide a non-malleability guarantee against an attacker that can tamper a codeword multiple times. We define several variants of the problem depending on: (I) whether tampering is persistent and each successive attack modifies the codeword that has been modified by previous attacks, or whether tampering is non-persistent and is always applied to the original codeword, (II) whether we can self-destruct and stop the experiment if a tampered codeword is ever detected to be invalid or whether the attacker can always tamper more. In the case of persistent tampering and self-destruct (weakest case), we get a broad existence results, essentially matching what\u27s known for standard non-malleable codes. In the case of non-persistent tampering and no self-destruct (strongest case), we must further restrict the tampering functions to have few fixed points and high entropy. The two intermediate cases correspond to requiring only one of the above two restrictions. These results have applications in cryptography to related-key attack (RKA) security and to protecting devices against tampering attacks without requiring state or randomness

Strong Continuous Non-malleable Encoding Schemes with Tamper-Detection

A non-malleable encoding scheme is a keyless encoding scheme which is resilient to tampering attacks. Such a scheme is said to be continuously secure if the scheme is resilient to attacks containing more than one tampering procedure. Also, such a scheme is said to have tamper-detection property if any kind of tampering attack is detected. In [S. Faust, et al., Continuous nonmalleable codes, TCC Proc., LNCS Vol. 8349, 2014.] a general continuous non-malleable encoding scheme based on NIZK is introduced which is secure in a strong model for which the adversary receives a no-tamper as a response to its tampering query if the decoding of the tampered codeword is identical to the original message. In this article we introduce a new strongly secure continuous non-malleable encoding scheme with tamper-detection property whose security is based on the existence of secure MAC’s. Moreover, we introduce and justify the importance of an intermediate security model called semi-strong continuous non-malleability, while we provide a secure semi-strong continuous non-malleable encoding scheme whose security is based on the existence of CCA-secure public-key encryption. Considering the area of applications of encoding schemes in tamper-proof devices, it is instructive to note that our proposed schemes can be used to implement an algorithmic tamperdetection level as well as maintaining the security conditions

Efficient non-malleable codes and key derivation for poly-size tampering circuits

Non-malleable codes, defined by Dziembowski, Pietrzak, and Wichs (ICS '10), provide roughly the following guarantee: if a codeword c encoding some message x is tampered to c' = f(c) such that c' ≠ c , then the tampered message x' contained in c' reveals no information about x. The non-malleable codes have applications to immunizing cryptosystems against tampering attacks and related-key attacks. One cannot have an efficient non-malleable code that protects against all efficient tampering functions f. However, in this paper we show 'the next best thing': for any polynomial bound s given a-priori, there is an efficient non-malleable code that protects against all tampering functions f computable by a circuit of size s. More generally, for any family of tampering functions F of size F ≤ 2s , there is an efficient non-malleable code that protects against all f in F . The rate of our codes, defined as the ratio of message to codeword size, approaches 1. Our results are information-theoretic and our main proof technique relies on a careful probabilistic method argument using limited independence. As a result, we get an efficiently samplable family of efficient codes, such that a random member of the family is non-malleable with overwhelming probability. Alternatively, we can view the result as providing an efficient non-malleable code in the 'common reference string' model. We also introduce a new notion of non-malleable key derivation, which uses randomness x to derive a secret key y = h(x) in such a way that, even if x is tampered to a different value x' = f(x) , the derived key y' = h(x') does not reveal any information about y. Our results for non-malleable key derivation are analogous to those for non-malleable codes. As a useful tool in our analysis, we rely on the notion of 'leakage-resilient storage' of Davì, Dziembowski, and Venturi (SCN '10), and, as a result of independent interest, we also significantly improve on the parameters of such schemes

Non-malleable codes for space-bounded tampering

Non-malleable codes—introduced by Dziembowski, Pietrzak and Wichs at ICS 2010—are key-less coding schemes in which mauling attempts to an encoding of a given message, w.r.t. some class of tampering adversaries, result in a decoded value that is either identical or unrelated to the original message. Such codes are very useful for protecting arbitrary cryptographic primitives against tampering attacks against the memory. Clearly, non-malleability is hopeless if the class of tampering adversaries includes the decoding and encoding algorithm. To circumvent this obstacle, the majority of past research focused on designing non-malleable codes for various tampering classes, albeit assuming that the adversary is unable to decode. Nonetheless, in many concrete settings, this assumption is not realistic

Capacity of non-malleable codes

Non-malleable codes, introduced by Dziembowski et al., encode messages s in a manner, so that tampering the codeword causes the decoder to either output s or a message that is independent of s. While this is an impossible goal to achieve against unrestricted tampering functions, rather surprisingly non-malleable coding becomes possible against every fixed family P of tampering functions that is not too large (for instance, when I≤I 22αn for some α 0 and family P of size 2nc, in particular tampering functions with, say, cubic size circuits

Continuously non-malleable codes with split-state refresh

Non-malleable codes for the split-state model allow to encode a message into two parts, such that arbitrary independent tampering on each part, and subsequent decoding of the corresponding modified codeword, yields either the same as the original message, or a completely unrelated value. Continuously non-malleable codes further allow to tolerate an unbounded (polynomial) number of tampering attempts, until a decoding error happens. The drawback is that, after an error happens, the system must self-destruct and stop working, otherwise generic attacks become possible. In this paper we propose a solution to this limitation, by leveraging a split-state refreshing procedure. Namely, whenever a decoding error happens, the two parts of an encoding can be locally refreshed (i.e., without any interaction), which allows to avoid the self-destruct mechanism. An additional feature of our security model is that it captures directly security against continual leakage attacks. We give an abstract framework for building such codes in the common reference string model, and provide a concrete instantiation based on the external Diffie-Hellman assumption. Finally, we explore applications in which our notion turns out to be essential. The first application is a signature scheme tolerating an arbitrary polynomial number of split-state tampering attempts, without requiring a self-destruct capability, and in a model where refreshing of the memory happens only after an invalid output is produced. This circumvents an impossibility result from a recent work by Fuijisaki and Xagawa (Asiacrypt 2016). The second application is a compiler for tamper-resilient RAM programs. In comparison to other tamper-resilient compilers, ours has several advantages, among which the fact that, for the first time, it does not rely on the self-destruct feature

Limits to Non-Malleability

There have been many successes in constructing explicit non-malleable codes for various classes of tampering functions in recent years, and strong existential results are also known. In this work we ask the following question: When can we rule out the existence of a non-malleable code for a tampering class ?? First, we start with some classes where positive results are well-known, and show that when these classes are extended in a natural way, non-malleable codes are no longer possible. Specifically, we show that no non-malleable codes exist for any of the following tampering classes: - Functions that change d/2 symbols, where d is the distance of the code; - Functions where each input symbol affects only a single output symbol; - Functions where each of the n output bits is a function of n-log n input bits. Furthermore, we rule out constructions of non-malleable codes for certain classes ? via reductions to the assumption that a distributional problem is hard for ?, that make black-box use of the tampering functions in the proof. In particular, this yields concrete obstacles for the construction of efficient codes for NC, even assuming average-case variants of P ? NC

The chaining lemma and its application

We present a new information-theoretic result which we call the Chaining Lemma. It considers a so-called “chain” of random variables, defined by a source distribution X(0)with high min-entropy and a number (say, t in total) of arbitrary functions (T1,…, Tt) which are applied in succession to that source to generate the chain (Formula presented). Intuitively, the Chaining Lemma guarantees that, if the chain is not too long, then either (i) the entire chain is “highly random”, in that every variable has high min-entropy; or (ii) it is possible to find a point j (1 ≤ j ≤ t) in the chain such that, conditioned on the end of the chain i.e. (Formula presented), the preceding part (Formula presented) remains highly random. We think this is an interesting information-theoretic result which is intuitive but nevertheless requires rigorous case-analysis to prove. We believe that the above lemma will find applications in cryptography. We give an example of this, namely we show an application of the lemma to protect essentially any cryptographic scheme against memory tampering attacks. We allow several tampering requests, the tampering functions can be arbitrary, however, they must be chosen from a bounded size set of functions that is fixed a prior

Non-Malleable Extractors and Codes, with their Many Tampered Extensions

Randomness extractors and error correcting codes are fundamental objects in computer science. Recently, there have been several natural generalizations of these objects, in the context and study of tamper resilient cryptography. These are seeded non-malleable extractors, introduced in [DW09]; seedless non-malleable extractors, introduced in [CG14b]; and non-malleable codes, introduced in [DPW10]. However, explicit constructions of non-malleable extractors appear to be hard, and the known constructions are far behind their non-tampered counterparts. In this paper we make progress towards solving the above problems. Our contributions are as follows. (1) We construct an explicit seeded non-malleable extractor for min-entropy $k \geq \log^2 n$. This dramatically improves all previous results and gives a simpler 2-round privacy amplification protocol with optimal entropy loss, matching the best known result in [Li15b]. (2) We construct the first explicit non-malleable two-source extractor for min-entropy $k \geq n-n^{\Omega(1)}$, with output size $n^{\Omega(1)}$ and error $2^{-n^{\Omega(1)}}$. (3) We initiate the study of two natural generalizations of seedless non-malleable extractors and non-malleable codes, where the sources or the codeword may be tampered many times. We construct the first explicit non-malleable two-source extractor with tampering degree $t$ up to $n^{\Omega(1)}$, which works for min-entropy $k \geq n-n^{\Omega(1)}$, with output size $n^{\Omega(1)}$ and error $2^{-n^{\Omega(1)}}$. We show that we can efficiently sample uniformly from any pre-image. By the connection in [CG14b], we also obtain the first explicit non-malleable codes with tampering degree $t$ up to $n^{\Omega(1)}$, relative rate $n^{\Omega(1)}/n$, and error $2^{-n^{\Omega(1)}}$.Comment: 50 pages; see paper for full abstrac