Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Annual International Cryptology Conference

CRYPTO 2019: Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2019 pp 3–29Cite as

The Communication Complexity of Threshold Private Set Intersection

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 11693))

Abstract

Threshold private set intersection enables Alice and Bob who hold sets \(S_{\mathsf {A}}\) and \(S_{\mathsf {B}}\) of size n to compute the intersection \(S_{\mathsf {A}} \cap S_{\mathsf {B}} \) if the sets do not differ by more than some threshold parameter \(t\). In this work, we investigate the communication complexity of this problem and we establish the first upper and lower bounds. We show that any protocol has to have a communication complexity of \(\varOmega (t)\). We show that an almost matching upper bound of \(\tilde{\mathcal {O}}(t)\) can be obtained via fully homomorphic encryption. We present a computationally more efficient protocol based on weaker assumptions, namely additively homomorphic encryption, with a communication complexity of \(\tilde{\mathcal {O}}(t ^2)\). For applications like biometric authentication, where a given fingerprint has to have a large intersection with a fingerprint from a database, our protocols may result in significant communication savings.

Prior to this work, all previous protocols had a communication complexity of \(\varOmega (n)\). Our protocols are the first ones with communication complexities that mainly depend on the threshold parameter \(t\) and only logarithmically on the set size n.

S. Ghosh and M. Simkin—Supported by the European Unions’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 669255 (MPCPRO) and under grant agreement No 731583 (SODA) and the Independent Research Fund Denmark project BETHE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A rational function is the fraction of two polynomials. See Sect. 2.1 for details.

  2. 2.

    See [MTZ03] for details on rational function interpolation over a field.

  3. 3.

    The lemma we are referring to here is Lemma 2 in the paper of Kissner and Song.

  4. 4.

    For the case of the Paillier cryptosystem this is strictly speaking not the case, since not every element from the message space has an inverse. However, finding an element that does not have an inverse is as hard as breaking the security of the cryptosystem. Therefore, we can treat the message space as if it was an actual field.

  5. 5.

    See Theorem 3 in their work.

  6. 6.

    separating the numerator and denominator from a given rational function is easy here, because we obtain the coefficients of both separately during the interpolation step.

References

  1. Applebaum, B., Damgård, I., Ishai, Y., Nielsen, M., Zichron, L.: Secure arithmetic computation with constant computational overhead. In: Katz, J., Shacham, H. (eds.) CRYPTO 2017. LNCS, vol. 10401, pp. 223–254. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63688-7_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Babai, L., Frankl, P., Simon, J.: Complexity classes in communication complexity theory (preliminary version). In: 27th FOCS, pp. 337–347. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 1986

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brakerski, Z., Gentry, C., Vaikuntanathan, V.: (Leveled) fully homomorphic encryption without bootstrapping. In: Goldwasser, S. (ed.) ITCS 2012, pp. 309–325. ACM, January 2012

    Google Scholar 

  4. Blum, M., Kannan, S.: Designing programs that check their work. In: 21st ACM STOC, pp. 86–97. ACM Press, May 1989

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ben-Or, M., Tiwari, P.: A deterministic algorithm for sparse multivariate polynominal interpolation (extended abstract). In: 20th ACM STOC, pp. 301–309. ACM Press, May 1988

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brakerski, Z., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Efficient fully homomorphic encryption from (standard) LWE. In: Ostrovsky, R. (ed.) 52nd FOCS, pp. 97–106. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 2011

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brakerski, Z., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Fully homomorphic encryption from ring-LWE and security for key dependent messages. In: Rogaway, P. (ed.) CRYPTO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6841, pp. 505–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22792-9_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Bar-Yossef, Z., Jayram, T.S., Kumar, R., Sivakumar, D.: An information statistics approach to data stream and communication complexity. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 68(4), 702–732 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Canetti, R.: Universally composable security: a new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In: 42nd FOCS, pp. 136–145. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 2001

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cramer, R., Damgård, I., Nielsen, J.B.: Secure Multiparty Computation and Secret Sharing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. De Cristofaro, E., Gasti, P., Tsudik, G.: Fast and private computation of cardinality of set intersection and union. In: Pieprzyk, J., Sadeghi, A.-R., Manulis, M. (eds.) CANS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7712, pp. 218–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35404-5_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen, H., Laine, K., Rindal, P.: Fast private set intersection from homomorphic encryption. In: Thuraisingham, B.M., Evans, D., Malkin, T., Xu, D. (eds.) ACM CCS 17, pp. 1243–1255. ACM Press, October/November 2017

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dong, C., Chen, L., Wen, Z.: When private set intersection meets big data: an efficient and scalable protocol. In: Sadeghi, A.-R., Gligor, V.D., Yung, M. (eds.) ACM CCS 2013, pp. 789–800. ACM Press, November 2013

    Google Scholar 

  14. Debnath, S.K., Dutta, R.: Secure and efficient private set intersection cardinality using bloom filter. In: Lopez, J., Mitchell, C.J. (eds.) ISC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9290, pp. 209–226. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23318-5_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Damgård, I., Jurik, M.: A generalisation, a simpli.cation and some applications of Paillier’s probabilistic public-key system. In: Kim, K. (ed.) PKC 2001. LNCS, vol. 1992, pp. 119–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44586-2_9

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. De Cristofaro, E., Tsudik, G.: Practical private set intersection protocols with linear complexity. In: Sion, R. (ed.) FC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6052, pp. 143–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14577-3_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Egert, R., Fischlin, M., Gens, D., Jacob, S., Senker, M., Tillmanns, J.: Privately computing set-union and set-intersection cardinality via bloom filters. In: Foo, E., Stebila, D. (eds.) ACISP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9144, pp. 413–430. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19962-7_24

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Freedman, M.J., Nissim, K., Pinkas, B.: Efficient private matching and set intersection. In: Cachin, C., Camenisch, J.L. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3027, pp. 1–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24676-3_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Gentry, C.: Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices. In: Mitzenmacher, M. (ed.) 41st ACM STOC, pp. 169–178. ACM Press, May/June 2009

    Google Scholar 

  20. Grigorescu, E., Jung, K., Rubinfeld, R.: A local decision test for sparse polynomials. Inf. Process. Lett. 110(20), 898–901 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Ghosh, S., Nilges, T.: An algebraic approach to maliciously secure private set intersection. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/1064 (2017). https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1064

  22. Ghosh, S., Nielsen, J.B., Nilges, T.: Maliciously secure oblivious linear function evaluation with constant overhead. In: Takagi, T., Peyrin, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10624, pp. 629–659. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70694-8_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Hallgren, P.A., Orlandi, C., Sabelfeld, A.: PrivatePool: privacy-preserving ridesharing. In: 30th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium, CSF 2017, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 21–25 August 2017, pp. 276–291 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hazay, C., Venkitasubramaniam, M.: Scalable multi-party private set-intersection. In: Fehr, S. (ed.) PKC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10174, pp. 175–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54365-8_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Hohenberger, S., Weis, S.A.: Honest-verifier private disjointness testing without random oracles. In: Danezis, G., Golle, P. (eds.) PET 2006. LNCS, vol. 4258, pp. 277–294. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11957454_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Ishai, Y., Prabhakaran, M., Sahai, A.: Secure arithmetic computation with no honest majority. In: Reingold, O. (ed.) TCC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5444, pp. 294–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00457-5_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Kolesnikov, V., Kumaresan, R., Rosulek, M., Trieu, N.: Efficient batched oblivious PRF with applications to private set intersection. In: Weippl, E.R., Katzenbeisser, S., Kruegel, C., Myers, A.C., Halevi, S. (eds.) ACM CCS 2016, pp. 818–829. ACM Press, October 2016

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kiss, Á., Liu, J., Schneider, T., Asokan, N., Pinkas, B.: Private set intersection for unequal set sizes with mobile applications. Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol. 2017(4), 177–197 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kolesnikov, V., Matania, N., Pinkas, B., Rosulek, M., Trieu, N.: Practical multi-party private set intersection from symmetric-key techniques. In: Thuraisingham, B.M., Evans, D., Malkin, T., Xu, D. (eds.) ACM CCS 2017, pp. 1257–1272. ACM Press, October/November 2017

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kiltz, E., Mohassel, P., Weinreb, E., Franklin, M.: Secure linear algebra using linearly recurrent sequences. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 291–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70936-7_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Kalyanasundaram, B., Schintger, G.: The probabilistic communication complexity of set intersection. SIAM J. Discret. Math. 5(4), 545–557 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Kissner, L., Song, D.X.: Privacy-preserving set operations. In: Shoup, V. (ed.) CRYPTO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3621, pp. 241–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11535218_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Marlinspike, M.: The difficulty of private contact discovery (2014). https://signal.org/blog/contact-discovery

  34. Meadows, C.A.: A more efficient cryptographic matchmaking protocol for use in the absence of a continuously available third party. In: Proceedings of the 1986 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, California, USA, 7–9 April 1986, pp. 134–137 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Müller-Quade, J., Unruh, D.: Long-term security and universal composability. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 41–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70936-7_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Minsky, Y., Trachtenberg, A., Zippel, R.: Set reconciliation with nearly optimal communication complexity. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 49(9), 2213–2218 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Nagaraja, S., Mittal, P., Hong, C.-Y., Caesar, M., Borisov, N.: BotGrep: finding P2P bots with structured graph analysis. In: Proceedings of the 19th USENIX Security Symposium, Washington, DC, USA, 11–13 August 2010, pp. 95–110 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Naor, M., Pinkas, B.: Oblivious transfer and polynomial evaluation. In: 31st ACM STOC, pp. 245–254. ACM Press, May 1999

    Google Scholar 

  39. Paillier, P.: Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residuosity classes. In: Stern, J. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1592, pp. 223–238. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48910-X_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Pinkas, B., Schneider, T., Segev, G., Zohner, M.: Phasing: private set intersection using permutation-based hashing. In: 24th USENIX Security Symposium, USENIX Security 15, Washington, D.C., USA, 12–14 August 2015, pp. 515–530 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Pinkas, B., Schneider, T., Weinert, C., Wieder, U.: Efficient Circuit-based PSI via Cuckoo hashing. In: Nielsen, J.B., Rijmen, V. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2018. LNCS, vol. 10822, pp. 125–157. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78372-7_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Pinkas, B., Schneider, T., Zohner, M.: Faster private set intersection based on OT extension. In: Proceedings of the 23rd USENIX Security Symposium, San Diego, CA, USA, 20–22 August 2014, pp. 797–812 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rivest, R.L., Adleman, L., Dertouzos, M.L.: On data banks and privacy homomorphisms. Found. Secur. Comput. 4(11), 169–180 (1978)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. Razborov, A.A.: Applications of matrix methods to the theory of lower bounds in computational complexity. Combinatorica 10(1), 81–93 (1990)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  45. Rindal, P., Rosulek, M.: Improved private set intersection against malicious adversaries. In: Coron, J.-S., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10210, pp. 235–259. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56620-7_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Rindal, P., Rosulek, M.: Malicious-secure private set intersection via dual execution. In: Thuraisingham, B.M., Evans, D., Malkin, T., Xu, D. (eds.) ACM CCS 2017, pp. 1229–1242. ACM Press, October/November 2017

    Google Scholar 

  47. Yao, A.C.-C.: How to generate and exchange secrets (extended abstract). In: 27th FOCS, pp. 162–167. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 1986

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zhao, Y., Chow, S.S.M.: Can you find the one for me? Privacy-preserving matchmaking via threshold PSI. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/184 (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/184

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Ivan Damgård, Claudio Orlandi, and Tobias Nilges for the fruitful discussions that have helped shape the current work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Satrajit Ghosh & Mark Simkin

Authors
  1. Satrajit Ghosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Simkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Satrajit Ghosh or Mark Simkin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Alexandra Boldyreva

  2. University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Daniele Micciancio

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 International Association for Cryptologic Research

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ghosh, S., Simkin, M. (2019). The Communication Complexity of Threshold Private Set Intersection. In: Boldyreva, A., Micciancio, D. (eds) Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2019. CRYPTO 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11693. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26951-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26951-7_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26950-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26951-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation