Advertisement

Which Languages Have 4-Round Fully Black-Box Zero-Knowledge Arguments from One-Way Functions?

Conference paper
  • 752 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12107)

Abstract

We prove that if a language \(\mathcal{L}\) has a 4-round fully black-box zero-knowledge argument with negligible soundness based on one-way functions, then \(\overline{\mathcal{L}} \in \mathsf {MA}\). Since \(\mathsf {coNP}\subseteq \mathsf {MA}\) implies that the polynomial hierarchy collapses, our result implies that \(\mathsf {NP}\)-complete languages are unlikely to have 4-round fully black-box zero-knowledge arguments based on one-way functions. In TCC 2018, Hazay and Venkitasubramaniam, and Khurana, Ostrovsky, and Srinivasan demonstrated 4-round fully black-box zero-knowledge arguments for all languages in \(\mathsf {NP}\) based on injective one-way functions. Their results also imply a 5-round protocol based on one-way functions. In essence, our result resolves the round complexity of fully black-box zero-knowledge arguments based on one-way functions.

Keywords

One-way functions Zero-knowledge arguments Black-box constructions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author is supported by the BIU Center for Research in Applied Cryptography and Cyber Security in conjunction with the Israel National Cyber Bureau in the Prime Minister’s Office, and by ISF grant 1316/18. The second author is supported in part by NSF Award SATC-1704788, NSF Award RI-1703846, and AFOSR Award FA9550-18-1-0267, and in part by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), via 2019-19-020700006. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of ODNI, IARPA, or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation therein. The third author is supported by Google Faculty Research Grant and NSF Award CNS-1618884. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of Google, the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, or the U.S. Government.

References

  1. 1.
    Babai, L., Moran, S.: Arthur-Merlin games: a randomized proof system, and a hierarchy of complexity classes. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 36(2), 254–276 (1988)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barak, B., Mahmoody-Ghidary, M.: Lower bounds on signatures from symmetric primitives. In: FOCS, pp. 680–688 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellare, M., Jakobsson, M., Yung, M.: Round-optimal zero-knowledge arguments based on any one-way function. In: Fumy, W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1233, pp. 280–305. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-69053-0_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Random oracles are practical: a paradigm for designing efficient protocols. In: CCS, pp. 62–73 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bitansky, N., Kalai, Y.T., Paneth, O.: Multi-collision resistance: a paradigm for keyless hash functions. In: STOC (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feige, U., Shamir, A.: Zero knowledge proofs of knowledge in two rounds. In: Brassard, G. (ed.) CRYPTO 1989. LNCS, vol. 435, pp. 526–544. Springer, New York (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-34805-0_46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fleischhacker, N., Goyal, V., Jain, A.: On the existence of three round zero-knowledge proofs. In: Nielsen, J.B., Rijmen, V. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2018. LNCS, vol. 10822, pp. 3–33. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78372-7_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldreich, O., Krawczyk, H.: On the composition of zero-knowledge proof systems. SIAM J. Comput. 25(1), 169–192 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldreich, O., Micali, S., Wigderson, A.: Proofs that yield nothing but their validity for all languages in NP have zero-knowledge proof systems. J. ACM 38(3), 691–729 (1991)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldreich, O., Oren, Y.: Definitions and properties of zero-knowledge proof systems. J. Cryptol. 7(1), 1–32 (1994).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00195207MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldwasser, S., Micali, S., Rackoff, C.: The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems. SIAM J. Comput. 18(1), 186–208 (1989)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Håstad, J., Impagliazzo, R., Levin, L.A., Luby, M.: A pseudorandom generator from any one-way function. SIAM J. Comput. 28(4), 1364–1396 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hazay, C., Venkitasubramaniam, M.: Round-optimal fully black-box zero-knowledge arguments from one-way permutations. In: Beimel, A., Dziembowski, S. (eds.) TCC 2018. LNCS, vol. 11239, pp. 263–285. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03807-6_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Impagliazzo, R., Rudich, S.: Limits on the provable consequences of one-way permutations. In: STOC, pp. 44–61 (1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ishai, Y., Mahmoody, M., Sahai, A.: On efficient zero-knowledge PCPs. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) TCC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7194, pp. 151–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28914-9_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Katz, J.: Which languages have 4-round zero-knowledge proofs? J. Cryptol. 25(1), 41–56 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-010-9081-yMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khurana, D., Ostrovsky, R., Srinivasan, A.: Round optimal black-box “commit-and-prove”. In: Beimel, A., Dziembowski, S. (eds.) TCC 2018. LNCS, vol. 11239, pp. 286–313. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03807-6_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mahmoody, M., Pass, R.: The curious case of non-interactive commitments – on the power of black-box vs. non-black-box use of primitives. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7417, pp. 701–718. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32009-5_41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Naor, M.: Bit commitment using pseudorandomness. J. Cryptol. 4(2), 151–158 (1991).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00196774zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ostrovsky, R., Richelson, S., Scafuro, A.: Round-optimal black-box two-party computation. In: Gennaro, R., Robshaw, M. (eds.) CRYPTO 2015. LNCS, vol. 9216, pp. 339–358. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48000-7_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pass, R., Wee, H.: Black-box constructions of two-party protocols from one-way functions. In: Reingold, O. (ed.) TCC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5444, pp. 403–418. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00457-5_24zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reingold, O., Trevisan, L., Vadhan, S.: Notions of reducibility between cryptographic primitives. In: Naor, M. (ed.) TCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2951, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24638-1_1zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bar-Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael
  2. 2.Cornell TechNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.University of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations