Advertisement

Cryptographic Reverse Firewalls

  • Ilya MironovEmail author
  • Noah Stephens-Davidowitz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9057)

Abstract

Recent revelations by Edward Snowden [3, 20, 27] show that a user’s own hardware and software can be used against her in various ways (e.g., to leak her private information). And, a series of recent announcements has shown that widespread implementations of cryptographic software often contain serious bugs that cripple security (e.g., [12, 13, 14, 22]). This motivates us to consider the following (seemingly absurd) question: How can we guarantee a user’s security when she may be using a malfunctioning or arbitrarily compromised machine? To that end, we introduce the notion of a cryptographic reverse firewall (RF). Such a machine sits between the user’s computer and the outside world, potentially modifying the messages that she sends and receives as she engages in a cryptographic protocol.

A good reverse firewall accomplishes three things: (1) it maintains functionality, so that if the user’s computer is working correctly, the RF will not break the functionality of the underlying protocol; (2) it preserves security, so that regardless of how the user’s machine behaves, the presence of the RF will provide the same security guarantees as the properly implemented protocol; and (3) it resists exfiltration, so that regardless of how the user’s machine behaves, the presence of the RF will prevent the machine from leaking any information to the outside world. Importantly, we do not model the firewall as a trusted party. It does not share any secrets with the user, and the protocol should be both secure and functional without the firewall (when the protocol’s implementation is correct).

Our security definition for reverse firewalls depends on the security notion(s) of the underlying protocol. As such, our model generalizes much prior work (e.g., [5, 7, 26, 32]) and provides a general framework for building cryptographic schemes that remain secure when run on compromised machine. It is also a modern take on a line of work that received considerable attention in the 80s and 90s (e.g., [7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 30, 31]).

We show that our definition is achievable by constructing a private function evaluation protocol with a secure reverse firewall for each party. Along the way, we design an oblivious transfer protocol that also has a secure RF for each party, and a rerandomizable garbled circuit that is both more efficient and more secure than previous constructions. Finally, we show how to convert any protocol into a protocol with an exfiltration-resistant reverse firewall for all parties. (In other words, we provide a generic way to prevent a tampered machine from leaking information to an eavesdropper via any protocol.)

Keywords

Encryption Scheme Security Requirement Cryptographic Protocol Commitment Scheme Oblivious Transfer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Aiello, W., Ishai, Y., Reingold, O.: Priced oblivious transfer: how to sell digital goods. In: Pfitzmann, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2045, pp. 119–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alwen, J., Shelat, A., Visconti, I.: Collusion-free protocols in the mediated model. In: Wagner, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2008. LNCS, vol. 5157, pp. 497–514. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ball, J., Borger, J., Greenwald, G.: Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat internet privacy and security. Guardian Weekly, September 2013Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellare, M., Hoang, V.T., Rogaway, P.: Foundations of garbled circuits. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2012, pp. 784–796. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellare, M., Paterson, K.G., Rogaway, P.: Security of symmetric encryption against mass surveillance. In: Garay, J.A., Gennaro, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8616, pp. 1–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bellare, M., Paterson, K.G., Rogaway, P.: Security of symmetric encryption against mass surveillance. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2014/438 (2014). http://eprint.iacr.org/
  7. 7.
    Blaze, M., Bleumer, G., Strauss, M.J.: Divertible protocols and atomic proxy cryptography. In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1403, pp. 127–144. Springer, Heidelberg (1998) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown, D., Vanstone, S.: Elliptic curve random number generation, US Patent App. 11/336,814, August 16 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burmester, M., Desmedt, Y.G.: All languages in NP have divertible zero-knowledge proofs and arguments under cryptographic assumptions. In: Damgård, I.B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1990. LNCS, vol. 473, pp. 1–10. Springer, Heidelberg (1991) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burmester, M., Desmedt, Y., Itoh, T., Sakurai, K., Shizuya, H.: Divertible and subliminal-free zero-knowledge proofs for languages. J. Cryptology 12, 197–223 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burmester, M., Desmedt, Y., Itoh, T., Sakurai, K., Shizuya, H., Yung, M.: A progress report on subliminal-free channels. In: Anderson, R. (ed.) Information Hiding. LNCS, vol. 1174, pp. 157–168. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vulnerability summary for CVE-2014-1260 (‘Heartbleed’), April 2014. http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2014-1260
  13. 13.
    Vulnerability summary for CVE-2014-1266 (‘goto fail’), February 2014. http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2014-1266
  14. 14.
    Vulnerability summary for CVE-2014-6271 (‘Shellshock’), September 2014. http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2014-6271
  15. 15.
    Desmedt, Y.: Subliminal-free sharing schemes. In: Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE international symposium on information theory, p. 490, June 1994Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Desmedt, Y.G.: Abuses in cryptography and how to fight them. In: Goldwasser, S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1988. LNCS, vol. 403, pp. 375–389. Springer, Heidelberg (1990) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ElGamal, Taher: A public key cryptosystem and a signature scheme based on discrete logarithms. In: Robert Blakley, George, Chaum, David (eds.) CRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 196, pp. 10–18. Springer, New York (1985) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ford, K., Konyagin, S.V., Luca, F.: Prime chains and Pratt trees. Geometric and Functional Analysis 20(5), 1231–1258 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gentry, C., Halevi, S., Vaikuntanathan, V.: i-Hop homomorphic encryption and rerandomizable yao circuits. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 155–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Greenwald, G.: No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. Metropolitan Books, May 2014Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harnik, D., Kilian, J., Naor, M., Reingold, O., Rosen, A.: On robust combiners for oblivious transfer and other primitives. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3494, pp. 96–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lenstra, A.K., Hughes, J.P., Augier, M., Bos, J.W., Kleinjung, T., Wachter, C.: Public keys. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7417, pp. 626–642. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lepinksi, M., Micali, S., Shelat, A.: Collusion-free protocols. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2005, pp. 543–552. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mironov, I., Stephens-Davidowitz, N.: Cryptographic reverse firewalls. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2014/758, full version (2014). http://eprint.iacr.org/
  25. 25.
    Naor, M., Pinkas, B.: Efficient oblivious transfer protocols. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2001, pp. 448–457. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Okamoto, T., Ohta, K.: Divertible zero knowledge interactive proofs and commutative random self-reducibility. In: Quisquater, J.-J., Vandewalle, J. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 1989. LNCS, vol. 434, pp. 134–149. Springer, Heidelberg (1990) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Perlroth, N., Larson, J., Shane, S.: N.S.A. able to foil basic safeguards of privacy on Web. The New York Times, September 2013Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prabhakaran, M., Rosulek, M.: Rerandomizable RCCA encryption. In: Menezes, A. (ed.) CRYPTO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4622, pp. 517–534. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shumow, D., Ferguson, N.: On the possibility of a back door in the NIST SP800-90 Dual Ec Prng. CRYPTO Rump Session (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Simmons, G.: The prisoners’ problem and the subliminal channel. In: Chaum, D. (ed.) Advances in Cryptology, pp. 51–67. Springer, US (1984)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simmons, G.J.: The subliminal channel and digital signatures. In: Beth, T., Cot, N., Ingemarsson, I. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 1984. LNCS, vol. 209, pp. 364–378. Springer, Heidelberg (1985) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Young, A., Yung, M.: The dark side of “Black-Box” cryptography, or: should we trust capstone? In: Koblitz, N. (ed.) CRYPTO 1996. LNCS, vol. 1109, pp. 89–103. Springer, Heidelberg (1996) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GoogleMenlo ParkUS
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceNew York UniversityNew YorkUS

Personalised recommendations