Hybrid Publicly Verifiable Computation

  • James AldermanEmail author
  • Christian Janson
  • Carlos Cid
  • Jason Crampton
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9610)


Publicly Verifiable Outsourced Computation (PVC) allows weak devices to delegate computations to more powerful servers, and to verify the correctness of results. Delegation and verification rely only on public parameters, and thus PVC lends itself to large multi-user systems where entities need not be registered. In such settings, individual user requirements may be diverse and cannot be realised with current PVC solutions. In this paper, we introduce Hybrid PVC (HPVC) which, with a single setup stage, provides a flexible solution to outsourced computation supporting multiple modes: (i) standard PVC, (ii) PVC with cryptographically enforced access control policies restricting the servers that may perform a given computation, and (iii) a reversed model of PVC which we call Verifiable Delegable Computation (VDC) where data is held remotely by servers. Entities may dynamically play the role of delegators or servers as required.


Publicly verifiable computation Outsourced computation Dual-Policy Attribute-based Encryption Revocation Access control 


  1. 1.
    Alderman, J., Janson, C., Cid, C., Crampton, J.: Access control in publicly verifiable outsourced computation. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security, ASIA CCS 2015, New York, pp. 657–662. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alderman, J., Janson, C., Cid, C., Crampton, J.: Hybrid publicly verifiable computation. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report/320, 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alderman, J., Janson, C., Cid, C., Crampton, J.: Revocation in publicly verifiable outsourced computation. In: Lin, D., Yung, M., Zhou, J. (eds.) Inscrypt 2014. LNCS, vol. 8957, pp. 51–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pasalic, E., Knudsen, E.R. (eds.): Cryptography and Information Security in the Balkans. LNCS, vol. 9540. Springer, Switzerland (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Apon, D., Katz, J., Shi, E., Thiruvengadam, A.: Verifiable oblivious storage. In: Krawczyk, H. (ed.) PKC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8383, pp. 131–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Attrapadung, N., Imai, H.: Attribute-based encryption supporting direct/indirect revocation modes. In: Parker, M.G. (ed.) Cryptography and Coding. LNCS, vol. 5921, pp. 278–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Backes, M., Barbosa, M., Fiore, D., Reischuk, R.M.: ADSNARK: nearly practical and privacy-preserving proofs on authenticated data. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2015, San Jose, CA, USA, May 17–21, 2015, pp. 271–286. IEEE Computer Society (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Backes, M., Fiore, D., Reischuk, R.M.: Verifiable delegation of computation on outsourced data. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer & Communications Security, CCS 2013, New York, pp. 863–874. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Chiesa, A., Genkin, D., Tromer, E.: Fast reductions from rams to delegatable succinct constraint satisfaction problems: extended abstract. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, ITCS 2013, New York, pp. 401–414. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benabbas, S., Gennaro, R., Vahlis, Y.: Verifiable delegation of computation over large datasets. In: Rogaway, P. (ed.) CRYPTO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6841, pp. 111–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bitansky, N., Canetti, R., Chiesa, A., Tromer, E.: From extractable collision resistance to succinct non-interactive arguments of knowledge, and back again. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS 2012, New York, pp. 326–349. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Catalano, D., Fiore, D., Gennaro, R., Vamvourellis, K.: Algebraic (Trapdoor) one-way functions and their applications. In: Sahai, A. (ed.) TCC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7785, pp. 680–699. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Choi, S.G., Katz, J., Kumaresan, R., Cid, C.: Multi-client non-interactive verifiable computation. In: Sahai, A. (ed.) TCC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7785, pp. 499–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chung, K.-M., Kalai, Y.T., Liu, F.-H., Raz, R.: Memory delegation. In: Rogaway, P. (ed.) CRYPTO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6841, pp. 151–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fiore, D., Gennaro, R.: Publicly verifiable delegation of large polynomials and matrix computations, with applications. In: Yu, T., Danezis, G., Gligor, V.D. (eds.) The ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2012, Raleigh, October 16–18, pp. 501–512. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gennaro, R., Gentry, C., Parno, B.: Non-interactive verifiable computing: outsourcing computation to untrusted workers. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 465–482. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gennaro, R., Gentry, C., Parno, B., Raykova, M.: Quadratic span programs and succinct NIZKs without PCPs. In: Johansson, T., Nguyen, P.Q. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7881, pp. 626–645. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ostrovsky, R., Sahai, A., Waters, B.: Attribute-based encryption with non-monotonic access structures. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2007, New York, pp. 195–203. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Papamanthou, C., Shi, E., Tamassia, R.: Signatures of correct computation. In: Sahai, A. (ed.) TCC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7785, pp. 222–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parno, B., Raykova, M., Vaikuntanathan, V.: How to delegate and verify in public: verifiable computation from attribute-based encryption. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) TCC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7194, pp. 422–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shi, J., Lai, J., Li, Y., Deng, R.H., Weng, J.: Authorized keyword search on encrypted data. In: Kutyłowski, M., Vaidya, J. (eds.) ICAIS 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8712, pp. 419–435. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    van den Hooff, J., Kaashoek, M.F., Zeldovich, N.: Versum: verifiable computations over large public logs. In: Ahn, G., Yung, M., Li, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Scottsdale, November 3–7, 2014, pp. 1304–1316. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Waters, B.: Ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption: an expressive, efficient, and provably secure realization. In: Catalano, D., Fazio, N., Gennaro, R., Nicolosi, A. (eds.) PKC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6571, pp. 53–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang, L.F., Safavi-Naini, R.: Private outsourcing of polynomial evaluation and matrix multiplication using multilinear maps. In: Abdalla, M., Nita-Rotaru, C., Dahab, R. (eds.) CANS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8257, pp. 329–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Alderman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christian Janson
    • 1
  • Carlos Cid
    • 1
  • Jason Crampton
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Security Group, Royal HollowayUniversity of London, EghamSurreyUK

Personalised recommendations