Advertisement

Analysis of the State of the Art

Chapter
  • 558 Downloads
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Computer Science book series (BRIEFSCOMPUTER)

Abstract

In this chapter, all verifiable computing schemes discussed in this survey are summarized and their properties are highlighted. We first summarize for each type of verifiable computing scheme presented in the survey, i.e. proof and argument based verifiable computing, verifiable computing from fully homomorphic encryption, homomorphic authenticators, verifiable computing frameworks from functional encryption and functional signatures, and verifiable computing for specific applications, which properties they provide. Like in the rest of the survey the properties concerned are the level of security the scheme provides, how efficient the verification process is, whether anyone or only the client can check the correctness of the result, which function class the verifiable computing scheme supports, and whether privacy with respect to the input and/or output data is given. Afterwards, we discuss to what extent the schemes provide long-term privacy, i.e. are secure against attackers with unbounded computation power. Finally, we discuss for which approaches implementations are available.

References

  1. 1.
    B. Applebaum, Y. Ishai, E. Kushilevitz, From secrecy to soundness: efficient verification via secure computation, in Automata, Languages and Programming, 37th International Colloquium, ICALP 2010, Proceedings, Part I, Bordeaux, 6–10 July 2010, pp. 152–163Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Backes, D. Fiore, R.M. Reischuk, Verifiable delegation of computation on outsourced data, in 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS’13, Berlin, 4–8 November 2013, pp. 863–874Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Backes, M. Barbosa, D. Fiore, R.M. Reischuk, ADSNARK: nearly practical and privacy-preserving proofs on authenticated data, in 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2015, San Jose, CA, 17–21 May 2015, pp. 271–286Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Barbosa, P. Farshim, Delegatable homomorphic encryption with applications to secure outsourcing of computation, in Topics in Cryptology - CT-RSA 2012 - The Cryptographers’ Track at the RSA Conference 2012, Proceedings, San Francisco, CA, 27 February–2 March 2012, pp. 296–312Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Ben-Sasson, A. Chiesa, D. Genkin, E. Tromer, M. Virza, SNARKs for C: verifying program executions succinctly and in zero knowledge, in Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2013 - 33rd Annual Cryptology Conference, Proceedings, Part II, Santa Barbara, CA, 18–22 August 2013, pp. 90–108Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Ben-Sasson, A. Chiesa, E. Tromer, M. Virza, Succinct non-interactive zero knowledge for a von Neumann architecture, in Proceedings of the 23rd USENIX Security Symposium, San Diego, CA, 20–22 August 2014, pp. 781–796Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Boyle, S. Goldwasser, I. Ivan, Functional signatures and pseudorandom functions, in Public-Key Cryptography - PKC 2014 - 17th International Conference on Practice and Theory in Public-Key Cryptography, Proceedings, Buenos Aires, 26–28 March 2014, pp. 501–519Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Z. Brakerski, C. Gentry, V. Vaikuntanathan, Fully homomorphic encryption without bootstrapping. Electron. Colloq. Comput. Complex. 18, 111 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Braun, A.J. Feldman, Z. Ren, S.T.V. Setty, A.J. Blumberg, M. Walfish, Verifying computations with state, in ACM SIGOPS 24th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP ’13, Farmington, PA, 3–6 November 2013, pp. 341–357Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Catalano, D. Fiore, R. Gennaro, K. Vamvourellis, Algebraic (trapdoor) one-way functions and their applications, in TCC (2013), pp. 680–699Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Catalano, D. Fiore, B. Warinschi, Homomorphic signatures with efficient verification for polynomial functions, in Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2014 - 34th Annual Cryptology Conference, Proceedings, Part I, Santa Barbara, CA, 17–21 August 2014, pp. 371–389Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Catalano, D. Fiore, L. Nizzardo, Programmable hash functions go private: constructions and applications to (homomorphic) signatures with shorter public keys, in Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2015 - 35th Annual Cryptology Conference, Proceedings, Part II, Santa Barbara, CA, 16–20 August 2015, pp. 254–274Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. Chevallier-Mames, J. Coron, N. McCullagh, D. Naccache, M. Scott, Secure delegation of elliptic-curve pairing, in Smart Card Research and Advanced Application, 9th IFIP WG 8.8/11.2 International Conference, CARDIS 2010, Proceedings, Passau, 14–16 April 2010, pp. 24–35Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Chung, Y.T. Kalai, S.P. Vadhan, Improved delegation of computation using fully homomorphic encryption, in Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2010, 30th Annual Cryptology Conference, Proceedings, Santa Barbara, CA, 15–19 August 2010, pp. 483–501Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Costello, C. Fournet, J. Howell, M. Kohlweiss, B. Kreuter, M. Naehrig, B. Parno, S. Zahur, Geppetto: versatile verifiable computation, in 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2015, San Jose, CA, 17–21 May 2015, pp. 253–270Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. Elkhiyaoui, M. Önen, M. Azraoui, R. Molva, Efficient techniques for publicly verifiable delegation of computation, in Proceedings of the 11th ACM