Advertisement

Round-Optimal Secure Multiparty Computation with Honest Majority

  • Prabhanjan Ananth
  • Arka Rai Choudhuri
  • Aarushi Goel
  • Abhishek Jain
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10992)

Abstract

We study the exact round complexity of secure multiparty computation (MPC) in the honest majority setting. We construct several round-optimal n-party protocols, tolerating any \(t<\frac{n}{2}\) corruptions.

  1. 1.

    Security with abort: We give the first construction of two round MPC for general functions that achieves security with abort against malicious adversaries in the plain model. The security of our protocol only relies on one-way functions.

     
  2. 2.

    Guaranteed output delivery: We also construct protocols that achieve security with guaranteed output delivery: (i) Against fail-stop adversaries, we construct two round MPC either in the (bare) public-key infrastructure model with no additional assumptions, or in the plain model assuming two-round semi-honest oblivious transfer. In three rounds, however, we can achieve security assuming only one-way functions. (ii) Against malicious adversaries, we construct three round MPC in the plain model, assuming public-key encryption and Zaps.

    Previously, such protocols were only known based on specific learning assumptions and required the use of common reference strings.

     

All of our results are obtained via general compilers that may be of independent interest.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by a DARPA/ARL Safeware Grant W911NF-15-C-0213, and a subaward from NSF CNS-1414023. We would like to thank Sanjam Garg, Yuval Ishai and Akshayaram Srinvisan for pointing out the limitation of using conforming protocols of [17] towards achieving information-theoretic security for our first construction. The second author would like to thank Ignacio Cascudo for helpful discussions.

References

  1. 1.
    Asharov, G., Jain, A., López-Alt, A., Tromer, E., Vaikuntanathan, V., Wichs, D.: Multiparty computation with low communication, computation and interaction via threshold FHE. In: Pointcheval, D., Johansson, T. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7237, pp. 483–501. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29011-4_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Badrinarayanan, S., Goyal, V., Jain, A., Kalai, Y.T., Khurana, D., Sahai, A.: Promise zero knowledge and its applications to round optimal MPC. In: CRYPTO (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1088
  3. 3.
    Beaver, D., Micali, S., Rogaway, P.: The round complexity of secure protocols (extended abstract). In: 22nd ACM STOC, pp. 503–513. ACM Press, May 1990Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellare, M., Hoang, V.T., Rogaway, P.: Adaptively secure garbling with applications to one-time programs and secure outsourcing. In: Wang, X., Sako, K. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7658, pp. 134–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34961-4_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ben-Or, M., Goldwasser, S., Wigderson, A.: Completeness theorems for non-cryptographic fault-tolerant distributed computation (extended abstract). In: 20th ACM STOC, pp. 1–10. ACM Press, May 1988Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benhamouda, F., Lin, H.: k-round multiparty computation from k-round oblivious transfer via garbled interactive circuits. In: Nielsen, J.B., Rijmen, V. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2018, Part II. LNCS, vol. 10821, pp. 500–532. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78375-8_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blum, M., Feldman, P., Micali, S.: Non-interactive zero-knowledge and its applications (extended abstract). In: 20th ACM STOC, pp. 103–112. ACM Press, May 1988Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Canetti, R., Goldreich, O., Goldwasser, S., Micali, S.: Resettable zero-knowledge (extended abstract). In: 32nd ACM STOC, pp. 235–244. ACM Press, May 2000Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chaum, D., Crépeau, C., Damgård, I.: Multiparty unconditionally secure protocols (extended abstract). In: 20th ACM STOC, pp. 11–19. ACM Press, May 1988Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cleve, R.: Limits on the security of coin flips when half the processors are faulty (extended abstract). In: 18th ACM STOC, pp. 364–369. ACM Press, May 1986Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen, R., Lindell, Y.: Fairness versus guaranteed output delivery in secure multiparty computation. In: Sarkar, P., Iwata, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8874, pp. 466–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45608-8_25CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Damgård, I., Ishai, Y.: Constant-round multiparty computation using a black-box pseudorandom generator. In: Shoup, V. (ed.) CRYPTO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3621, pp. 378–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11535218_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dwork, C., Naor, M.: Zaps and their applications. In: 41st FOCS, pp. 283–293. IEEE Computer Society Press, November 2000Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feige, U., Lapidot, D., Shamir, A.: Multiple non-interactive zero knowledge proofs based on a single random string (extended abstract). In: 31st FOCS, pp. 308–317. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 1990Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garg, S., Mukherjee, P., Pandey, O., Polychroniadou, A.: The exact round complexity of secure computation. In: Fischlin, M., Coron, J.-S. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9666, pp. 448–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49896-5_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garg, S., Srinivasan, A.: Two-round multiparty secure computation from minimal assumptions. In: Nielsen, J.B., Rijmen, V. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2018, Part II. LNCS, vol. 10821, pp. 468–499. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78375-8_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garg, S., Srinivasan, A.: Two-round multiparty secure computation from minimal assumptions. In: Nielsen, J.B., Rijmen, V. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2018. LNCS, vol. 10821, pp. 468–499. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78375-8_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gennaro, R., Ishai, Y., Kushilevitz, E., Rabin, T.: On 2-round secure multiparty computation. In: Yung, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2442, pp. 178–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45708-9_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldreich, O., Krawczyk, H.: On the composition of zero-knowledge proof systems. SIAM J. Comput. 25(1), 169–192 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539791220688MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldreich, O., Micali, S., Wigderson, A.: How to play any mental game or a completeness theorem for protocols with honest majority. In: Aho, A. (ed.) 19th ACM STOC, pp. 218–229. ACM Press, May 1987Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dov Gordon, S., Liu, F.-H., Shi, E.: Constant-round MPC with fairness and guarantee of output delivery. In: Gennaro, R., Robshaw, M. (eds.) CRYPTO 2015, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9216, pp. 63–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48000-7_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Groth, J., Ostrovsky, R.: Cryptography in the Multi-string Model. In: Menezes, A. (ed.) CRYPTO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4622, pp. 323–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74143-5_18CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Halevi, S., Lindell, Y., Pinkas, B.: Secure computation on the web: computing without simultaneous interaction. In: Rogaway, P. (ed.) CRYPTO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6841, pp. 132–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22792-9_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ishai, Y., Kumaresan, R., Kushilevitz, E., Paskin-Cherniavsky, A.: Secure computation with minimal interaction, revisited. In: Gennaro, R., Robshaw, M. (eds.) CRYPTO 2015, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9216, pp. 359–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48000-7_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ishai, Y., Kushilevitz, E.: Randomizing polynomials: a new representation with applications to round-efficient secure computation. In: 41st FOCS, pp. 294–304. IEEE Computer Society Press, November 2000Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ishai, Y., Kushilevitz, E., Paskin, A.: Secure multiparty computation with minimal interaction. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 577–594. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14623-7_31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Katz, J., Ostrovsky, R.: Round-optimal secure two-party computation. In: Franklin, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3152, pp. 335–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-28628-8_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lapidot, D., Shamir, A.: Publicly verifiable non-interactive zero-knowledge proofs. In: Menezes, A.J., Vanstone, S.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 1990. LNCS, vol. 537, pp. 353–365. Springer, Heidelberg (1991).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-38424-3_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mohassel, P., Rosulek, M., Zhang, Y.: Fast and secure three-party computation: the garbled circuit approach. In: Ray, I., Li, N., Kruegel, C. (eds.) ACM CCS 2015, pp. 591–602. ACM Press, October 2015Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shamir, A.: How to share a secret. Commun. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 22(11), 612–613 (1979)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yao, A.C.C.: How to generate and exchange secrets (extended abstract). In: 27th FOCS, pp. 162–167. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 1986Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prabhanjan Ananth
    • 1
  • Arka Rai Choudhuri
    • 2
  • Aarushi Goel
    • 2
  • Abhishek Jain
    • 2
  1. 1.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations