Advertisement

Everything Provable is Provable in Zero-Knowledge

  • Michael Ben-Or
  • Oded Goldreich
  • Shafi Goldwasser
  • Johan Håstad
  • Joe Kilian
  • Silvio Micali
  • Phillip Rogaway
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 403)

Abstract

Assuming the existence of a secure probabilistic encryption scheme, we show that every language that admits an interactive proof admits a (computational) zero-knowledge interactive proof. This result extends the result of Goldreich, Micali and Wigderson, that, under the same assumption, all of NP admits zero-knowledge interactive proofs. Assuming envelopes for bit commitment, we show tht every language that admits an interactive proof admits a perfect zero-knowledge interactive proof.

Keywords

Proof System Oblivious Transfer Common Input Interactive Proof Public History 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. [AH]
    Adleman, L., and M. Huang, “Recognizing Primes in Random Polynomial Time,” Proceedings of the 19th STOC, 1987, pp. 462–469.Google Scholar
  2. [Babtano]
    Babai, L., “Trading Group Theory for Randomness,” Proceedings of the 17th STOC, 1985, pp. 421–429.Google Scholar
  3. [Bartano]
    Barrington, D., “Bounded Width Polynomial Size Branching Programs Recognize Exactly Those Languages in NC 1,” Proceedings of the 18th STOC, 1986, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
  4. [BaM]
    Babai, L. and S. Moran, “Arthur-Merlin Games: A Randomized Proof System, and a Hierarchy of Complexity Classes,” manuscript.Google Scholar
  5. [Bl]
    Blum, M., “Coin Flipping by Telephone,” IEEE COMPCON, 1982, pp. 133–137.Google Scholar
  6. [BHZ]
    Boppana, R., J. Håstad, and S. Zachos, “Does co-NP Have Short Interactive Proofs?”, Information Processing Letters, 1987, pp. 127–132.Google Scholar
  7. [Br]
    Brassard, G., personal communication, Augest 1988.Google Scholar
  8. [CDG]
    Chaum, D., I. Damgård, and J. van de Graaf, “Multiparty Computations Ensuring Privacy of Each Party’s Input and Correctness of the Result,” Proceedings of Crypto-87, pp. 87–119.Google Scholar
  9. [Fe]
    Feldman, P., “The Optimum Prover Lives in PSPACE,” manuscript.Google Scholar
  10. [Fo]
    Fortnow, L., “The Complexity of Perfect Zero-Knowledge,” Proceedings of the 19th STOC, 1987, pp. 204–209.Google Scholar
  11. [G]
    Goldreich, O., “Randomness, Interactive Proofs and Zero-Knowledge (a survey),” Technion Technical Report, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. [GK]
    Goldwasser, S., and J. Kilian, “Almost All Primes Can Be Quickly Certified,” Proceedings of the 18th STOC, 1986, pp. 316–329.Google Scholar
  13. [GM]
    Goldwasser., S., and S. Micali, “Probabilistic Encryption,” Journal of Computer and System Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 2, 1984, pp. 270–299.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [GMR]
    Goldwasser, S., S. Micali, and C. Rackoff, “Knowledge Complexity of Interactive Proofs,” Proceedings of the 17th STOC, 1985, pp. 291–305Google Scholar
  15. [GMS]
    Goldreich, M., Y. Mansour, and M. Sipser, “Interactive Proof Systems: Provers that Never Fail and Random Selection,” Proceedings of the 28th FOCS, 1987, pp. 449–461.Google Scholar
  16. [GMW1]
    Goldreich, O., S. Micali, and A. Wigderson, “Proofs that Yield Nothing but their Validity and a Methodology of Cryptographic Protocol Design,” Proceedings of the 27th FOCS, 1986, pp. 174–187.Google Scholar
  17. [GMW2]
    Goldreich, O., S. Micali, and A. Wigderson, “How to Play Any Mental Game, or, A Completeness Theorem for Protocols with Honest Majority,” Proceedings of the 19th STOC, 1987, pp. 218–229.Google Scholar
  18. [GS]
    Goldwasser, S., and M. Sipser, “Arthur Merlin Games versus Interactive Proof Systems,” Proceedings of the 18th STOC, 1986, pp. 59–68.Google Scholar
  19. [I]
    Impagliazzo, R., personal communications, 1987.Google Scholar
  20. [IY]
    Impagliazzo, R., and M. Yung, “Direct Minimum-Knowledge Computations,” Proceedings of Crypto-87, pp. 40–51.Google Scholar
  21. [K1]
    Kilian, J., “Founding Cryptography on Oblivious Transfer,” Proceedings of the 20th STOC, 1988, pp. 20–31.Google Scholar
  22. [K2]
    Kilian, J., “Primality Testing and the Cryptographic Complexity of Noisy Communications Channels,” MIT Ph.D. Thesis (in preparation), 1988.Google Scholar
  23. [L]
    Levin, L., “One-way Functions and Pseudorandom Generators,” Proceedings of the 17th STOC, 1985, pp. 363–368.Google Scholar
  24. [MRS]
    Micali, S., C. Rackoff and R. Sloan, “The Notion of Security for Probabilistic Cryptosystems,” SIAM Journal of Computing, 17(2):412–426, April 1988.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. [O]
    Oren, Y., “On the Cunning Power of Cheating Verifiers: Some Observations about Zero Knowledge Proofs,” Proceedings of the 28th FOCS, 1987, pp. 462–471.Google Scholar
  26. [TW]
    Tompa, M., and H. Woll, “Random Self-Reducibility and Zero Knowledge Interactive Proofs of Possession of Information,” Proceedings of the 28th FOCS, 1987, pp. 472–482.Google Scholar
  27. [Ya]
    Yao, A.C., “Theory and Applications of Trapdoor Functions,” Proceedings of the 23rd FOCS, 1982, pp. 80–91.Google Scholar
  28. [Yu]
    Yung, M., personal communication, Augest 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Ben-Or
    • 1
  • Oded Goldreich
    • 2
  • Shafi Goldwasser
    • 3
  • Johan Håstad
    • 4
  • Joe Kilian
    • 3
  • Silvio Micali
    • 3
  • Phillip Rogaway
    • 3
  1. 1.Hebrew UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Technion — Israel Institute of TechnologyIsrael
  3. 3.Laboratory for Computer ScienceM.I.T.USA
  4. 4.Royal Institute of TechnologySweden

Personalised recommendations