Securing Multiparty Protocols Against the Exposure of Data to Honest Parties

  • Peeter LaudEmail author
  • Alisa Pankova
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9963)


We consider a new adversarial goal in multiparty protocols, where the adversary may corrupt some parties. The goal is to manipulate the view of some honest party in a way, that this honest party learns the private data of some other honest party. The adversary itself might not learn this data at all. This goal, and such attacks are significant because they create a liability to the first honest party to clean its systems from second honest party’s data; a task that may be highly non-trivial. Cleaning the systems is essential to prevent possible security leaks in future.

Protecting against this goal essentially means achieving security against several non-cooperating adversaries, where only one adversary is active, representing the real attacker, and each other adversary is passive, corrupting only a single party. We formalize the adversarial goal by proposing an alternative notion of universal composability. We show how existing, conventionally secure multiparty protocols can be transformed to make them secure against the novel adversarial goal.


  1. 1.
    Schneier, B.: Data is a toxic asset, March 2016.
  2. 2.
    Canetti, R.: Universally composable security: a new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In: FOCS, pp. 136–145. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alwen, J., Katz, J., Maurer, U., Zikas, V.: Collusion-preserving computation. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7417, pp. 124–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canetti, R., Vald, M.: Universally composable security with local adversaries. In: Visconti, I., De Prisco, R. (eds.) SCN 2012. LNCS, vol. 7485, pp. 281–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Galil, Z., Haber, S., Yung, M.: Cryptographic computation: secure fault tolerant protocols and the public-key model. In: Pomerance, C. (ed.) CRYPTO 1987. LNCS, vol. 293, pp. 135–155. Springer, Heidelberg (1988)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aumann, Y., Lindell, Y.: Security against covert adversaries: efficient protocols for realistic adversaries. J. Cryptol. 23(2), 281–343 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mohassel, P., Rosulek, M., Zhang, Y.: Fast, secure three-party computation: the garbled circuit approach. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2015), pp. 591–602, New York, NY, USA. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maurer, U., Renner, R.: Abstract cryptography. In: Chazelle, B., (ed.) Innovations in Computer Science - ICS, 7–9 January 2011, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, pp. 1–21. Tsinghua University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alwen, J., Shelat, A., Visconti, I.: Collusion-free protocols in the mediated model. In: Wagner, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2008. LNCS, vol. 5157, pp. 497–514. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alwen, J., Katz, J., Lindell, Y., Persiano, G., shelat, a, Visconti, I.: Collusion-free multiparty computation in the mediated model. In: Halevi, S. (ed.) CRYPTO 2009. LNCS, vol. 5677, pp. 524–540. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lepinski, M., Micali, S., Shelat, A.: Collusion-free protocols. In: Gabow, H.N., Fagin, R., (eds.) Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Baltimore, MD, USA, 22–24 May 2005, pp. 543–552. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halevi, S., Karger, P.A., Naor, D.: Enforcing confinement in distributed storage and a cryptographic model for access control. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2005, p. 169 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Canetti, R., Dodis, Y., Pass, R., Walfish, S.: Universally composable security with global setup. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 61–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laud, P., Pankova, A.: Securing multiparty protocols against the exposure of data to honest parties. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2016/650 (2016).
  15. 15.
    Damgård, I., Geisler, M., Nielsen, J.B.: From passive to covert security at low cost. In: Micciancio, D. (ed.) TCC 2010. LNCS, vol. 5978, pp. 128–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laud, P., Pankova, A.: Preprocessing-based verification of multiparty protocols with honest majority. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2015/674 (2015).
  17. 17.
    Goldreich, O., Micali, S., Wigderson, A.: How to play any mental game or a completeness theorem for protocols with honest majority. In: STOC, pp. 218–229. ACM (1987)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Canetti, R., Lindell, Y., Ostrovsky, R., Sahai, A.: Universally composable two-party and multi-party secure computation. In: Reif, J.H., (ed.) Proceedings on 34th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 19–21 May 2002, Montréal, Québec, Canada, pp. 494–503. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Canetti, R., Lindell, Y., Ostrovsky, R., Sahai, A.: Universally composable two-party and multi-party secure computation. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2002, p. 140 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cybernetica ASTartuEstonia
  2. 2.Software Technologies and Applications Competence Centre (STACC)TartuEstonia
  3. 3.University of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations