On BlackBox Complexity of Universally Composable Security in the CRS Model
 44 Downloads
Abstract

Static UC secure computation. Designing the first static UC oblivious transfer protocol based on publickey encryption and standalone semihonest oblivious transfer. As a corollary, we obtain the first blackbox constructions of UC secure computation assuming only tworound semihonest oblivious transfer.

Onesided UC secure computation. Designing adaptive UC twoparty computation with single corruptions assuming publickey encryption with oblivious ciphertext generation.

Adaptive UC secure computation. Designing adaptively secure UC commitment scheme assuming only publickey encryption with oblivious ciphertext generation. As a corollary, we obtain the first blackbox constructions of adaptive UC secure computation assuming only (trapdoor) simulatable publickey encryption (as well as a variety of concrete assumptions).
We remark that such a result was not known even under nonblackbox constructions.
Keywords
UC secure computation Blackbox constructions Oblivious transfer UC commitmentsNotes
Supplementary material
References
 1.B. Barak, R. Canetti, J.B. Nielsen, R. Pass, Universally composable protocols with relaxed setup assumptions, in FOCS, (2004), pp. 186–195Google Scholar
 2.O. Blazy, C. Chevalier, D. Pointcheval, D. Vergnaud, Analysis and improvement of lindell’s ucsecure commitment schemes, in ACNS, (2013), pp. 534–551Google Scholar
 3.D. Beaver, Foundations of secure interactive computing, in CRYPTO, (1991), pp. 377–391Google Scholar
 4.R. Canetti, Universally composable security: a new paradigm for cryptographic protocols, in FOCS, (2001), pp. 136–145Google Scholar
 5.S.G. Choi, D. DachmanSoled, T. Malkin, H. Wee, Improved noncommitting encryption with applications to adaptively secure protocols, in ASIACRYPT, (2009), pp. 287–302Google Scholar
 6.S.G. Choi, D. DachmanSoled, T. Malkin, H. Wee, Simple, blackbox constructions of adaptively secure protocols, in TCC, (2009), pp. 387–402Google Scholar
 7.R. Canetti, Y. Dodis, R. Pass, S. Walfish, Universally composable security with global setup, in TCC, (2007), pp. 61–85Google Scholar
 8.R. Canetti, M. Fischlin, Universally composable commitments, in CRYPTO, (2001), pp. 19–40Google Scholar
 9.R. Canetti, U. Feige, O. Goldreich, M. Naor, Adaptively secure multiparty computation, in STOC, (1996), pp. 639–648Google Scholar
 10.R. Canetti, E. Kushilevitz, Y. Lindell, On the limitations of universally composable twoparty computation without setup assumptions. J. Cryptol. 19(2), 135–167 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 11.S.G. Choi, J. Katz, H. Wee, H.S. Zhou, Efficient, adaptively secure, and composable oblivious transfer with a single, global CRS, in PKC, (2013), pp. 73–88Google Scholar
 12.R. Canetti, Y. Lindell, R. Ostrovsky, A. Sahai, Universally composable twoparty and multiparty secure computation, in STOC, (2002), pp. 494–503Google Scholar
 13.R. Canetti, R. Pass, A. Shelat, Cryptography from sunspots: how to use an imperfect reference string, in FOCS, (2007), pp. 249–259Google Scholar
 14.B. David, R. Dowsley, A.C.A. Nascimento, Universally composable oblivious transfer based on a variant of LPN, in CANS, (2014), pp. 143–158Google Scholar
 15.I. Damgård, J. Groth, Noninteractive and reusable nonmalleable commitment schemes, in STOC, (2003), pp. 426–437Google Scholar
 16.D. DachmanSoled, T. Malkin, M. Raykova, M. Venkitasubramaniam, Adaptive and concurrent secure computation from new adaptive, nonmalleable commitments, in ASIACRYPT, (2013), pp. 316–336Google Scholar
 17.I. Damgård, J.B. Nielsen, Improved noncommitting encryption schemes based on a general complexity assumption, in CRYPTO, (2000), pp. 432–450Google Scholar
 18.I. Damgård, J.B. Nielsen, Perfect hiding and perfect binding universally composable commitment schemes with constant expansion factor, in CRYPTO, (2002), pp. 581–596Google Scholar
 19.B.M. David, A.C.A. Nascimento, J. MüllerQuade, Universally composable oblivious transfer from lossy encryption and the mceliece assumptions, in ICITS, (2012), pp. 80–99Google Scholar
 20.I. Damgård, J.B. Nielsen, C. Orlandi, On the necessary and sufficient assumptions for UC computation, in TCC, (2010), pp. 109–127Google Scholar
 21.I. Damgård, A. Scafuro, Unconditionally secure and universally composable commitments from physical assumptions, in ASIACRYPT, (2013), pp. 100–119Google Scholar
 22.S. Even, O. Goldreich, A. Lempel, A randomized protocol for signing contracts. Commun. ACM, 28(6), 637–647 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 23.Y. Gertner, S. Kannan, T. Malkin, O. Reingold, M. Viswanathan, The relationship between public key encryption and oblivious transfer, in FOCS, (2000), pp. 325–335Google Scholar
 24.V. Goyal, C.K. Lee, R. Ostrovsky, I. Visconti, Constructing nonmalleable commitments: a blackbox approach, in FOCS, (2012), pp. 51–60Google Scholar
 25.O. Goldreich, S. Micali, A. Wigderson, How to play any mental game or A completeness theorem for protocols with honest majority, in STOC, (1987), pp. 218–229Google Scholar
 26.O. Goldreich, Foundations of Cryptography: Basic Tools. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 27.I. Haitner, Semihonest to malicious oblivious transfer—the blackbox way, in TCC, (2008), pp. 412–426Google Scholar
 28.I. Haitner, Y. Ishai, E. Kushilevitz, Y. Lindell, E. Petrank, Blackbox constructions of protocols for secure computation. SIAM J. Comput. 40(2), 225–266 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 29.S. Halevi, Y.T. Kalai, Smooth projective hashing and twomessage oblivious transfer. J. Cryptol., 25(1):158–193 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 30.C. Hazay, A. Patra, Onesided adaptively secure twoparty computation, in TCC, (2014), pp. 368–393Google Scholar
 31.C. Hazay, M. Venkitasubramaniam, On blackbox complexity of universally composable security in the CRS model. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., 2015, 488 (2015)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 32.Y. Ishai, E. Kushilevitz, Y. Lindell, E. Petrank, Blackbox constructions for secure computation, in STOC, (2006), pp. 99–108Google Scholar
 33.Y. Ishai, M. Prabhakaran, A. Sahai, Founding cryptography on oblivious transfer—efficiently, in CRYPTO, (2008), pp. 572–591Google Scholar
 34.R. Impagliazzo, S. Rudich, Limits on the provable consequences of oneway permutations, in CRYPTO, (1988), pp. 8–26Google Scholar
 35.J. Kilian, Founding cryptography on oblivious transfer, in STOC, (1988), pp. 20–31Google Scholar
 36.Y.T. Kalai, Y. Lindell, M. Prabhakaran, Concurrent composition of secure protocols in the timing model. J. Cryptol., 20(4), 431–492 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 37.S. Kiyoshima, H. Lin, M. Venkitasubramaniam, A unified approach to constructing blackbox UC protocols in trusted setup models, in TCC, (2017), pp. 776–809Google Scholar
 38.J. Katz, R. Ostrovsky, Roundoptimal secure twoparty computation, in CRYPTO, (2004), pp. 335–354Google Scholar
 39.Y. Lindell, General composition and universal composability in secure multiparty computation, in FOCS, (2003), pp. 394–403Google Scholar
 40.Y. Lindell, Adaptively secure twoparty computation with erasures, in CTRSA, (2009), pp. 117–132Google Scholar
 41.Y. Lindell, Highlyefficient universallycomposable commitments based on the DDH assumption, in EUROCRYPT, (2011), pp. 446–466Google Scholar
 42.H. Lin, R. Pass, Blackbox constructions of composable protocols without setup, in CRYPTO, (2012), pp. 461–478Google Scholar
 43.H. Lin, R. Pass, M. Venkitasubramaniam, A unified framework for concurrent security: universal composability from standalone nonmalleability, in STOC, (2009), pp. 179–188Google Scholar
 44.H. Lin, R. Pass, M. Venkitasubramaniam, A unified framework for UC from only OT, in ASIACRYPT, (2012), pp. 699–717Google Scholar
 45.Y. Lindell, H. Zarosim, Adaptive zeroknowledge proofs and adaptively secure oblivious transfer, in TCC, (2009), pp. 183–201Google Scholar
 46.H.K. Maji, M. Prabhakaran, M. Rosulek, A zeroone law for cryptographic complexity with respect to computational UC security, in CRYPTO, (2010), pp. 595–612Google Scholar
 47.S. Micali, P. Rogaway, Secure computation (abstract), in CRYPTO, (1991), pp. 392–404Google Scholar
 48.C. Peikert, V. Vaikuntanathan, B. Waters, A framework for efficient and composable oblivious transfer, in CRYPTO, (2008), pp. 554–571Google Scholar
 49.R. Pass, H. Wee, Blackbox constructions of twoparty protocols from oneway functions, in TCC, (2009), pp. 403–418Google Scholar
 50.A. Shamir, How to share a secret. Commun. ACM, 22(11), 612–613 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 51.A.C.C. Yao, How to generate and exchange secrets (extended abstract), in FCOS, (1986), pp. 162–167Google Scholar