Advertisement

Implementing Resettable UC-Functionalities with Untrusted Tamper-Proof Hardware-Tokens

  • Nico Döttling
  • Thilo Mie
  • Jörn Müller-Quade
  • Tobias Nilges
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7785)

Abstract

Resettable hardware tokens, usually in the form of smart cards, are used for a variety of security-critical tasks in open environments. Many of these tasks require trusted hardware tokens. With the complexity of hardware, however, it is not feasible to check if the hardware contains an internal state or gives away information over side channels. This inspires the question of the cryptographic strength of untrusted resettable hardware tokens in the universal composability framework.

In this work, we consider the problem of realizing general UC-functionalities from untrusted resettable hardware-tokens, with the goal of minimizing both the amount of interaction and the number of tokens employed. Our main result consists of two protocols, realizing functionalities that are sufficient to UC-realize any resettable two-party functionality.

The first protocol requires two rounds of interaction in an initialization phase and only a single hardware-token. The second protocol is fully non-interactive and requires two tokens. One of these relaxations, allowing either communication with the issuer of the token or issuing two tokens, is necessary. We show that even a simple functionality cannot be realized non-interactively using a single token.

Keywords

Resettably secure computation Tamper-Proof hardware Universal Composability 

References

  1. 1.
    Barak, B., Goldreich, O., Impagliazzo, R., Rudich, S., Sahai, A., Vadhan, S.P., Yang, K.: On the (Im)possibility of Obfuscating Programs. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Canetti, R., Fischlin, M.: Universally Composable Commitments. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 19–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Canetti, R., Goldreich, O., Goldwasser, S., Micali, S.: Resettable zero-knowledge (extended abstract). In: STOC, pp. 235–244 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canetti, R., Lindell, Y., Ostrovsky, R., Sahai, A.: Universally composable two-party and multi-party secure computation. In: STOC, pp. 494–503 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barak, B., Lindell, Y., Vadhan, S.P.: Lower bounds for non-black-box zero knowledge. In: FOCS (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deng, Y., Lin, D.: Instance-Dependent Verifiable Random Functions and Their Application to Simultaneous Resettability. In: Naor, M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4515, pp. 148–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barak, B., Goldreich, O., Goldwasser, S., Lindell, Y.: Resettably-sound zero-knowledge and its applications. In: FOCS, pp. 116–125 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deng, Y., Goyal, V., Sahai, A.: Resolving the simultaneous resettability conjecture and a new non-black-box simulation strategy. In: FOCS, pp. 251–260 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deng, Y., Feng, D., Goyal, V., Lin, D., Sahai, A., Yung, M.: Resettable Cryptography in Constant Rounds – The Case of Zero Knowledge. In: Lee, D.H., Wang, X. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 7073, pp. 390–406. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cho, C., Ostrovsky, R., Scafuro, A., Visconti, I.: Simultaneously Resettable Arguments of Knowledge. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) TCC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7194, pp. 530–547. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goyal, V., Sahai, A.: Resettably Secure Computation. In: Joux, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5479, pp. 54–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goyal, V., Maji, H.K.: Stateless cryptographic protocols. In: FOCS, pp. 678–687 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goyal, V., Ishai, Y., Mahmoody, M., Sahai, A.: Interactive Locking, Zero-Knowledge PCPs, and Unconditional Cryptography. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 173–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Canetti, R.: Universally composable security: A new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In: FOCS, pp. 136–145 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Canetti, R., Kushilevitz, E., Lindell, Y.: On the limitations of universally composable two-party computation without set-up assumptions. J. Cryptology 19(2), 135–167 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischlin, M.: Universally Composable Oblivious Transfer in the Multi-party Setting. In: Pointcheval, D. (ed.) CT-RSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 3860, pp. 332–349. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goyal, V., Ishai, Y., Sahai, A., Venkatesan, R., Wadia, A.: Founding Cryptography on Tamper-Proof Hardware Tokens. In: Micciancio, D. (ed.) TCC 2010. LNCS, vol. 5978, pp. 308–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katz, J.: Universally Composable Multi-party Computation Using Tamper-Proof Hardware. In: Naor, M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4515, pp. 115–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Choi, S.G., Katz, J., Schröder, D., Yerukhimovich, A., Zhou, H.S.: (Efficient) universally composable two-party computation using a minimal number of stateless tokens. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2011, 689 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Naor, M., Yung, M.: Universal one-way hash functions and their cryptographic applications. In: STOC, pp. 33–43 (1989)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rompel, J.: One-way functions are necessary and sufficient for secure signatures. In: STOC, pp. 387–394 (1990)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goldreich, O.: Foundations of Cryptography. Cambridge University Press (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gennaro, R., Gentry, C., Parno, B.: Non-interactive Verifiable Computing: Outsourcing Computation to Untrusted Workers. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 465–482. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chung, K.-M., Kalai, Y., Vadhan, S.: Improved Delegation of Computation Using Fully Homomorphic Encryption. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 483–501. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barak, B., Goldreich, O.: Universal arguments and their applications. In: IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pp. 194–203 (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bitansky, N., Canetti, R., Goldwasser, S., Halevi, S., Kalai, Y.T., Rothblum, G.N.: Program Obfuscation with Leaky Hardware. In: Lee, D.H., Wang, X. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 7073, pp. 722–739. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Döttling, N., Mie, T., Müller-Quade, J., Nilges, T.: Basing obfuscation on simple tamper-proof hardware assumptions. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2011, 675 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nico Döttling
    • 1
  • Thilo Mie
    • 1
  • Jörn Müller-Quade
    • 1
  • Tobias Nilges
    • 1
  1. 1.Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations