Advertisement

On the Leakage of Corrupted Garbled Circuits

  • Aurélien Dupin
  • David Pointcheval
  • Christophe Bidan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11192)

Abstract

Secure two-party computation provides a way for two parties to compute a function, that depends on the two parties’ inputs, while keeping them private. Known since the 1980s, Yao’s garbled circuits appear to be a general solution to this problem, in the semi-honest model. Decades of optimizations have made this tool a very practical solution. However, it is well known that a malicious adversary could modify a garbled circuit before submitting it. Many protocols, mostly based on cut-&-choose, have been proposed to secure Yao’s garbled circuits in the presence of malicious adversaries. Nevertheless, how much an adversary can modify a circuit and make it still executable has not been studied yet. The main contribution of this paper is to prove that any modification made by an adversary is equivalent to adding/removing NOT gates arbitrarily in the original circuit, otherwise the adversary can get caught. Thereafter, we study some evaluation functions for which, even without using cut-&-choose, no adversary can gain more information about the inputs by modifying the circuit. We also give an improvement over most recent cut-&-choose solutions by requiring that different circuits of the same function are used instead of just one.

Keywords

Garbled circuits Malicious adversaries Corruption of garbled circuits Cut-and-choose 

References

  1. 1.
    Afshar, A., Mohassel, P., Pinkas, B., Riva, B.: Non-interactive secure computation based on cut-and-choose. In: Nguyen, P.Q., Oswald, E. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8441, pp. 387–404. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55220-5_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beaver, D., Micali, S., Rogaway, P.: The round complexity of secure protocols (extended abstract). In: 22nd ACM STOC, pp. 503–513. ACM Press, May 1990Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dupin, A., Pointcheval, D., Bidan, C.: On the leakage of corrupted garbled circuits. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/743, August 2018. https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/743
  4. 4.
    Frederiksen, T.K., Jakobsen, T.P., Nielsen, J.B., Nordholt, P.S., Orlandi, C.: MiniLEGO: efficient secure two-party computation from general assumptions. In: Johansson, T., Nguyen, P.Q. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7881, pp. 537–556. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38348-9_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frederiksen, T.K., Nielsen, J.B., Orlandi, C.: Privacy-free garbled circuits with applications to efficient zero-knowledge. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9057, pp. 191–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46803-6_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jawurek, M., Kerschbaum, F., Orlandi, C.: Zero-knowledge using garbled circuits: how to prove non-algebraic statements efficiently. In: Sadeghi, A.R., Gligor, V.D., Yung, M. (eds.) ACM CCS 13, pp. 955–966. ACM Press, November 2013Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kolesnikov, V., Sadeghi, A.-R., Schneider, T.: Improved garbled circuit building blocks and applications to auctions and computing minima. In: Garay, J.A., Miyaji, A., Otsuka, A. (eds.) CANS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5888, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10433-6_1CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kolesnikov, V., Schneider, T.: Improved garbled circuit: free XOR gates and applications. In: Aceto, L., Damgård, I., Goldberg, L.A., Halldórsson, M.M., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Walukiewicz, I. (eds.) ICALP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5126, pp. 486–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70583-3_40CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lindell, Y.: Fast cut-and-choose based protocols for malicious and covert adversaries. In: Canetti, R., Garay, J.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2013. LNCS, vol. 8043, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40084-1_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindell, Y., Pinkas, B.: An efficient protocol for secure two-party computation in the presence of malicious adversaries. In: Naor, M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4515, pp. 52–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72540-4_4CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mohassel, P., Franklin, M.: Efficiency tradeoffs for malicious two-party computation. In: Yung, M., Dodis, Y., Kiayias, A., Malkin, T. (eds.) PKC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3958, pp. 458–473. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11745853_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mohassel, P., Riva, B.: Garbled circuits checking garbled circuits: more efficient and secure two-party computation. In: Canetti, R., Garay, J.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2013. LNCS, vol. 8043, pp. 36–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40084-1_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Naor, M., Pinkas, B., Sumner, R.: Privacy preserving auctions and mechanism design. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 129–139. ACM, November 1999Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nielsen, J.B., Orlandi, C.: LEGO for two-party secure computation. In: Reingold, O. (ed.) TCC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5444, pp. 368–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00457-5_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nielsen, J.B., Schneider, T., Trifiletti, R.: Constant round maliciously secure 2PC with function-independent preprocessing using LEGO. In: NDSS 2017. The Internet Society (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shelat, A., Shen, C.: Two-output secure computation with malicious adversaries. In: Paterson, K.G. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6632, pp. 386–405. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20465-4_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shelat, A., Shen, C.H.: Fast two-party secure computation with minimal assumptions. In: Sadeghi, A.R., Gligor, V.D., Yung, M. (eds.) ACM CCS 13, pp. 523–534. ACM Press, November 2013Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang, X., Malozemoff, A.J., Katz, J.: Faster secure two-party computation in the single-execution setting. In: Coron, J.-S., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10212, pp. 399–424. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56617-7_14CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yao, A.C.C.: How to generate and exchange secrets (extended abstract). In: 27th FOCS, pp. 162–167. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 1986Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zahur, S., Rosulek, M., Evans, D.: Two halves make a whole - reducing data transfer in garbled circuits using half gates. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9057, pp. 220–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46803-6_8CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aurélien Dupin
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Pointcheval
    • 3
    • 4
  • Christophe Bidan
    • 2
  1. 1.Thales Communications & SecurityGennevilliersFrance
  2. 2.CentraleSupélecRennesFrance
  3. 3.DIENS, École normale supérieure, CNRS, PSL UniversityParisFrance
  4. 4.INRIAParisFrance

Personalised recommendations