Advertisement

Proof of a Shuffle for Lattice-Based Cryptography

  • Nuria Costa
  • Ramiro Martínez
  • Paz Morillo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10674)

Abstract

In this paper we present the first proof of a shuffle for lattice-based cryptography which can be used to build a universally verifiable mix-net capable of mixing votes encrypted with a post-quantum algorithm, thus achieving long-term privacy. Universal verifiability is achieved by means of the publication of a non-interactive zero knowledge proof of a shuffle generated by each mix-node which can be verified by any observer. This published data guarantees long-term privacy since its security is based on perfectly hiding commitments and also on the hardness of solving the Ring Learning With Errors (RLWE) problem, that is widely believed to be quantum resistant.

Keywords

Mix-nets Evoting Post-quantum cryptographic protocol RLWE encryption Proof of a shuffle 

References

  1. 1.
    Abe, M.: Mix-networks on permutation networks. In: Lam, K.-Y., Okamoto, E., Xing, C. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1716, pp. 258–273. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-48000-6_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adida, B., Wikström, D.: How to shuffle in public. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 555–574. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-70936-7_30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adida, B., Wikström, D.: Offline/Online mixing. In: Arge, L., Cachin, C., Jurdziński, T., Tarlecki, A. (eds.) ICALP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4596, pp. 484–495. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73420-8_43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Applebaum, B., Cash, D., Peikert, C., Sahai, A.: Fast cryptographic primitives and circular-secure encryption based on hard learning problems. In: Halevi, S. (ed.) CRYPTO 2009. LNCS, vol. 5677, pp. 595–618. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-03356-8_35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benhamouda, F., Krenn, S., Lyubashevsky, V., Pietrzak, K.: Efficient zero-knowledge proofs for commitments from learning with errors over rings. In: Pernul, G., Ryan, P.Y.A., Weippl, E. (eds.) ESORICS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9326, pp. 305–325. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24174-6_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buchmann, J., Demirel, D., Graaf, J.: Towards a publicly-verifiable mix-net providing everlasting privacy. In: Sadeghi, A.-R. (ed.) FC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7859, pp. 197–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39884-1_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Canetti, R.: Universally composable security: a new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In: Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2001, Washington, USA, pp. 136–145. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaum, D.L.: Untraceable electronic mail, return addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Commun. ACM 24(2), 84–90 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chillotti, I., Gama, N., Georgieva, M., Izabachène, M.: A homomorphic LWE based E-voting scheme. In: Takagi, T. (ed.) PQCrypto 2016. LNCS, vol. 9606, pp. 245–265. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-29360-8_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Costa, N., Martínez, R., Morillo, P.: Proof of a shuffle for lattice-based cryptography. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cramer, R., Gennaro, R., Schoenmakers, B.: A secure and optimally efficient multi-authority election scheme. In: Fumy, W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1233, pp. 103–118. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). doi: 10.1007/3-540-69053-0_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Damgard, I.: On \(\sigma \)-protocols. Lecture on Cryptologic Protocol Theory, Faculty of Science, University of Aarhus (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demirel, D., Henning, M., van de Graaf, J., Ryan, P.Y.A., Buchmann, J.: Prêt à voter providing everlasting privacy. In: Heather, J., Schneider, S., Teague, V. (eds.) Vote-ID 2013. LNCS, vol. 7985, pp. 156–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39185-9_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fauzi, P., Lipmaa, H.: Efficient culpably sound NIZK shuffle argument without random oracles. In: Sako, K. (ed.) CT-RSA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9610, pp. 200–216. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-29485-8_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fauzi, P., Lipmaa, H., Zając, M.: A shuffle argument secure in the generic model. In: Cheon, J.H., Takagi, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2016. LNCS, vol. 10032, pp. 841–872. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-53890-6_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Furukawa, J., Sako, K.: An efficient scheme for proving a shuffle. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 368–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi: 10.1007/3-540-44647-8_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Golle, P., Jakobsson, M., Juels, A., Syverson, P.: Universal re-encryption for mixnets. In: Okamoto, T. (ed.) CT-RSA 2004. LNCS, vol. 2964, pp. 163–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-24660-2_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Groth, J.: A verifiable secret shuffe of homomorphic encryptions. In: Desmedt, Y.G. (ed.) PKC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2567, pp. 145–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi: 10.1007/3-540-36288-6_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Groth, J., Lu, S.: A non-interactive shuffle with pairing based verifiability. In: Kurosawa, K. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4833, pp. 51–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76900-2_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lindner, R., Peikert, C.: Better key sizes (and attacks) for LWE-based encryption. In: Kiayias, A. (ed.) CT-RSA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6558, pp. 319–339. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19074-2_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ling, S., Nguyen, K., Stehlé, D., Wang, H.: Improved zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge for the ISIS problem, and applications. In: Kurosawa, K., Hanaoka, G. (eds.) PKC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7778, pp. 107–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-36362-7_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lipmaa, H., Zhang, B.: A more efficient computationally sound non-interactive zero-knowledge shuffle argument. In: Visconti, I., Prisco, R. (eds.) SCN 2012. LNCS, vol. 7485, pp. 477–502. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-32928-9_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Locher, P., Haenni, R.: Verifiable internet elections with everlasting privacy and minimal trust. In: Haenni, R., Koenig, R.E., Wikström, D. (eds.) VOTELID 2015. LNCS, vol. 9269, pp. 74–91. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-22270-7_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Locher, P., Haenni, R., Koenig, R.E.: Coercion-resistant internet voting with everlasting privacy. In: Clark, J., Meiklejohn, S., Ryan, P.Y.A., Wallach, D., Brenner, M., Rohloff, K. (eds.) FC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9604, pp. 161–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-53357-4_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lyubashevsky, V., Peikert, C., Regev, O.: On ideal lattices and learning with errors over rings. J. ACM 60(6), 43:1–43:35 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Markus, J., Ari, J.: Millimix: mixing in small batches. Technical report (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Micciancio, D., Regev, O.: Lattice-based cryptography. In: Bernstein, D.J., Buchmann, J., Dahmen, E. (eds.) Post-Quantum Cryptography, pp. 147–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88702-7_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moran, T., Naor, M.: Split-ballot voting: everlasting privacy with distributed trust. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2007, pp. 246–255. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Andrew Neff, C.: A verifiable secret shuffle and its application to e-voting. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Computer and Communication Security, CCS 2001, pp. 116–125, NY, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Park, C., Itoh, K., Kurosawa, K.: Efficient anonymous channel and all/nothing election scheme. In: Helleseth, T. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1993. LNCS, vol. 765, pp. 248–259. Springer, Heidelberg (1994). doi: 10.1007/3-540-48285-7_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pedersen, T.P.: Non-interactive and information-theoretic secure verifiable secret sharing. In: Feigenbaum, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 1991. LNCS, vol. 576, pp. 129–140. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). doi: 10.1007/3-540-46766-1_9 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Regev, O.: On lattices, learning with errors, random linear codes, and cryptography. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2005, pp. 84–93, New York, NY, USA. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Regev, O.: The learning with errors problem. In: IEEE 25th Annual Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pp. 191–204 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rückert, M., Schneider, M.: Estimating the security of lattice-based cryptosystems. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2010/137 (2010). http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/137
  35. 35.
    Sako, K., Kilian, J.: Receipt-free mix-type voting scheme. In: Guillou, L.C., Quisquater, J.-J. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 1995. LNCS, vol. 921, pp. 393–403. Springer, Heidelberg (1995). doi: 10.1007/3-540-49264-X_32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Singh, K., Pandu Rangan, C., Banerjee, A.K.: Lattice based universal re-encryption for mixnet. J. Int. Serv. Inf. Secur. (JISIS) 4(1), 1–11 (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Singh, K., Pandu Rangan, C., Banerjee, A.K.: Lattice based mix network for location privacy in mobile system. Mob. Inf. Syst. 1–9, 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Terelius, B., Wikström, D.: Proofs of restricted shuffles. In: Bernstein, D.J., Lange, T. (eds.) AFRICACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6055, pp. 100–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-12678-9_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wikström, D.: The security of a mix-center based on a semantically secure cryptosystem. In: Menezes, A., Sarkar, P. (eds.) INDOCRYPT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2551, pp. 368–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-36231-2_29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wikström, D.: A universally composable mix-net. In: Naor, M. (ed.) TCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2951, pp. 317–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-24638-1_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wikström, D.: A sender verifiable mix-net and a new proof of a shuffle. In: Roy, B. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3788, pp. 273–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11593447_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wikström, D.: A commitment-consistent proof of a shuffle. In: Boyd, C., González Nieto, J. (eds.) ACISP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5594, pp. 407–421. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02620-1_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scytl Secure Electronic VotingBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations