Efficient Committed Oblivious Transfer of Bit Strings

  • Mehmet S. Kiraz
  • Berry Schoenmakers
  • José Villegas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4779)

Abstract

Oblivious transfer (OT) is a powerful primitive in modern cryptography, often used in a context of semi-honest adversaries. Committed oblivious transfer (COT) is an enhancement involving the use of commitments, which can be used in many applications of OT covering particular malicious adversarial behavior. For OT, many protocols are known that cover the transfer of bit strings rather than just single bits. For COT, though, the known protocols only cover the transfer of bits.

In this paper, we thus present efficient COT protocols for transferring (long) bit strings, which perform quite well in comparison to the most efficient COT protocols for bits. We prove the security of our protocols following the simulation paradigm in the cryptographic model, also assuming the random oracle model for efficient non-interactive proofs. Also, as a motivation for the use of COT instead of OT, we point out that a protocol which uses OT as a subprotocol may have subtle security issues in the presence of malicious adversaries.

Keywords

Committed oblivious transfer Commitments Homomorphic encryption 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Can00]
    Canetti, R.: Universally composable security: A new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In: IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 136–145. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2000)Google Scholar
  2. [CC00]
    Cachin, C., Camenisch, J.: Optimistic fair secure computation. In: Bellare, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2000. LNCS, vol. 1880, pp. 93–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [CD97]
    Cramer, R., Damgård, I.: Linear zero-knowledge – a note on efficient zero-knowledge proofs and arguments. In: ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing – STOC 1997, pp. 436–445. ACM Press, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [CDN01]
    Cramer, R., Damgård, I., Nielsen, J.: Multiparty computation from threshold homomorphic encryption. In: Pfitzmann, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2045, pp. 280–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [CDS94]
    Cramer, R., Damgård, I., Schoenmakers, B.: Proofs of partial knowledge and simplified design of witness hiding protocols. In: Desmedt, Y.G. (ed.) CRYPTO 1994. LNCS, vol. 839, pp. 174–187. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  6. [CNs07]
    Camenisch, J., Neven, G., shelat, a.: Simulatable adaptive oblivious transfer. In: Camenisch, J., Neven, G. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4515, pp. 573–590. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Cré87]
    Crépeau, C.: Equivalence between two flavours of oblivious transfers. In: Pomerance, C. (ed.) CRYPTO 1987. LNCS, vol. 293, pp. 350–354. Springer, Heidelberg (1988)Google Scholar
  8. [Cré90]
    Crépeau, C.: Verifiable disclosure of secrets and applications. In: Quisquater, J.-J., Vandewalle, J. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 1989. LNCS, vol. 434, pp. 181–191. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  9. [CvdGT95]
    Crépeau, C., van de Graaf, J., Tapp, A.: Committed oblivious transfer and private multi-party computation. In: Coppersmith, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 1995. LNCS, vol. 963, pp. 110–123. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  10. [DJ01]
    Damgård, I., Jurik, M.: A generalization, a simplification and some applications of Paillier’s probabilistic public-key system. In: Kim, K.-c. (ed.) PKC 2001. LNCS, vol. 1992, pp. 119–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [DJ03]
    Damgård, I., Jurik, M.: A length-flexible threshold cryptosystem with applications. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Seberry, J. (eds.) ACISP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2727, pp. 350–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [DN03]
    Damgård, I., Nielsen, J.: Universally composable efficient multiparty computation from threshold homomorphic encryption. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 247–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  13. [EGL85]
    Even, S., Goldreich, O., Lempel, A.: Randomized protocol for signing contracts. Communications of the ACM 28, 637–647 (1985)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [GMY04]
    Garay, J., MacKenzie, P., Yang, K.: Efficient and universally composable committed oblivious transfer and applications. In: Naor, M. (ed.) TCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2951, pp. 297–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [JS07]
    Jarecki, S., Shmatikov, V.: Efficient two-party secure computation on committed inputs. In: EUROCRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4515, pp. 97–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [KS06]
    Kiraz, M., Schoenmakers, B.: A protocol issue for the malicious case of Yao’s garbled circuit construction. In: 27th Symposium on Information Theory in the Benelux, pp. 283–290 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. [Lip03]
    Lipmaa, H.: Verifiable homomorphic oblivious transfer and private equality test. In: Laih, C.-S. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2894, pp. 416–433. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  18. [MF06]
    Mohassel, P., Franklin, M.: Efficiency tradeoffs for malicious two-party computation. In: Yung, M., Dodis, Y., Kiayias, A., Malkin, T.G. (eds.) PKC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3958, pp. 458–473. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [MNPS04]
    Malkhi, D., Nisan, N., Pinkas, B., Sella, Y.: Fairplay – a secure two-party computation system. In: USENIX Security, pp. 287–302 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. [NP01]
    Naor, M., Pinkas, B.: Efficient oblivious transfer protocols. In: SODA 2001. 12th annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, pp. 448–457. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  21. [Pin03]
    Pinkas, B.: Fair secure two-party computation. In: Biham, E. (ed.) Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2656, pp. 87–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [Rab81]
    Rabin, M.: How to exchange secrets by oblivious transfer. Technical Report TR-81, Harvard Aiken Computation Laboratory (1981)Google Scholar
  23. [ST04]
    Schoenmakers, B., Tuyls, P.: Practical two-party computation based on the conditional gate. In: Lee, P.J. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3329, pp. 119–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  24. [Tze02]
    Tzeng, W.: Efficient 1-out-of-n oblivious transfer schemes. In: Naccache, D., Paillier, P. (eds.) PKC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2274, pp. 159–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehmet S. Kiraz
    • 1
  • Berry Schoenmakers
    • 1
  • José Villegas
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science, TU Eindhoven, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB EindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations