Non-malleable Instance-Dependent Commitment in the Standard Model

  • Wenpan Jing
  • Haixia Xu
  • Bao Li
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7372)


An instance-dependent commitment (IDC) scheme takes an instance in a promise problem as public input at each time of committing and separately achieves statistical hiding and statistical binding when the instance is from different subsets of the promise. In this paper, we define a new security property called “instance-non-malleability ” for the IDC. It requires the non-malleability of the instances as well as the committed messages. Instance-non-malleability is not only stronger than previous definitions of non-malleability for commitments, but can be achieved in the standard model as well. We also present a general construction of the non-interactive instance-non-malleable IDC.


non-malleability instance-dependent commitment zero-knowledge proof 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cramer, R., Shoup, V.: A practical public key cryptosystem provably secure against adaptive chosen ciphertext attack, pp. 13–25. Springer (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Di Crescenzo, G., Ishai, Y., Ostrovsky, R.: Non-interactive and non-malleable commitment, pp. 141–150. ACM (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Damgard, I.: On Σ-protocols (2010),
  4. 4.
    Dolev, D., Dwork, C., Naor, M.: Non-malleable cryptography, pp. 542–552. ACM (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fischlin, M.: Completely non-malleable schemes. Automata, Languages and Programming, 779–790 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldreich, O.: On promise problems (a survey in memory of Shimon Even (1935-2004)). ECCC, TR05-018 127, 128 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ong, S., Vadhan, S.: An equivalence between zero knowledge and commitments. Theory of Cryptography, 482–500 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sahai, A.: Non-Malleable Non-Interactive Zero Knowledge and Adaptive Chosen-Ciphertext Security. In: 40th FOCS, pp. 543–553 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shoup, V.: Using Hash Functions as a Hedge against Chosen Ciphertext Attack. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1807, pp. 275–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vadhan, S.: An unconditional study of computational zero knowledge. SIAM Journal on Computing 36, 1160–1214 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pass, R., Rosen, A.: New and improved constructions of non-malleable cryptographic protocols. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 542–552 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Itoh, T., Ohta, Y., Shizuya, H.: A language-dependent cryptographic primitive. Journal of Cryptology 10, 37–49 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kapron, B., Malka, L., Srinivasan, V.: A Characterization of Non-interactive Instance-Dependent Commitment-Schemes (NIC). In: Arge, L., Cachin, C., Jurdziński, T., Tarlecki, A. (eds.) ICALP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4596, pp. 328–339. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wenpan Jing
    • 1
  • Haixia Xu
    • 1
  • Bao Li
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations