Concurrent Knowledge-Extraction in the Public-Key Model

Knowledge extraction is a fundamental notion, modelling machine possession of values (witnesses) in a computational complexity sense. The notion provides an essential tool for cryptographic protocol design and analysis, enabling one to argue about the internal state of protocol players without ever looking at this supposedly secret state. However, when transactions are concurrent (e.g., over the Internet) with players possessing public-keys (as is common in cryptography), assuring that entities ``know'' what they claim to know, where adversaries may be well coordinated across different transactions, turns out to be much more subtle and in need of re-examination. Here, we investigate how to formally treat knowledge possession by parties (with registered public-keys) interacting over the Internet. Stated more technically, we look into the relative power of the notion of ``concurrent knowledge-extraction'' (CKE) in the concurrent zero-knowledge (CZK) bare public-key (BPK) model.Comment: 38 pages, 4 figure

Block-Wise Non-Malleable Codes

Non-malleable codes, introduced by Dziembowski, Pietrzak, and Wichs (ICS\u2710) provide the guarantee that if a codeword c of a message m, is modified by a tampering function f to c\u27, then c\u27 either decodes to m or to "something unrelated" to m. In recent literature, a lot of focus has been on explicitly constructing such codes against a large and natural class of tampering functions such as split-state model in which the tampering function operates on different parts of the codeword independently. In this work, we consider a stronger adversarial model called block-wise tampering model, in which we allow tampering to depend on more than one block: if a codeword consists of two blocks c = (c1, c2), then the first tampering function f1 could produce a tampered part c\u27_1 = f1(c1) and the second tampering function f2 could produce c\u27_2 = f2(c1, c2) depending on both c2 and c1. The notion similarly extends to multiple blocks where tampering of block ci could happen with the knowledge of all cj for j <= i. We argue this is a natural notion where, for example, the blocks are sent one by one and the adversary must send the tampered block before it gets the next block. A little thought reveals that it is impossible to construct such codes that are non-malleable (in the standard sense) against such a powerful adversary: indeed, upon receiving the last block, an adversary could decode the entire codeword and then can tamper depending on the message. In light of this impossibility, we consider a natural relaxation called non-malleable codes with replacement which requires the adversary to produce not only related but also a valid codeword in order to succeed. Unfortunately, we show that even this relaxed definition is not achievable in the information-theoretic setting (i.e., when the tampering functions can be unbounded) which implies that we must turn our attention towards computationally bounded adversaries. As our main result, we show how to construct a block-wise non-malleable code (BNMC) from sub-exponentially hard one-way permutations. We provide an interesting connection between BNMC and non-malleable commitments. We show that any BNMC can be converted into a nonmalleable (w.r.t. opening) commitment scheme. Our techniques, quite surprisingly, give rise to a non-malleable commitment scheme (secure against so-called synchronizing adversaries), in which only the committer sends messages. We believe this result to be of independent interest. In the other direction, we show that any non-interactive non-malleable (w.r.t. opening) commitment can be used to construct BNMC only with 2 blocks. Unfortunately, such commitment scheme exists only under highly non-standard assumptions (adaptive one-way functions) and hence can not substitute our main construction

Credible, Truthful, and Two-Round (Optimal) Auctions via Cryptographic Commitments

We consider the sale of a single item to multiple buyers by a revenue-maximizing seller. Recent work of Akbarpour and Li formalizes \emph{credibility} as an auction desideratum, and prove that the only optimal, credible, strategyproof auction is the ascending price auction with reserves (Akbarpour and Li, 2019). In contrast, when buyers' valuations are MHR, we show that the mild additional assumption of a cryptographically secure commitment scheme suffices for a simple \emph{two-round} auction which is optimal, strategyproof, and credible (even when the number of bidders is only known by the auctioneer). We extend our analysis to the case when buyer valuations are $\alpha$-strongly regular for any $\alpha > 0$, up to arbitrary $\varepsilon$ in credibility. Interestingly, we also prove that this construction cannot be extended to regular distributions, nor can the $\varepsilon$ be removed with multiple bidders

Round Optimal Secure Multiparty Computation from Minimal Assumptions

We construct a four round secure multiparty computation (MPC) protocol in the plain model that achieves security against any dishonest majority. The security of our protocol relies only on the existence of four round oblivious transfer. This culminates the long line of research on constructing round-efficient MPC from minimal assumptions (at least w.r.t. black-box simulation)

Four-Round Concurrent Non-Malleable Commitments from One-Way Functions

How many rounds and which assumptions are required for concurrent non-malleable commitments? The above question has puzzled researchers for several years. Pass in [TCC 2013] showed a lower bound of 3 rounds for the case of black-box reductions to falsifiable hardness assumptions with respect to polynomial-time adversaries. On the other side, Goyal [STOC 2011], Lin and Pass [STOC 2011] and Goyal et al. [FOCS 2012] showed that one-way functions (OWFs) are sufficient with a constant number of rounds. More recently Ciampi et al. [CRYPTO 2016] showed a 3-round construction based on subexponentially strong one-way permutations. In this work we show as main result the first 4-round concurrent non-malleable commitment scheme assuming the existence of any one-way function. Our approach builds on a new security notion for argument systems against man-in-the-middle attacks: Simulation-Witness-Independence. We show how to construct a 4-round one-many simulation-witnesses-independent argument system from one-way functions. We then combine this new tool in parallel with a weak form of non-malleable commitments constructed by Goyal et al. in [FOCS 2014] obtaining the main result of our work

Non-Malleable Codes Against Bounded Polynomial Time Tampering

We construct efficient non-malleable codes (NMC) that are (computationally) secure against tampering by functions computable in any fixed polynomial time. Our construction is in the plain (no-CRS) model and requires the assumptions that (1) $\mathbf{E}$ is hard for $\mathbf{NP}$ circuits of some exponential $2^{\beta n}$ ($\beta>0$) size (widely used in the derandomization literature), (2) sub-exponential trapdoor permutations exist, and (3) $\mathbf{P}$ certificates with sub-exponential soundness exist. While it is impossible to construct NMC secure against arbitrary polynomial-time tampering (Dziembowski, Pietrzak, Wichs, ICS \u2710), the existence of NMC secure against $O(n^c)$-time tampering functions (for any fixed $c$), was shown (Cheraghchi and Guruswami, ITCS \u2714) via a probabilistic construction. An explicit construction was given (Faust, Mukherjee, Venturi, Wichs, Eurocrypt \u2714) assuming an untamperable CRS with length longer than the runtime of the tampering function. In this work, we show that under computational assumptions, we can bypass these limitations. Specifically, under the assumptions listed above, we obtain non-malleable codes in the plain model against $O(n^c)$-time tampering functions (for any fixed $c$), with codeword length independent of the tampering time bound. Our new construction of NMC draws a connection with non-interactive non-malleable commitments. In fact, we show that in the NMC setting, it suffices to have a much weaker notion called quasi non-malleable commitments---these are non-interactive, non-malleable commitments in the plain model, in which the adversary runs in $O(n^c)$-time, whereas the honest parties may run in longer (polynomial) time. We then construct a 4-tag quasi non-malleable commitment from any sub-exponential OWF and the assumption that $\mathbf{E}$ is hard for some exponential size $\mathbf{NP}$-circuits, and use tag amplification techniques to support an exponential number of tags

Non-Malleable Codes for Bounded Polynomial-Depth Tampering

Non-malleable codes allow one to encode data in such a way that, after tampering, the modified codeword is guaranteed to decode to either the original message, or a completely unrelated one. Since the introduction of the notion by Dziembowski, Pietrzak, and Wichs (ICS \u2710 and J. ACM \u2718), a large body of work has focused on realizing such coding schemes secure against various classes of tampering functions. It is well known that there is no efficient non-malleable code secure against all polynomial size tampering functions. Nevertheless, non-malleable codes in the plain model (i.e., no trusted setup) secure against $\textit{bounded}$ polynomial size tampering are not known and obtaining such a code has been a major open problem. We present the first construction of a non-malleable code secure against $\textit{all}$ polynomial size tampering functions that have $\textit{bounded polynomial depth}$. This is an even larger class than all bounded polynomial $\textit{size}$ functions and, in particular, we capture all functions in non-uniform $\mathbf{NC}$ (and much more). Our construction is in the plain model (i.e., no trusted setup) and relies on several cryptographic assumptions such as keyless hash functions, time-lock puzzles, as well as other standard assumptions. Additionally, our construction has several appealing properties: the complexity of encoding is independent of the class of tampering functions and we obtain sub-exponentially small error

Non-Interactive Non-Malleability from Quantum Supremacy

We construct non-interactive non-malleable commitments without setup in the plain model, under well-studied assumptions. First, we construct non-interactive non-malleable commitments with respect to commitment for $\epsilon \log \log n$ tags for a small constant $\epsilon > 0$, under the following assumptions: - Sub-exponential hardness of factoring or discrete log. - Quantum sub-exponential hardness of learning with errors (LWE). Second, as our key technical contribution, we introduce a new tag amplification technique. We show how to convert any non-interactive non-malleable commitment with respect to commitment for $\epsilon\log \log n$ tags (for any constant $\epsilon>0$) into a non-interactive non-malleable commitment with respect to replacement for $2^n$ tags. This part only assumes the existence of sub-exponentially secure non-interactive witness indistinguishable (NIWI) proofs, which can be based on sub-exponential security of the decisional linear assumption. Interestingly, for the tag amplification technique, we crucially rely on the leakage lemma due to Gentry and Wichs (STOC 2011). For the construction of non-malleable commitments for $\epsilon \log \log n$ tags, we rely on quantum supremacy. This use of quantum supremacy in classical cryptography is novel, and we believe it will have future applications. We provide one such application to two-message witness indistinguishable (WI) arguments from (quantum) polynomial hardness assumptions

Two-Round Maliciously Secure Computation with Super-Polynomial Simulation

We propose the first maliciously secure multi-party computation (MPC) protocol for general functionalities in two rounds, without any trusted setup. Since polynomial-time simulation is impossible in two rounds, we achieve the relaxed notion of superpolynomial-time simulation security [Pass, EUROCRYPT 2003]. Prior to our work, no such maliciously secure protocols were known even in the two-party setting for functionalities where both parties receive outputs. Our protocol is based on the sub-exponential security of standard assumptions plus a special type of non-interactive non-malleable commitment. At the heart of our approach is a two-round multi-party conditional disclosure of secrets (MCDS) protocol in the plain model from bilinear maps, which is constructed from techniques introduced in [Benhamouda and Lin, TCC 2020]

Non-interactive Distributional Indistinguishability (NIDI) and Non-Malleable Commitments

We introduce non-interactive distributionally indistinguishable arguments (NIDI) to address a significant weakness of NIWI proofs: namely, the lack of meaningful secrecy when proving statements about $\mathsf{NP}$ languages with unique witnesses. NIDI arguments allow a prover P to send a single message to verifier V, given which V obtains a sample d from a (secret) distribution D, together with a proof of membership of d in an NP language L. The soundness guarantee is that if the sample d obtained by the verifier V is not in L, then V outputs $\bot$. The privacy guarantee is that secrets about the distribution remain hidden: for every pair of distributions $D_0$ and $D_1$ of instance-witness pairs in L such that instances sampled according to $D_0$ or $D_1$ are (sufficiently) hard-to-distinguish, a NIDI that outputs instances according to $D_0$ with proofs of membership in L is indistinguishable from one that outputs instances according to $D_1$ with proofs of membership in L. - We build NIDI arguments for sufficiently hard-to-distinguish distributions assuming sub-exponential indistinguishability obfuscation and sub-exponential one-way functions. - We demonstrate preliminary applications of NIDI and of our techniques to obtaining the first (relaxed) non-interactive constructions in the plain model, from well-founded assumptions, of: 1. Commit-and-prove that provably hides the committed message 2. CCA-secure commitments against non-uniform adversaries. The commit phase of our commitment schemes consists of a single message from the committer to the receiver, followed by a randomized output by the receiver (that need not necessarily be returned to the committer)