Advertisement

Secure commitment against a powerful adversary

A security primitive based on average intractability
  • Rafail Ostrovsky
  • Ramarathnam Venkatesan
  • Moti Yung
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 577)

Abstract

Secure commitment is a primitive enabling information hiding, which is one of the most basic tools in cryptography. Specifically, it is a two-party partial-information game between a “committer” and a “receiver”, in which a secure envelope is first implemented and later opened. The committer has a bit in mind which he commits to by putting it in a “secure envelope”. The receiver cannot guess what the value is until the opening stage and the committer can not change his mind once committed.

Keywords

Oblivious Transfer Interactive Proof Strong Player Complexity Assumption Weak Player 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AFK]
    M. Abadi, J. Feigenbaum and J. Kilian. On Hiding Information from an Oracle J. Comput. System Sci. 39 (1989) 21–50.Google Scholar
  2. [B1]
    Blum M., Applications of Oblivious Transfer, Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  3. [B2]
    Blum, M., “Coin Flipping over the Telephone,” IEEE COMPCON 1982, pp. 133–137.Google Scholar
  4. [BM]
    Blum, M. and S. Micali, “How To Generate Cryptographically Strong Sequences of Pseudorandom Bits,” FOCS 82, (Also SIAM J. Comp. 84).Google Scholar
  5. [BCC]
    G. Brassard, D. Chaum and C. Crepeau, Minimum Disclosure Proofs of Knowledge, JCSS, v. 37, pp 156–189.Google Scholar
  6. [Bcr]1992
    Springer-VerlagG. Brassard, C. Crépeau and J.-M. Robert, “Information Theoretic Reductions among Disclosure Problems”, FOCS 86 pp. 168–173.Google Scholar
  7. [BCY]
    Brassard G., C. Crépeau, and M. Yung, “Everything in NP can be proven in Perfect Zero Knowledge in a bounded number of rounds,” ICALP 89.Google Scholar
  8. [kg]
    Beaver D., S. Goldwasser Multiparty Computation with Faulty Majority FOCS 89, pp 468–47.Google Scholar
  9. [BMO]
    Bellare, M., S. Micali and R. Ostrovsky, “The (True) Complexity of Statistical Zero Knowledge” STOC 90.Google Scholar
  10. [BGW]
    Ben-Or M., S. Goldwasser and A. Wigderson, Completeness Theorem for Noncryptographic Fault-tolerant Distributed Computing, STOC 88, pp 1–10.Google Scholar
  11. [CCD]
    D. Chaum, C. Crepeau and I. Damgard, Multiparty Unconditionally Secure Protocols, STOC 88, pp 11–19.Google Scholar
  12. [Co]
    A. Condon, Computational Models of Games, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle 1987. (MIT Press, ACM Distinguished Dissertation Series).Google Scholar
  13. [C]
    C. Crépeau, Equivalence between Two Flavors of Oblivious Transfer, Crypto 87.Google Scholar
  14. [CK]
    C. Crépeau, J. Kilian Achieving Oblivious Transfer Using Weakened Security Assumptions, FOCS 88.Google Scholar
  15. [EGL]
    S. Even, O. Goldreich and A. Lempel, A Randomized Protocol for Signing Contracts, CACM v. 28, 1985 pp. 637–647.Google Scholar
  16. [FMR]
    Fischer M., S. Micali, C. Rackoff An Oblivious Transfer Protocol Equivalent to Factoring, Manuscript.Google Scholar
  17. [GHY]
    Z. Galil, S. Haber and M. Yung, Cryptographic Computations and the Public-Key Model, Crypto 87.Google Scholar
  18. [FO]
    J. Feigenbaum and R. Ostrovsky, A Note On One-Prover, Instance-Hiding ZeroKnowledge Proof Systems In Proceedings of the first international symposium in cryptology in Asia, (ASIACRYPT'91), November 11–14, 1991, Fujsiyoshida, Yamanashi, Japan.Google Scholar
  19. [GL]
    O. Goldreich and L. Levin, Hard-core Predicate for ANY one-way function, STOC 89.Google Scholar
  20. [GMW1]
    O. Goldreich, S. Micali and A. Wigderson, Proofs that Yields Nothing But their Validity, FOCS 86, pp. 174–187.Google Scholar
  21. [GMW2]
    O. Goldreich, S. Micali and A. Wigderson, How to Play any Menial Poker, STOC 87.Google Scholar
  22. [GMR]
    S. Goldwasser, S. Micali and C. Rackoff, The Knowledge Complexity of Interactive Proof-Systems, STOC 85, pp. 291–304.Google Scholar
  23. [GN]
    S. Goldwasser and N. Nisan, personal communication.Google Scholar
  24. [G]
    Y. Gurevich, Average Case Completeness, Journ. of Comp Sys. Sci, 1991.Google Scholar
  25. [H]
    Hastad, J., “Pseudo-Random Generators under Uniform Assumptions”, STOC 90. Google Scholar
  26. [ImLu]
    R. Impagliazzo and M. Luby, One-way Functions are Essential for ComplexityBased Cryptography FOCS 89.Google Scholar
  27. [ILL]
    R. Impagliazzo, R., L. Levin, and M. Luby “Pseudo-Random Generation from OneWay Functions,” STOC 89.Google Scholar
  28. [ImLe]
    R. Impagliazzo, R., L. Levin, No better ways to generate hard NP instances than to choose uniformly at random, FOCS 90.Google Scholar
  29. [IR]
    R. Impagliazzo and S. Rudich, On the Limitations of certain One-Way Permutations, STOC 89.Google Scholar
  30. [IY]
    R. Impagliazzo and M. Yung, Direct Minimum-Knowledge Computations, Proc. of Crypto 87, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. [K]
    J. Killian, Basing Cryptography on Oblivious Transfer, STOC 1988 pp 20–31.Google Scholar
  32. [K2]
    J. Kilian Interactive Proofs With Provable Security Against Honest Verifiers CRYPTO 90, pp. 371–384.Google Scholar
  33. [KMO]
    J. Killian, S. Micali and R. Ostrovsky Minimum-Resource Zero-Knowledge Proofs, FOCS 1989.Google Scholar
  34. [L]
    L. Levin Average Case Complete Problems SIAM J. of Computing, 1986 VOL 15, pp. 285–286.Google Scholar
  35. [LFKN]
    Lund, C., L. Fortnow, H. Karloff, and N. Nisan, “Algebraic Methods for Interactive Proof Systems” FOCS 90.Google Scholar
  36. [N]
    M. Naor “Bit Commitment Using Pseudo-Randomness” Crypto-89 pp. 123–132.Google Scholar
  37. [NOVY]
    M. Naor, R. Ostrovsky, R. Venkatesan, M. Yung, Zero-Knowledge Arguments for NP can be Based on General Complexity Assumptions, manuscript.Google Scholar
  38. [Ost]
    R. Ostrovsky One-way Functions, Hard on Average Problems and Statistical Zeroknowledge Proofs In Proceedings of 6'th Annual Structure in Complexity Theory Conference. June 30—July 3, 1991, Chicago, pp. 51–59.Google Scholar
  39. [OVY]
    R. Ostrovsky, R. Venkatesan, M. Yung, Fair Games Against an All-powerful Adversary, Sequences 91, July 1991, Positano, Italy, to appear in Springer Verlag. (Also presented at DIMACS 1990 Cryptography Workshop, 1–4 October 1990, Princeton.)Google Scholar
  40. [R]
    M., Rabin “How to exchange secrets by oblivious transfer” TR-81 Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard, 1981.Google Scholar
  41. [RB]
    T. Rabin and M. Ben-Or, Verifiable Secret Sharing and Secure Protocols, STOC 89.Google Scholar
  42. [S]
    A. Shamir IP=PSPACE, FOCS 90.Google Scholar
  43. [SRA]
    A. Shamir, R. Rivest and L. Adleman, Mental Poker, Technical Memo MIT (1979).Google Scholar
  44. [VL]
    Venkatesan R., and L. Levin Random Instances of a Graph Coloring Problem are Hard STOC 88. Almost Journal version available.Google Scholar
  45. [Y]
    A. C. Yao, How to Generate and Exchange Secrets, FOCS 86.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafail Ostrovsky
    • 1
  • Ramarathnam Venkatesan
    • 2
  • Moti Yung
    • 3
  1. 1.MIT Laboratory for Computer ScienceCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Bell Communications ResearchMorristownUSA
  3. 3.T.J. Watson Research CenterIBM ResearchYorktown HeightsUSA

Personalised recommendations