Efficiency is paramount when designing cryptographic protocols, heavy mathematical operations often increase computation time, even for modern computers. Moreover, they produce large amounts of data that need to be sent through (often limited) network connections. Therefore, many research efforts are invested in improving efficiency, sometimes leading to imbalanced cryptographic protocols. We define three types of imbalanced protocols, computationally, communicationally, and functionally imbalanced protocols.
Computationally imbalanced cryptographic protocols appear when optimizing a protocol for one party having significantly more computing power. In communicationally imbalanced cryptographic protocols the messages mainly flow from one party to the others. Finally, in functionally imbalanced cryptographic protocols the functional requirements of one party strongly differ from the other parties.
We start our study by looking into laconic cryptography, which fits both the computational and communicational category. The emerging area of laconic cryptography involves the design of two-party protocols involving a sender and a receiver, where the receiver’s input is large. The key efficiency requirement is that the protocol communication complexity must be independent of the receiver’s input size. We show a new way to build laconic OT based on the new notion of Set Membership Encryption (SME) – a new member in the area of laconic cryptography. SME allows a sender to encrypt to one recipient from a universe of receivers, while using a small digest from a large subset of receivers. A recipient is only able to decrypt the message if and only if it is part of the large subset.
As another example of a communicationally imbalanced protocol we will look at NIZKs. We consider the problem of proving in zero-knowledge the existence of exploits in executables compiled to run on real-world processors.
Finally, we investigate the problem of constructing law enforcement access systems that mitigate the possibility of unauthorized surveillance, as a functionally imbalanced cryptographic protocol. We present two main constructions. The first construction enables prospective access, allowing surveillance only if encryption occurs after a warrant has been issued and activated. The second allows retrospective access to communications that occurred prior to a warrant’s issuance