on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security, AsiaCCS 2016, Xi’an, 30 May–3 June 2016, pp. 119–128Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Fiore, R. Gennaro, V. Pastro, Efficiently Verifiable computation on encrypted data, in Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Scottsdale, AZ, 3–7 November 2014, pp. 844–855Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Gennaro, C. Gentry, B. Parno, Non-interactive verifiable computing: outsourcing computation to untrusted workers, in Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2010, 30th Annual Cryptology Conference, Proceedings, Santa Barbara, CA, 15–19 August 2010, pp. 465–482Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Gentry, D. Wichs, Separating succinct non-interactive arguments from all falsifiable assumptions, in Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2011, San Jose, CA, 6–8 June 2011, pp. 99–108Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    http://cs.utexas.edu/pepper. Retrieved 18 Apr 2016
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    A.E. Kosba, D. Papadopoulos, C. Papamanthou, M.F. Sayed, E. Shi, N. Triandopoulos, TRUESET: faster verifiable set computations, in Proceedings of the 23rd USENIX Security Symposium, San Diego, CA, 20–22 August 2014, pp. 765–780Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Lai, R.H. Deng, H. Pang, J. Weng, Verifiable computation on outsourced encrypted data, in Computer Security - ESORICS 2014 - 19th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, Proceedings, Part I, Wroclaw, 7–11 September 2014, pp. 273–291Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. Papamanthou, E. Shi, R. Tamassia, Signatures of correct computation, in TCC (2013), pp. 222–242Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    B. Parno, M. Raykova, V. Vaikuntanathan, How to delegate and verify in public: verifiable computation from attribute-based encryption, in Theory of Cryptography - 9th Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC 2012, Proceedings, Taormina, 19–21 March 2012, pp. 422–439Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    B. Parno, J. Howell, C. Gentry, M. Raykova, Pinocchio: nearly practical verifiable computation, in 2013 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2013, Berkeley, CA, 19–22 May 2013, pp. 238–252Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    S.T.V. Setty, R. McPherson, A.J. Blumberg, M. Walfish, Making argument systems for outsourced computation practical (sometimes), in 19th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2012, San Diego, CA, 5–8 February 2012Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S.T.V. Setty, V. Vu, N. Panpalia, B. Braun, A.J. Blumberg, M. Walfish, Taking proof-based verified computation a few steps closer to practicality, in Proceedings of the 21th USENIX Security Symposium, Bellevue, WA, 8–10 August 2012, pp. 253–268Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    S.T.V. Setty, B. Braun, V. Vu, A.J. Blumberg, B. Parno, M. Walfish, Resolving the conflict between generality and plausibility in verified computation, in Eighth Eurosys Conference 2013, EuroSys ’13, Prague, 14–17 April 2013, pp. 71–84Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Y. Sun, Y. Yu, X. Li, K. Zhang, H. Qian, Y. Zhou, Batch verifiable computation with public verifiability for outsourcing polynomials and matrix computations, in Information Security and Privacy - 21st Australasian Conference, ACISP 2016, Proceedings, Part I, Melbourne, VIC, 4–6 July 2016, pp. 293–309Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    C. Tang, Y. Chen, Efficient non-interactive verifiable outsourced computation for arbitrary functions. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive (2014), p. 439Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. Thaler, Time-optimal interactive proofs for circuit evaluation, in Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2013 - 33rd Annual Cryptology Conference, Proceedings, Part II, Santa Barbara, CA, 18–22 August 2013, pp. 71–89Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. Thaler, M. Roberts, M. Mitzenmacher, H. Pfister, Verifiable computation with massively parallel interactive proofs, in 4th USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing, HotCloud’12, Boston, MA, 12–13 June 2012Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    V. Vu, S.T.V. Setty, A.J. Blumberg, M. Walfish, A hybrid architecture for interactive verifiable computation, in 2013 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2013, Berkeley, CA, 19–22 May 2013, pp. 223–237Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    R.S. Wahby, S.T.V. Setty, Z. Ren, A.J. Blumberg, M. Walfish, Efficient RAM and control flow in verifiable outsourced computation, in 22nd Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2015, San Diego, CA, 8–11 February 2015Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    G. Xu, G.T. Amariucai, Y. Guan, Verifiable computation with reduced informational costs and computational costs, in Computer Security - ESORICS 2014 - 19th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, Proceedings, Part I, Wroclaw, 7–11 September 2014, pp. 292–309Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    L.F. Zhang, R. Safavi-Naini, Generalized homomorphic MACs with efficient verification, in ASIAPKC’14, Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Wookshop on ASIA Public-Key Cryptography, Kyoto, 3 June 2014, pp. 3–12Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    F. Zhang, X. Ma, S. Liu, Efficient computation outsourcing for inverting a class of homomorphic functions. Inf. Sci. 286, 19–28 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Theoretische InformatikTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations