Concurrent-Secure Two-Party Computation in Two Rounds from Subexponential LWE

Very recently, two works were able to construct two-round secure multi-party computation (MPC) protocols in the plain model, without setup, relying on the superpolynomial simulation framework of Pass [Pas03]. The first work [ABG+21] achieves this relying on subexponential non-interactive witness indistinguishable arguments, the subexponential SXDH assumption, and the existence of a special type of non-interactive non-malleable commitment. The second work [FJK21] additionally achieves concurrent security, and relies on subexponential quantum hardness of the learning-with-errors (LWE) problem, subexponential classical hardness of SXDH, the existence of a subexponentially-secure (classically-hard) indistinguishablity obfuscation (iO) scheme, and time-lock puzzles. This paper focuses on the assumptions necessary to construct secure computation protocols in two rounds without setup, focusing on the subcase of two-party functionalities. In this particular case, we show how to build a two-round, concurrent-secure, two-party computation (2PC) protocol based on a single, standard, post-quantum assumption, namely subexponential hardness of the learning-with-errors (LWE) problem. We note that our protocol is the first two-round concurrent-secure 2PC protocol that does not require the existence of a one-round non-malleable commitment (NMC). Instead, we are able to use the two-round NMCs of [KS17a], which is instantiable from subexponential LWE

TARDIS: A Foundation of Time-Lock Puzzles in UC

Time-based primitives like time-lock puzzles (TLP) are finding widespread use in practical protocols, partially due to the surge of interest in the blockchain space where TLPs and related primitives are perceived to solve many problems. Unfortunately, the security claims are often shaky or plainly wrong since these primitives are used under composition. One reason is that TLPs are inherently not UC secure and time is tricky to model and use in the UC model. On the other hand, just specifying standalone notions of the intended task, left alone correctly using standalone notions like non-malleable TLPs only, might be hard or impossible for the given task. And even when possible a standalone secure primitive is harder to apply securely in practice afterwards as its behavior under composition is unclear. The ideal solution would be a model of TLPs in the UC framework to allow simple modular proofs. In this paper we provide a foundation for proving composable security of practical protocols using time-lock puzzles and related timed primitives in the UC model. We construct UC-secure TLPs based on random oracles and show that using random oracles is necessary. In order to prove security, we provide a simple and abstract way to reason about time in UC protocols. Finally, we demonstrate the usefulness of this foundation by constructing applications that are interesting in their own right, such as UC-secure two-party computation with output-independent abort

Two-Round and Non-Interactive Concurrent Non-Malleable Commitments from Time-Lock Puzzles

Non-malleable commitments are a fundamental cryptographic tool for preventing (concurrent) man-in-the-middle attacks. Since their invention by Dolev, Dwork, and Naor in 1991, the round-complexity of non-malleable commitments has been extensively studied, leading up to constant-round concurrent non-malleable commitments based only on one-way functions, and even 3-round concurrent non-malleable commitments based on subexponential one-way functions, or standard polynomial-time hardness assumptions, such as, DDH and ZAPs. But constructions of two-round, or non-interactive, non-malleable commitments have so far remained elusive; the only known construction relied on a strong and non-falsifiable assumption with a non-malleability flavor. Additionally, a recent result by Pass shows the impossibility of basing two-round non-malleable commitments on falsifiable assumptions using a polynomial-time black-box security reduction. In this work, we show how to overcome this impossibility, using super-polynomial-time hardness assumptions. Our main result demonstrates the existence of a two-round concurrent non-malleable commitment based on sub-exponential ``standard-type assumptions---notably, assuming the existence of all four of the following primitives (all with subexponential security): (1) non-interactive commitments, (2) ZAPs (i.e., 2-round witness indistinguishable proofs), (3) collision-resistant hash functions, and (4) a ``weak\u27\u27 time-lock puzzle. Primitives (1),(2),(3) can be based on e.g., the discrete log assumption and the RSA assumption. Time-lock puzzles--puzzles that can be solved by ``brute-force in time $2^t$, but cannot be solved significantly faster even using parallel computers--were proposed by Rivest, Shamir, and Wagner in 1996, and have been quite extensively studied since; the most popular instantiation relies on the assumption that $2^t$ repeated squarings mod $N = pq$ require ``roughly $2^t$ parallel time. Our notion of a ``weak time-lock puzzle requires only that the puzzle cannot be solved in parallel time $2^{t^\epsilon}$ (and thus we only need to rely on the relatively mild assumption that there are no huge improvements in the parallel complexity of repeated squaring algorithms). We additionally show that if replacing assumption (2) for a non-interactive witness indistinguishable proof (NIWI), and (3) for a uniform collision-resistant hash function, then a non-interactive (i.e., one-message) version of our protocol satisfies concurrent non-malleability w.r.t. uniform attackers. Finally, we show that our two-round (and non-interactive) non-malleable commitments, in fact, satisfy an even stronger notion of Chosen Commitment Attack (CCA) security (w.r.t. uniform attackers)

Non-Malleable Time-Lock Puzzles and Applications

Time-lock puzzles are a mechanism for sending messages to the future , by allowing a sender to quickly generate a puzzle with an underlying message that remains hidden until a receiver spends a moderately large amount of time solving it. We introduce and construct a variant of a time-lock puzzle which is non-malleable, which roughly guarantees that it is impossible to maul a puzzle into one for a related message without solving it. Using non-malleable time-lock puzzles, we achieve the following applications: (1) The first fair non-interactive multi-party protocols for coin flipping and auctions in the plain model without setup. (2) Practically efficient fair multi-party protocols for coin flipping and auctions proven secure in the (auxiliary-input) random oracle model. As a key step towards proving the security of our protocols, we introduce the notion of functional non-malleability, which protects against tampering attacks that affect a specific function of the related messages. To support an unbounded number of participants in our protocols, our time-lock puzzles satisfy functional non-malleability in the fully concurrent setting. We additionally show that standard (non-functional) non-malleability is impossible to achieve in the concurrent setting (even in the random oracle model)

One-Message Zero Knowledge and Non-Malleable Commitments

We introduce a new notion of one-message zero-knowledge (1ZK) arguments that satisfy a weak soundness guarantee — the number of false statements that a polynomial-time non-uniform adversary can convince the verifier to accept is not much larger than the size of its non-uniform advice. The zero-knowledge guarantee is given by a simulator that runs in (mildly) super-polynomial time. We construct such 1ZK arguments based on the notion of multi-collision-resistant keyless hash functions, recently introduced by Bitansky, Kalai, and Paneth (STOC 2018). Relying on the constructed 1ZK arguments, subexponentially-secure time-lock puzzles, and other standard assumptions, we construct one-message fully-concurrent non-malleable commitments. This is the first construction that is based on assumptions that do not already incorporate non-malleability, as well as the first based on (subexponentially) falsifiable assumptions

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

Standard Model Time-Lock Puzzles: Defining Security and Constructing via Composition

The introduction of time-lock puzzles initiated the study of publicly “sending information into the future.” For time-lock puzzles, the underlying security-enabling mechanism is the computational complexity of the operations needed to solve the puzzle, which must be tunable to reveal the solution after a predetermined time, and not before that time. Time-lock puzzles are typically constructed via a commitment to a secret, paired with a reveal algorithm that sequentially iterates a basic function over such commitment. One then shows that short-cutting the iterative process violates cryptographic hardness of an underlying problem. To date, and for more than twenty-five years, research on time-lock puzzles relied heavily on iteratively applying well-structured algebraic functions. However, despite the tradition of cryptography to reason about primitives in a realistic model with standard hardness assumptions (often after initial idealized assumptions), most analysis of time-lock puzzles to date still relies on cryptography modeled (in an ideal manner) as a random oracle function or a generic group function. Moreover, Mahmoody et al. showed that time-lock puzzles with superpolynomial gap cannot be constructed from random-oracles; yet still, current treatments generally use an algebraic trapdoor to efficiently construct a puzzle with a large time gap, and then apply the inconsistent (with respect to Mahmoody et al.) random-oracle idealizations to analyze the solving process. Finally, little attention has been paid to the nuances of composing multi-party computation with timed puzzles that are solved as part of the protocol. In this work, we initiate a study of time-lock puzzles in a model built upon a realistic (and falsifiable) computational framework. We present a new formal definition of residual complexity to characterize a realistic, gradual time-release for time-lock puzzles. We also present a general definition of timed multi-party computation (MPC) and both sequential and concurrent composition theorems for MPC in our model

Maliciously-Secure MrNISC in the Plain Model

A recent work of Benhamouda and Lin (TCC~\u2720) identified a dream version of secure multiparty computation (MPC), termed **Multiparty reusable Non-Interactive Secure Computation** (MrNISC), that combines at the same time several fundamental aspects of secure computation with standard simulation security into one primitive: round-optimality, succinctness, concurrency, and adaptivity. In more detail, MrNISC is essentially a two-round MPC protocol where the first round of messages serves as a reusable commitment to the private inputs of participating parties. Using these commitments, any subset of parties can later compute any function of their choice on their respective inputs by broadcasting one message each. Anyone who sees these parties\u27 commitments and evaluation messages (even an outside observer) can learn the function output and nothing else. Importantly, the input commitments can be computed without knowing anything about other participating parties (neither their identities nor their number) and they are reusable across any number of computations. By now, there are several known MrNISC protocols from either (bilinear) group-based assumptions or from LWE. They all satisfy semi-malicious security (in the plain model) and require trusted setup assumptions in order to get malicious security. We are interested in maliciously secure MrNISC protocols **in the plain model, without trusted setup**. Since the standard notion of polynomial simulation is un-achievable in less than four rounds, we focus on MrNISC with **super-polynomial**-time simulation (SPS). Our main result is the first maliciously secure SPS MrNISC in the plain model. The result is obtained by generically compiling any semi-malicious MrNISC and the security of our compiler relies on several well-founded assumptions, including an indistinguishability obfuscator and a time-lock puzzle (all of which need to be sub-exponentially hard). As a special case we also obtain the first 2-round maliciously secure SPS MPC based on well-founded assumptions. This MPC is also concurrently self-composable and its first message is short (i.e., its size is independent of the number of the participating parties) and reusable throughout any number of computations

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

On the Security of Time-Lock Puzzles and Timed Commitments

Time-lock puzzles---problems whose solution requires some amount of sequential effort---have recently received increased interest (e.g., in the context of verifiable delay functions). Most constructions rely on the sequential-squaring conjecture that computing $g^{2^T} \bmod N$ for a uniform $g$ requires at least $T$ (sequential) steps. We study the security of time-lock primitives from two perspectives: - We give the first hardness result about the sequential-squaring conjecture in a non-generic model. Namely, in a quantitative version of the algebraic group model (AGM) that we call the strong AGM, we show that speeding up sequential squaring is as hard as factoring $N$. - We then focus on timed commitments, one of the most important primitives that can be obtained from time-lock puzzles. We extend existing security definitions to settings that may arise when using timed commitments in higher-level protocols, and give the first construction of non-malleable timed commitments. As a building block of independent interest, we also define (and give constructions for) a related primitive called timed public-key encryption