Results 1  10
of
78
NonMalleable Cryptography
 SIAM Journal on Computing
, 2000
"... The notion of nonmalleable cryptography, an extension of semantically secure cryptography, is defined. Informally, in the context of encryption the additional requirement is that given the ciphertext it is impossible to generate a different ciphertext so that the respective plaintexts are related. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 483 (21 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The notion of nonmalleable cryptography, an extension of semantically secure cryptography, is defined. Informally, in the context of encryption the additional requirement is that given the ciphertext it is impossible to generate a different ciphertext so that the respective plaintexts are related. The same concept makes sense in the contexts of string commitment and zeroknowledge proofs of possession of knowledge. Nonmalleable schemes for each of these three problems are presented. The schemes do not assume a trusted center; a user need not know anything about the number or identity of other system users. Our cryptosystem is the first proven to be secure against a strong type of chosen ciphertext attack proposed by Rackoff and Simon, in which the attacker knows the ciphertext she wishes to break and can query the decryption oracle on any ciphertext other than the target.
Publickey Cryptosystems Provably Secure against Chosen Ciphertext Attacks
 In Proc. of the 22nd STOC
, 1995
"... We show how to construct a publickey cryptosystem (as originally defined by Diffie and Hellman) secure against chosen ciphertext attacks, given a publickey cryptosystem secure against passive eavesdropping and a noninteractive zeroknowledge proof system in the shared string model. No such secure ..."
Abstract

Cited by 281 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We show how to construct a publickey cryptosystem (as originally defined by Diffie and Hellman) secure against chosen ciphertext attacks, given a publickey cryptosystem secure against passive eavesdropping and a noninteractive zeroknowledge proof system in the shared string model. No such secure cryptosystems were known before. Key words. cryptography, randomized algorithms AMS subject classifications. 68M10, 68Q20, 68Q22, 68R05, 68R10 A preliminary version of this paper appeared in the Proc. of the Twenty Second ACM Symposium of Theory of Computing. y Incumbent of the Morris and Rose Goldman Career Development Chair, Dept. of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel. Work performed while at the IBM Almaden Research Center. Research supported by an Alon Fellowship and a grant from the Israel Science Foundation administered by the Israeli Academy of Sciences. Email: naor@wisdom.weizmann.ac.il. z IBM Research Division, T.J ...
Noninteractive ZeroKnowledge
 SIAM J. COMPUTING
, 1991
"... This paper investigates the possibility of disposing of interaction between prover and verifier in a zeroknowledge proof if they share beforehand a short random string. Without any assumption, it is proven that noninteractive zeroknowledge proofs exist for some numbertheoretic languages for which ..."
Abstract

Cited by 212 (18 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper investigates the possibility of disposing of interaction between prover and verifier in a zeroknowledge proof if they share beforehand a short random string. Without any assumption, it is proven that noninteractive zeroknowledge proofs exist for some numbertheoretic languages for which no efficient algorithm is known. If deciding quadratic residuosity (modulo composite integers whose factorization is not known) is computationally hard, it is shown that the NPcomplete language of satisfiability also possesses noninteractive zeroknowledge proofs.
Concurrent ZeroKnowledge
 IN 30TH STOC
, 1999
"... Concurrent executions of a zeroknowledge protocol by a single prover (with one or more verifiers) may leak information and may not be zeroknowledge in toto. In this paper, we study the problem of maintaining zeroknowledge We introduce the notion of an (; ) timing constraint: for any two proces ..."
Abstract

Cited by 182 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Concurrent executions of a zeroknowledge protocol by a single prover (with one or more verifiers) may leak information and may not be zeroknowledge in toto. In this paper, we study the problem of maintaining zeroknowledge We introduce the notion of an (; ) timing constraint: for any two processors P1 and P2 , if P1 measures elapsed time on its local clock and P2 measures elapsed time on its local clock, and P2 starts after P1 does, then P2 will finish after P1 does. We show that if the adversary is constrained by an (; ) assumption then there exist fourround almost concurrent zeroknowledge interactive proofs and perfect concurrent zeroknowledge arguments for every language in NP . We also address the more specific problem of Deniable Authentication, for which we propose several particularly efficient solutions. Deniable Authentication is of independent interest, even in the sequential case; our concurrent solutions yield sequential solutions without recourse to timing, i.e., in the standard model.
Practical Verifiable Encryption and Decryption of Discrete Logarithms
, 2003
"... Abstract. This paper addresses the problem of designing practical protocols for proving properties about encrypted data. To this end, it presents a variant of the new public key encryption of Cramer and Shoup based on Paillier’s decision composite residuosity assumption, along with efficient protoco ..."
Abstract

Cited by 168 (22 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. This paper addresses the problem of designing practical protocols for proving properties about encrypted data. To this end, it presents a variant of the new public key encryption of Cramer and Shoup based on Paillier’s decision composite residuosity assumption, along with efficient protocols for verifiable encryption and decryption of discrete logarithms (and more generally, of representations with respect to multiple bases). This is the first verifiable encryption system that provides chosen ciphertext security and avoids inefficient cutandchoose proofs. The presented protocols have numerous applications, including key escrow, optimistic fair exchange, publicly verifiable secret and signature sharing, universally composable commitments, group signatures, and confirmer signatures. 1
BlackBox Concurrent ZeroKnowledge Requires (almost) Logarithmically Many Rounds
 SIAM Journal on Computing
, 2002
"... We show that any concurrent zeroknowledge protocol for a nontrivial language (i.e., for a language outside BPP), whose security is proven via blackbox simulation, must use at least ~ \Omega\Gamma/10 n) rounds of interaction. This result achieves a substantial improvement over previous lower bound ..."
Abstract

