Advertisement

Correction of a Secure Comparison Protocol for Encrypted Integers in IEEE WIFS 2012 (Short Paper)

  • Baptiste Vinh Mau
  • Koji NuidaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10418)

Abstract

In secure multi-party computation, one of the most useful and basic functionalities that have been realized over additive homomorphic encryption is secure comparison of two integers, where one party has encrypted integers to be compared while only the other party has the decryption key. In IEEE WIFS 2012, Veugen proposed an efficient protocol for this problem in the semi-honest model, which provides perfect security against the latter party. In this paper, we point out that the protocol by Veugen outputs an incorrect value in some cases, and then propose a way to fix the flaws with only slight overhead in efficiency. Our proposed correction is not straightforward, in the sense that it required an “outsourced” homomorphic multiplication protocol for two encrypted values, which was not needed in the original protocol.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Goichiro Hanaoka, Kana Shimizu and more generally all the members of Advanced Cryptography Research Group, Information Technology Research Institute from AIST for their supervision, help and collaboration. They also thank Jean-Pierre Hubaux from the EPFL Laboratory for Communications and Applications for assuming the role of supervising teacher of the first author’s Master Thesis during which this paper was mainly produced. They also thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments. This work was supported by JST PRESTO Grant Number JPMJPR14E8, Japan.

References

  1. 1.
    Bost, R., Popa, R.A., Tu, S., Goldwasser, S.: Machine learning classification over encrypted data. In: NDSS 2015, California, USA, February 2015Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Damgård, I., Geisler, M., Krøigaard, M.: Efficient and secure comparison for on-line auctions. In: Pieprzyk, J., Ghodosi, H., Dawson, E. (eds.) ACISP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4586, pp. 416–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73458-1_30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Damgård, I., Geisler, M., Krøigaard, M.: A correction to ‘efficient and secure comparison for on-line auctions’. Int. J. Appl. Cryptography 1(4), 323–324 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hallgren, P., Ochoa, M., Sabelfeld, A.: BetterTimes. In: Au, M.-H., Miyaji, A. (eds.) ProvSec 2015. LNCS, vol. 9451, pp. 291–309. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26059-4_16 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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). doi: 10.1007/3-540-48910-X_16 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Veugen, T.: Improving the DGK comparison protocol. In: Proceedings of IEEE WIFS 2012, pp. 49–54 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ESI Japan Ltd.TokyoJapan
  2. 2.Advanced Cryptography Research Group, Information Technology Research InstituteNational Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)TokyoJapan
  3. 3.Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) PRESTO ResearcherTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations