Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantum Lightning Never Strikes the Same State Twice

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2019 (EUROCRYPT 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 11478))

Abstract

Public key quantum money can be seen as a version of the quantum no-cloning theorem that holds even when the quantum states can be verified by the adversary. In this work, we investigate quantum lightning where no-cloning holds even when the adversary herself generates the quantum state to be cloned. We then study quantum money and quantum lightning, showing the following results:

  • We demonstrate the usefulness of quantum lightning beyond quantum money by showing several potential applications, such as generating random strings with a proof of entropy, to completely decentralized cryptocurrency without a block-chain, where transactions is instant and local.

  • We give Either/Or results for quantum money/lightning, showing that either signatures/hash functions/commitment schemes meet very strong recently proposed notions of security, or they yield quantum money or lightning. Given the difficulty in constructing public key quantum money, this suggests that natural schemes do attain strong security guarantees.

  • We show that instantiating the quantum money scheme of Aaronson and Christiano [STOC’12] with indistinguishability obfuscation that is secure against quantum computers yields a secure quantum money scheme. This construction can be seen as an instance of our Either/Or result for signatures, giving the first separation between two security notions for signatures from the literature.

  • Finally, we give a plausible construction for quantum lightning, which we prove secure under an assumption related to the multi-collision resistance of degree-2 hash functions. Our construction is inspired by our Either/Or result for hash functions, and yields the first plausible standard model instantiation of a non-collapsing collision resistant hash function. This improves on a result of Unruh [Eurocrypt’16] which is relative to a quantum oracle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Garg et al. only actually discuss message authentication codes, but the same idea applies to signatures.

  2. 2.

    Technically, there is a slight gap due to the difference between non-negligible and inverse polynomial. Essentially what we show is that the theorem holds for fixed values of the security parameter, but whether (1) or (2) happens may vary across different security parameters.

  3. 3.

    That is, the oracle itself performs quantum operations.

  4. 4.

    Technically, they only show this is true if the degree-2 polynomials are random, whereas ours are more structured, but we show that their analysis extends to our setting as well.

References

  1. Aaronson, S.: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2854

  2. Aaronson, S.: Quantum copy-protection and quantum money. In: Proceedings of the 2009 24th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, CCC 2009, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 229–242. IEEE Computer Society (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aaronson, S., Christiano, P.: Quantum money from hidden subspaces. In: Karloff, H.J., Pitassi, T. (eds.) 44th ACM STOC, pp. 41–60. ACM Press, May 2012

    Google Scholar 

  4. Albrecht, M.R., Bai, S., Ducas, L.: A subfield lattice attack on overstretched NTRU assumptions - cryptanalysis of some FHE and graded encoding schemes. In: Robshaw, M., Katz, J. (eds.) CRYPTO 2016, Part I. LNCS, vol. 9814, pp. 153–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53018-4_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Ambainis, A., Rosmanis, A., Unruh, D.: Quantum attacks on classical proof systems: the hardness of quantum rewinding. In: 55th FOCS, pp. 474–483. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 2014

    Google Scholar 

  6. Applebaum, B., Haramaty, N., Ishai, Y., Kushilevitz, E., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Low-complexity cryptographic hash functions. In: Papadimitriou, C.H. (ed.) ITCS 2017. vol. 4266, pp. 7:1–7:31, 67. LIPIcs, January 2017

    Google Scholar 

  7. Barak, B., et al.: On the (im)possibility of obfuscating programs. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44647-8_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Bennett, C.H., Bernstein, E., Brassard, G., Vazirani, U.: Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing. SIAM J. Comput. 26(5), 1510–1523 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G.: Quantum public key distribution reinvented. SIGACT News 18(4), 51–53 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boneh, D., Zhandry, M.: Quantum-secure message authentication codes. In: Johansson, T., Nguyen, P.Q. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7881, pp. 592–608. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38348-9_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Boneh, D., Zhandry, M.: Secure signatures and chosen ciphertext security in a quantum computing world. In: Canetti, R., Garay, J.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8043, pp. 361–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40084-1_21

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Brakerski, Z., Christiano, P., Mahadev, U., Vazirani, U.V., Vidick, T.: A cryptographic test of quantumness and certifiable randomness from a single quantum device. In: Thorup, M. (ed.) 59th FOCS, pp. 320–331. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 2018

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brakerski, Z., Vaikuntanathan, V., Wee, H., Wichs, D.: Obfuscating conjunctions under entropic ring LWE. In: Sudan, M. (ed.) ITCS 2016, pp. 147–156. ACM, January 2016

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chen, Y., Gentry, C., Halevi, S.: Cryptanalyses of candidate branching program obfuscators. In: Coron, J.-S., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2017, Part III. LNCS, vol. 10212, pp. 278–307. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56617-7_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheon, J.H., Jeong, J., Lee, C.: An algorithm for CSPR problems and cryptanalysis of the GGH multilinear map without an encoding of zero. Technical report, Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2016/139 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Colbeck, R.: Quantum and relativistic protocols for secure multi-party computation (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Coron, J.-S., Lepoint, T., Tibouchi, M.: Practical multilinear maps over the integers. In: Canetti, R., Garay, J.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8042, pp. 476–493. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40041-4_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Cramer, R., Ducas, L., Peikert, C., Regev, O.: Recovering short generators of principal ideals in cyclotomic rings. In: Fischlin, M., Coron, J.-S. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9666, pp. 559–585. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49896-5_20

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Ding, J., Yang, B.-Y.: Multivariates polynomials for hashing. In: Pei, D., Yung, M., Lin, D., Wu, C. (eds.) Inscrypt 2007. LNCS, vol. 4990, pp. 358–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79499-8_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Farhi, E., Gosset, D., Hassidim, A., Lutomirski, A., Shor, P.W.: Quantum money from knots. In: Goldwasser, S. (ed.) ITCS 2012, pp. 276–289. ACM, January 2012

    Google Scholar 

  21. Garg, S., Gentry, C., Halevi, S.: Candidate multilinear maps from ideal lattices. In: Johansson, T., Nguyen, P.Q. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7881, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38348-9_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Garg, S., Gentry, C., Halevi, S., Raykova, M., Sahai, A., Waters, B.: Candidate indistinguishability obfuscation and functional encryption for all circuits. In: 54th FOCS, pp. 40–49. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 2013

    Google Scholar 

  23. Garg, S., Yuen, H., Zhandry, M.: New security notions and feasibility results for authentication of quantum data. In: Katz, J., Shacham, H. (eds.) CRYPTO 2017, Part II. LNCS, vol. 10402, pp. 342–371. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63715-0_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Gavinsky, D.: Quantum money with classical verification (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gentry, C., Gorbunov, S., Halevi, S.: Graph-induced multilinear maps from lattices. In: Dodis, Y., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) TCC 2015, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9015, pp. 498–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46497-7_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Goyal, R., Koppula, V., Waters, B.: Lockable obfuscation. In: Umans, C. (ed.) 58th FOCS, pp. 612–621. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 2017

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lutomirski, A.: An online attack against Wiesner’s quantum money (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lutomirski, A., et al.: Breaking and making quantum money: toward a new quantum cryptographic protocol. In: Yao, A.C.-C. (ed.) ICS 2010, pp. 20–31. Tsinghua University Press, January 2010

    Google Scholar 

  29. Micciancio, D., Regev, O.: Worst-case to average-case reductions based on Gaussian measures. SIAM J. Comput. 37(1), 267–302 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Mosca, M., Stebila, D.: Quantum coins. In: Error-Correcting Codes, Finite Geometries and Cryptography, vol. 523, pp. 35–47 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pena, M.C., Faugère, J.-C., Perret, L.: Algebraic cryptanalysis of a quantum money scheme: the noise-free case. In: Katz, J. (ed.) PKC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9020, pp. 194–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46447-2_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Regev, O.: On lattices, learning with errors, random linear codes, and cryptography. In: Gabow, H.N., Fagin, R. (eds.) 37th ACM STOC, pp. 84–93. ACM Press, May 2005

    Google Scholar 

  33. Unruh, D.: Revocable quantum timed-release encryption. In: Nguyen, P.Q., Oswald, E. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8441, pp. 129–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55220-5_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Unruh, D.: Computationally binding quantum commitments. In: Fischlin, M., Coron, J.-S. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9666, pp. 497–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49896-5_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Wichs, D., Zirdelis, G.: Obfuscating compute-and-compare programs under LWE. In: Umans, C. (ed.) 58th FOCS, pp. 600–611. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 2017

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wiesner, S.: Conjugate coding. SIGACT News 15(1), 78–88 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhandry, M.: Quantum lightning never strikes the same state twice. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/1080 (2017). https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1080

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Princeton University, Princeton, USA

    Mark Zhandry

Authors
  1. Mark Zhandry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Zhandry .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Technion, Haifa, Israel

    Yuval Ishai

  2. COSIC Group, KU Leuven, Heverlee, Belgium

    Vincent Rijmen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 International Association for Cryptologic Research

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Zhandry, M. (2019). Quantum Lightning Never Strikes the Same State Twice. In: Ishai, Y., Rijmen, V. (eds) Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2019. EUROCRYPT 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11478. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17659-4_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17659-4_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17658-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17659-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation