Hiding instances in multioracle queries

  • Donald Beaver
  • Joan Feigenbaum
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 415)

Abstract

Abadi, Feigenbaum, and Kilian have considered instance-hiding schemes [1]. Let f be a function for which no randomized polynomial-time algorithm is known; randomized polynomial-time machine A wants to query an oracle B for f to obtain f(x), without telling B exactly what x is. It is shown in [1] that, if f is an NP-hard function, A cannot query a single oracle B while hiding all but the size of the instance, assuming that the polynomial hierarchy does not collapse. This negative result holds for all oracles B, including those that are non-r.e.

In this paper, we generalize the definition of instance-hiding schemes to allow A to query several oracles B1,..., Bm that are not allowed to communicate. We show that every function f does have a multioracle instance-hiding scheme, thus settling a question of Rivest.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Abadi, J. Feigenbaum, and J. Kilian. On Hiding Information from an Oracle, J. Comput. System Sci. 39 (1989), 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    L. Babai and S. Moran. Arthur-Merlin Games: A Randomized Proof System, and a Hierarchy of Complexity Classes, J. Comput. System Sci. 36 (1988), 254–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    D. Beaver and J. Feigenbaum. Hiding Information from Several Oracles, Harvard University TR-10-89, May 1, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    D. Beaver and J. Feigenbaum. Encrypted Queries to Multiple Oracles, AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Memorandum, August 14, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    D. Beaver, J. Feigenbaum, J. Kilian, and P. Rogaway. Cryptographic Applications of Locally Random Reductions, AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Memorandum, November 15, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Ben-Or, S. Goldwasser, J. Kilian, and A. Wigderson. Multi-Prover Interactive Proofs: How to Remove Intractability, Proc. of STOC88.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Ben-Or, S. Goldwasser, and A. Wigderson. Completeness Theorems for Non-Cryptographic Fault-Tolerant Distributed Computation, Proc. of STOC88.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    D. Chaum, C. Crépeau, and I. Damgård. Multiparty Unconditionally Secure Protocols, Proc. of STOC88.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Condon. Space-Bounded Probabilistic Game Automata, Proc. of STRUCTURES88.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Condon and R. J. Lipton. On the Complexity of Space-Bounded Interactive Proofs, Proc. of FOCS89.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    C. Dwork and L. Stockmeyer. Interactive Proof Systems with Finite State Verifiers, IBM Research Report RJ 6262 (61659), May 26, 1988. Extended Abstract in Proc. of CRYPTO88.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Goldwasser, S. Micali, and C. Rackoff. The Knowledge Complexity of Interactive Proof Systems, SIAM J. Comput. 18 (1989), 186–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    S. Goldwasser and M. Sipser. Public Coins vs. Private Coins in Interactive Proof Systems, Proc. of STOC86.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. Kilian. Zero-Knowledge with Log-Space Verifiers, Proc. of FOCS88.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    N. Nisan. Private communication, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. Rivest. Workshop on Communication and Computing, MIT, October, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    A. Shamir. How to Share a Secret, Commun. Assoc. Comput. Machinery 22 (1979), 612–613.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    A. C. Yao. Protocols for Secure Computations, Proc. of FOCS82.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    C. Yap. Some Consequences of Nonuniform Conditions on Uniform Classes, Theor. Comput. Sci. 26 (1983), 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald Beaver
    • 1
  • Joan Feigenbaum
    • 2
  1. 1.Aiken Computation LaboratoryHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.AT&T Bell Labs, Rm 2C473Murray HillUSA

Personalised recommendations