Advertisement

Four-State Non-malleable Codes with Explicit Constant Rate

  • Bhavana Kanukurthi
  • Sai Lakshmi Bhavana Obbattu
  • Sruthi SekarEmail author
Research Article
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

Non-malleable codes (NMCs), introduced by Dziembowski, Pietrzak and Wichs (ITCS 2010), provide a powerful guarantee in scenarios where the classical notion of error-correcting codes cannot provide any guarantee: a decoded message is either the same or completely independent of the underlying message, regardless of the number of errors introduced into the codeword. Informally, NMCs are defined with respect to a family of tampering functions \(\mathcal {F}\) and guarantee that any tampered codeword decodes either to the same message or to an independent message, so long as it is tampered using a function \(f \in \mathcal {F}\). One of the well-studied tampering families for NMCs is the t-split-state family, where the adversary tampers each of the t“states” of a codeword, arbitrarily but independently. Cheraghchi and Guruswami (TCC 2014) obtain a rate-1 non-malleable code for the case where \(t = \mathcal {O}(n)\) with n being the codeword length and, in (ITCS 2014), show an upper bound of \(1-1/t\) on the best achievable rate for any t-split state NMC. For \(t=10\), Chattopadhyay and Zuckerman (FOCS 2014) achieve a constant-rate construction where the constant is unknown. In summary, there is no known construction of an NMC with an explicit constant rate for any \(t= o(n)\), let alone one that comes close to matching Cheraghchi and Guruswami’s lowerbound! In this work, we construct an efficient non-malleable code in the t-split-state model, for \(t=4\), that achieves a constant rate of \(\frac{1}{3+\zeta }\), for any constant \(\zeta > 0\), and error \(2^{-\varOmega (\ell / log^{c+1} \ell )}\), where \(\ell \) is the length of the message and \(c > 0\) is a constant.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Yevgeniy Dodis for insightful comments related to the generalization in Sect. 5. We also thank the anonymous referees for several helpful comments. Research of the first author was supported, in part, by Department of Science and Technology Inspire Faculty Award.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Aggarwal, S. Agrawal, D. Gupta, H.K. Maji, O. Pandey, M. Prabhakaran, Optimal computational split-state non-malleable codes, in Theory of Cryptography - 13th International Conference, TCC 2016-A, Tel Aviv, Israel, January 10–13, 2016, Proceedings, Part II, 2016, pp. 393–417Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Aggarwal, Y. Dodis, T. Kazana, M. Obremski, Non-malleable reductions and applications, in Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual ACM on Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2015, Portland, OR, USA, June 14–17, 2015, pp. 459–468Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Aggarwal, Y. Dodis, S. Lovett, Non-malleable codes from additive combinatorics, in Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2014, New York, NY, USA, May 31–June 03, 2014, pp. 774–783Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Agrawal, D. Gupta, H.K. Maji, O. Pandey, M. Prabhakaran, Explicit non-malleable codes resistant to permutations and perturbations. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2014, p. 841Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Agrawal, D. Gupta, H.K. Maji, O. Pandey, M. Prabhakaran, A rate-optimizing compiler for non-malleable codes against bit-wise tampering and permutations, in Theory of Cryptography - 12th Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC 2015, Warsaw, Poland, March 23–25, 2015, Proceedings, Part I, 2015, pp. 375–397Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Ball, D. Dachman-Soled, M. Kulkarni, T. Malkin, Non-malleable codes for bounded depth, bounded fan-in circuits, in M. Fischlin, J.-S. Coron, eds., Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2016 (Springer, Berlin), pp. 881–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Ball, D. Dachman-Soled, M. Kulkarni, T. Malkin, Non-malleable codes from average-case hardness: Ac \(^0\), decision trees, and streaming space-bounded tampering, in J.B. Nielsen, V. Rijmen, (eds.,) Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2018 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018), pp. 618–650Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Coretti, Y. Dodis, B. Tackmann, D. Venturi, Non-malleable encryption: Simpler, shorter, stronger, in E. Kushilevitz, T. Malkin, (eds.), Theory of Cryptography (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2016), pp. 306–335Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Cheraghchi, V. Guruswami, Capacity of non-malleable codes, in Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, ITCS’14, Princeton, NJ, USA, January 12–14, 2014, pp. 155–168Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Cheraghchi, V. Guruswami, Non-malleable coding against bit-wise and split-state tampering, in Theory of Cryptography - 11th Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC 2014, San Diego, CA, USA, February 24–26, 2014. Proceedings, 2014, pp. 440–464Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Chandran, V. Goyal, P. Mukherjee, O. Pandey, J. Upadhyay, Block-wise non-malleable codes, in ICALP volume 55 of LIPIcs (Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2016), pp. 31:1–31:14Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Chandran, B. Kanukurthi, S. Raghuraman, Information-theoretic local non-malleable codes and their applications, in Theory of Cryptography - 13th International Conference, TCC 2016-A, Tel Aviv, Israel, January 10–13, 2016, Proceedings, Part II, 2016, pp. 367–392Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Chattopadhyay, X. Li, Non-malleable codes and extractors for small-depth circuits, and affine functions, in STOC (ACM, 2017), pp. 1171–1184Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Coretti, U. Maurer, B. Tackmann, D. Venturi, From single-bit to multi-bit public-key encryption via non-malleable codes. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2014:324 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J.L. Carter, M.N. Wegman, Universal classes of hash functions. J. Comput. Syst. Sci.18, 143–154 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Chattopadhyay, D. Zuckerman, Non-malleable codes against constant split-state tampering, in 55th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2014, Philadelphia, PA, USA, October 18–21, 2014, pp. 306–315Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Y. Dodis, B. Kanukurthi, J. Katz, L. Reyzin, A. Smith, Robust fuzzy extractors and authenticated key agreement from close secrets. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Dziembowski, T. Kazana, M. Obremski.,Non-malleable codes from two-source extractors, in Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2013 - 33rd Annual Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 18–22, 2013. Proceedings, Part II, 2013, pp. 239–257Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Dachman-Soled, M. Kulkarni, A. Shahverdi, Tight upper and lower bounds for leakage-resilient, locally decodable and updatable non-malleable codes. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2017:15 (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Dachman-Soled, F.-H. Liu, El. Shi, H.-S. Zhou, Locally decodable and updatable non-malleable codes and their applications. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2014:663 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Y. Dodis, R. Ostrovsky, L. Reyzin, A. Smith, Fuzzy extractors: How to generate strong keys from biometrics and other noisy data. SIAM J. Comput.38(1), 97–139 (2008). arXiv:cs/0602007 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Dziembowski, K. Pietrzak, D. Wichs, Non-malleable codes, in Innovations in Computer Science - ICS 2010, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, January 5–7, 2010. Proceedings, 2010, pp. 434–452Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Faust, K. Hostáková, P. Mukherjee, D. Venturi, Non-malleable codes for space-bounded tampering, in CRYPTO (2), volume 10402 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer, 2017), pp. 95–126Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Faust, P. Mukherjee, J.B. Nielsen, D. Venturi, Continuous non-malleable codes, in Theory of Cryptography - 11th Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC 2014, San Diego, CA, USA, February 24–26, 2014. Proceedings, 2014, pp. 465–488Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Gupta, H.K. Maji, M. Wang, Non-malleable codes against lookahead tampering, in Progress in Cryptology - INDOCRYPT 2018 - 19th International Conference on Cryptology in India, New Delhi, India, December 9–12, 2018, Proceedings, 2018, pp. 307–328Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    V. Goyal, O. Pandey, S. Richelson, Textbook non-malleable commitments. in Proceedings of the 48th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2016, Cambridge, MA, USA, June 18–21, 2016, pp. 1128–1141Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    V. Guruswami, C. Umans, S.P. Vadhan, Unbalanced expanders and randomness extractors from Parvaresh–ardy codes, in IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, 2007, pp. 96–108Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. Håstad, R. Impagliazzo, L.A. Levin, M. Luby, Construction of pseudorandom generator from any one-way function. SIAM J. Comput.28(4), 1364–1396 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    T. Johansson, G. Kabatianskii, B.J.M. Smeets, On the relation between a-codes and codes correcting independent errors, in Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT ’93, Workshop on the Theory and Application of Cryptographic Techniques, Lofthus, Norway, May 23–27, 1993, Proceedings, 1993, pp. 1–11Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Z. Jafargholi, D. Wichs, Tamper detection and continuous non-malleable codes, in Theory of Cryptography - 12th Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC 2015, Warsaw, Poland, March 23–25, 2015, Proceedings, Part I, 2015, pp. 451–480Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    B. Kanukurthi, S.L.B. Obbattu, S. Sekar, Non-malleable randomness encoders and their applications, in Eurocrypt 2018, April 28–May 3 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    X. Li, Improved non-malleable extractors, non-malleable codes and independent source extractors, in Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2017, Montreal, Canada, June 19–23, 2017 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    X. Li, Non-malleable extractors and non-malleable codes: Partially optimal constructions. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/353, 2018. https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/353
  34. 34.
    F.-H. Liu, A. Lysyanskaya, Tamper and leakage resilience in the split-state model, IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, p. 297 (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    N. Nisan D. Zuckerman, Randomness is linear in space. J. Comput. Syst. Sci.52(1), 43–53 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    T. Sanders, On the Bogolyubov–Ruzsa lemma. Anal. PDE5(3), 627–655 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    D.R. Stinson, Universal hash families and the leftover hash lemma, and applications to cryptography and computing. J. Combin. Math. Combin. Comput., 42, 3–31 (2002). Available at http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/~dstinson/publist.html
  38. 38.
    S. Vadhan, Pseudorandomness. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science. Now Publishers, 2012. Available at http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~salil/pseudorandomness/

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bhavana Kanukurthi
    • 1
  • Sai Lakshmi Bhavana Obbattu
    • 1
  • Sruthi Sekar
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and AutomationIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations