Results 1  10
of
63
How to Go Beyond the BlackBox Simulation Barrier
 In 42nd FOCS
, 2001
"... The simulation paradigm is central to cryptography. A simulator is an algorithm that tries to simulate the interaction of the adversary with an honest party, without knowing the private input of this honest party. Almost all known simulators use the adversary’s algorithm as a blackbox. We present t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 221 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The simulation paradigm is central to cryptography. A simulator is an algorithm that tries to simulate the interaction of the adversary with an honest party, without knowing the private input of this honest party. Almost all known simulators use the adversary’s algorithm as a blackbox. We present the first constructions of nonblackbox simulators. Using these new nonblackbox techniques we obtain several results that were previously proven to be impossible to obtain using blackbox simulators. Specifically, assuming the existence of collision resistent hash functions, we construct a new zeroknowledge argument system for NP that satisfies the following properties: 1. This system has a constant number of rounds with negligible soundness error. 2. It remains zero knowledge even when composed concurrently n times, where n is the security parameter. Simultaneously obtaining 1 and 2 has been recently proven to be impossible to achieve using blackbox simulators. 3. It is an ArthurMerlin (public coins) protocol. Simultaneously obtaining 1 and 3 was known to be impossible to achieve with a blackbox simulator. 4. It has a simulator that runs in strict polynomial time, rather than in expected polynomial time. All previously known constantround, negligibleerror zeroknowledge arguments utilized expected polynomialtime simulators.
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 191 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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.
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 70 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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).
On Deniability in the Common Reference String and Random Oracle Model
 In proceedings of CRYPTO ’03, LNCS series
, 2003
"... Abstract. We revisit the definitions of zeroknowledge in the Common Reference String (CRS) model and the Random Oracle (RO) model. We argue that even though these definitions syntactically mimic the standard zeroknowledge definition, they loose some of its spirit. In particular, we show that there ..."
Abstract

Cited by 54 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We revisit the definitions of zeroknowledge in the Common Reference String (CRS) model and the Random Oracle (RO) model. We argue that even though these definitions syntactically mimic the standard zeroknowledge definition, they loose some of its spirit. In particular, we show that there exist a specific natural security property that is not captured by these definitions. This is the property of deniability. We formally define the notion of deniable zeroknowledge in these models and investigate the possibility of achieving it. Our results are different for the two models: – Concerning the CRS model, we rule out the possibility of achieving deniable zeroknowledge protocols in “natural ” settings where such protocols cannot already be achieved in plain model. – In the RO model, on the other hand, we construct an efficient 2round deniable zeroknowledge argument of knowledge, that preserves both the zeroknowledge property and the proof of knowledge property under concurrent executions (concurrent zeroknowledge and concurrent proofof knowledge). 1
Boundedconcurrent secure twoparty computation without setup assumptions
 STOC 2003
, 2003
"... ..."
BoundedConcurrent Secure TwoParty Computation in a Constant Number of Rounds
 In 44th FOCS
, 2003
"... We consider the problem of constructing a general protocol for secure twoparty computation in a way that preserves security under concurrent composition. In our treatment, we focus on the case where an apriori bound on the number of concurrent sessions is specified before the protocol is construct ..."
Abstract

Cited by 46 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We consider the problem of constructing a general protocol for secure twoparty computation in a way that preserves security under concurrent composition. In our treatment, we focus on the case where an apriori bound on the number of concurrent sessions is specified before the protocol is constructed (a.k.a. bounded concurrency). We make no setup assumptions. Lindell (STOC 2003) has shown that any protocol for boundedconcurrent secure twoparty computation, whose security is established via blackbox simulation, must have round complexity that is strictly larger than the bound on the number of concurrent sessions. In this paper, we construct a (non blackbox) protocol for realizing boundedconcurrent secure twoparty computation in a constant number of rounds. The only previously known protocol for realizing the above task required more rounds than the prespecified bound on the number of sessions (despite usage of non blackbox simulation techniques). Our constructions rely on the existence of enhanced trapdoor permutations, as well as on the existence of hash functions that are collisionresistant against subexponential sized circuits. 1
Strict Polynomialtime in Simulation and Extraction
, 2004
"... The notion of efficient computation is usually identified in cryptography and complexity with (strict) probabilistic polynomial time. However, until recently, in order to obtain constantround ..."
Abstract

Cited by 46 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The notion of efficient computation is usually identified in cryptography and complexity with (strict) probabilistic polynomial time. However, until recently, in order to obtain constantround
Concurrent Zero Knowledge with Logarithmic RoundComplexity
 In 43rd FOCS
, 2002
"... We show that every language in has a (blackbox) concurrent zeroknowledge proof system using O(log n) rounds of interaction. The number of rounds in our protocol is optimal, in the sense that any language outside requires at least #11 n) rounds of interaction in order to be proved in blac ..."
Abstract

Cited by 45 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that every language in has a (blackbox) concurrent zeroknowledge proof system using O(log n) rounds of interaction. The number of rounds in our protocol is optimal, in the sense that any language outside requires at least #11 n) rounds of interaction in order to be proved in blackbox concurrent zeroknowledge. The zeroknowledge property of our main protocol is proved under the assumption that there exists a collection of clawfree functions. Assuming only the existence of oneway functions, we show the existence of O(log n)round concurrent zeroknowledge arguments for all languages in .
General composition and universal composability in secure multiparty computation
 In FOCS ’03
, 2003
"... Concurrent general composition relates to a setting where a secure protocol is run in a network concurrently with other, arbitrary protocols. Clearly, security in such a setting is what is desired, or even needed, in modern computer networks where many different protocols are executed concurrently. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 43 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Concurrent general composition relates to a setting where a secure protocol is run in a network concurrently with other, arbitrary protocols. Clearly, security in such a setting is what is desired, or even needed, in modern computer networks where many different protocols are executed concurrently. Canetti (FOCS 2001) introduced the notion of universal composability, and showed that security under this definition is sufficient for achieving concurrent general composition. However, it is not known whether or not the opposite direction also holds. Our main result is a proof that security under concurrent general composition is equivalent to a relaxed variant of universal composability (where the only difference relates to the order of quantifiers in the definition). An important corollary of this theorem is that existing impossibility results for universal composability (or actually its relaxed variant) are inherent in any definition achieving security under concurrent general composition. In particular, there are large classes of twoparty functionalities for which it is impossible to obtain protocols (in the plain model) that remain secure under concurrent general composition. We stress that the impossibility results obtained are not “blackbox”, and apply even to nonblackbox simulation. Our main result also demonstrates that the definition of universal composability is somewhat “minimal”, in that the composition guarantee provided by universal composability (almost) implies the definition itself. This indicates that the security definition of universal composability is not overly restrictive.
Zaps and Their Applications
 In 41st FOCS
, 2000
"... A zap is a tworound, witnessindistinguishable protocol in which the first round, consisting of a message from the verifier to the prover, can be fixed "onceandforall" and applied to any instance, and where the verifier does not use any private coins. We present a zap for every language in NP, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 42 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A zap is a tworound, witnessindistinguishable protocol in which the first round, consisting of a message from the verifier to the prover, can be fixed "onceandforall" and applied to any instance, and where the verifier does not use any private coins. We present a zap for every language in NP, based on the existence of noninteractive zeroknowledge proofs in the shared random string model. The zap is in the standard model, and hence requires no common guaranteed random string.