Cited by 107 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that any concurrent zeroknowledge protocol for a nontrivial language (i.e., for a language outside BPP), whose security is proven via blackbox simulation, must use at least ~ \Omega\Gamma/10 n) rounds of interaction. This result achieves a substantial improvement over previous lower bounds, and is the first bound to rule out the possibility of constantround concurrent zeroknowledge when proven via blackbox simulation. Furthermore, the bound is polynomially related to the number of rounds in the best known concurrent zeroknowledge protocol for languages in NP (which is established via blackbox simulation).
GQ and Schnorr identification schemes: Proofs of security against impersonation under active and concurrent attacks
, 2002
"... Abstract. The GuillouQuisquater (GQ) and Schnorr identification schemes are amongst the most efficient and bestknown FiatShamir followons, but the question of whether they can be proven secure against impersonation under active attack has remained open. This paper provides such a proof for GQ ba ..."
Abstract

Cited by 84 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. The GuillouQuisquater (GQ) and Schnorr identification schemes are amongst the most efficient and bestknown FiatShamir followons, but the question of whether they can be proven secure against impersonation under active attack has remained open. This paper provides such a proof for GQ based on the assumed security of RSA under one more inversion, an extension of the usual onewayness assumption that was introduced in [5]. It also provides such a proof for the Schnorr scheme based on a corresponding discretelog related assumption. These are the first security proofs for these schemes under assumptions related to the underlying oneway functions. Both results extend to establish security against impersonation under concurrent attack. 1
OneRound Secure Computation and Secure Autonomous Mobile Agents (Extended Abstract)
, 2000
"... This paper investigates oneround secure computation between two distrusting parties: Alice and Bob each have private inputs to a common function, but only Alice, acting as the receiver, is to learn the output; the protocol is limited to one message from Alice to Bob followed by one message from Bob ..."
Abstract

Cited by 82 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper investigates oneround secure computation between two distrusting parties: Alice and Bob each have private inputs to a common function, but only Alice, acting as the receiver, is to learn the output; the protocol is limited to one message from Alice to Bob followed by one message from Bob to Alice. A model in which Bob may be computationally unbounded is investigated, which corresponds to informationtheoretic security for Alice. It is shown that 1. for honestbutcurious behavior and unbounded Bob, any function computable by a polynomialsize circuit can be computed securely assuming the hardness of the decisional DiffieHellman problem; 2. for malicious behavior by both (bounded) parties, any function computable by a polynomialsize circuit can be computed securely, in a publickey framework, assuming the hardness of the decisional DiffieHellman problem.
ConstantRound CoinTossing With a Man in the Middle or Realizing the Shared Random String Model
 In 43rd FOCS
, 2002
"... We construct the first constantround nonmalleable commitment scheme and the first constantround nonmalleable zeroknowledge argument system, as defined by Dolev, Dwork and Naor. Previous constructions either used a nonconstant number of rounds, or were only secure under stronger setup assumption ..."
Abstract

Cited by 74 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We construct the first constantround nonmalleable commitment scheme and the first constantround nonmalleable zeroknowledge argument system, as defined by Dolev, Dwork and Naor. Previous constructions either used a nonconstant number of rounds, or were only secure under stronger setup assumptions. An example of such an assumption is the shared random string model where we assume all parties have access to a reference string that was chosen uniformly at random by a trusted dealer. We obtain these results by defining an adequate notion of nonmalleable cointossing, and presenting a constantround protocol that satisfies it. This protocol allows us to transform protocols that are nonmalleable in (a modified notion of) the shared random string model into protocols that are nonmalleable in the plain model (without any trusted dealer or setup assumptions). Observing that known constructions of a noninteractive nonmalleable zeroknowledge argument systems in the shared random string model are in fact nonmalleable in the modified model, and combining them with our cointossing protocol we obtain the results mentioned above. The techniques we use are different from those used in previous constructions of nonmalleable protocols. In particular our protocol uses diagonalization and a nonblackbox proof of security (in a sense similar to Barak’s zeroknowledge argument).
C.: Lower Bounds for Zero Knowledge on the Internet
 Proc. of FOCS ’98
, 1998
"... We consider zero knowledge interactive proofs in a richer, more realistic communication environment. In this setting, one may simultaneously engage in many interactive proofs, and these proofs may take place in an asynchronous fashion. It is known that zeroknowledge is not necessarily preserved in ..."
Abstract

Cited by 56 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We consider zero knowledge interactive proofs in a richer, more realistic communication environment. In this setting, one may simultaneously engage in many interactive proofs, and these proofs may take place in an asynchronous fashion. It is known that zeroknowledge is not necessarily preserved in such an environment; we show that for a large class of protocols, it cannot be preserved. Any 4 round (computational) zeroknowledge interactive proof (or argument) for a nontrivial language L is not blackbox simulatable in the asynchronous setting. 1