Memory Delegation

  • Kai-Min Chung
  • Yael Tauman Kalai
  • Feng-Hao Liu
  • Ran Raz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6841)

Abstract

We consider the problem of delegating computation, where the delegator doesn’t even know the input to the function being delegated, and runs in time significantly smaller than the input length.

For example, consider the setting of memory delegation, where a delegator wishes to delegate her entire memory to the cloud. The delegator may want the cloud to compute functions on this memory, and prove that the functions were computed correctly. As another example, consider the setting of streaming delegation, where a stream of data goes by, and a delegator, who cannot store this data, delegates this task to the cloud. Later the delegator may ask the cloud to compute statistics on this streaming data, and prove the correctness of the computation. We note that in both settings the delegator must keep a (short) certificate of the data being delegated, in order to later verify the correctness of the computations. Moreover, in the streaming setting, this certificate should be computed in a streaming manner.

We construct both memory and streaming delegation schemes. We present non-interactive constructions based on the (standard) delegation scheme of Goldwasswer et. al. [GKR08]. These schemes allow the delegation of any function computable by an \({\cal L}\)-uniform circuit of low depth (the complexity of the delegator depends linearly on the depth). For memory delegation, we rely on the existence of a polylog PIR scheme, and for streaming, we rely on the existence of a fully homomorphic encryption scheme.

We also present constructions based on the CS-proofs of Micali. These schemes allow the delegation of any function in P. However, they are interactive (i.e., consists of 4 messages), or are non-interactive in the Random Oracle Model.

References

  1. [AIK10]
    Applebaum, B., Ishai, Y., Kushilevitz, E.: From secrecy to soundness: Efficient verification via secure computation. In: Abramsky, S., Gavoille, C., Kirchner, C., Meyer auf der Heide, F., Spirakis, P.G. (eds.) ICALP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6198, pp. 152–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Bar01]
    Barak, B.: How to go beyond the black-box simulation barrier. In: FOCS, pp. 106–115 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. [BCC88]
    Brassard, G., Chaum, D., Crépeau, C.: Minimum disclosure proofs of knowledge. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 37(2), 156–189 (1988)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [BFL91]
    Babai, L., Fortnow, L., Lund, C.: Non-deterministic exponential time has two-prover interactive protocols. Computational Complexity 1, 3–40 (1991)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [BFLS91]
    Babai, L., Fortnow, L., Levin, L.A., Szegedy, M.: Checking computations in polylogarithmic time. In: STOC, pp. 21–31 (1991)Google Scholar
  6. [BG02]
    Barak, B., Goldreich, O.: Universal arguments and their applications. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pp. 194–203 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. [BIN97]
    Bellare, M., Impagliazzo, R., Naor, M.: Does parallel repetition lower the error in computationally sound protocols? In: FOCS, pp. 374–383 (1997)Google Scholar
  8. [BR97]
    Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Minimizing the use of random oracles in authenticated encryption schemes. In: ICICS, pp. 1–16 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. [BSGH+05]
    Ben-Sasson, E., Goldreich, O., Harsha, P., Sudan, M., Vadhan, S.P.: Short pcps verifiable in polylogarithmic time. In: IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pp. 120–134 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. [CGH04]
    Canetti, R., Goldreich, O., Halevi, S.: The random oracle methodology, revisited. Journal of the ACM 51(4), 557–594 (2004)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [CHS05]
    Canetti, R., Halevi, S., Steiner, M.: Hardness amplification of weakly verifiable puzzles. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) TCC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3378, pp. 17–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [CKLR11]
    Chung, K.-M., Kalai, Y.T., Liu, F.-H., Raz, R.: Memory delegation. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2011/273 (2011), http://eprint.iacr.org/
  13. [CKV10]
    Chung, K.-M., Kalai, Y., Vadhan, S.P.: Improved delegation of computation using fully homomorphic encryption. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 483–501. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  14. [CTY10]
    Cormode, G., Thaler, J., Yi, K.: Verifying computations with streaming interactive proofs. Technical Report TR10-159, ECCC Report (2010)Google Scholar
  15. [FL93]
    Fortnow, L., Lund, C.: Interactive proof systems and alternating time-space complexity. Theoretical Computer Science 113(1), 55–73 (1993)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [FS86]
    Fiat, A., Shamir, A.: How to prove yourself: Practical solutions to identification and signature problems. In: Odlyzko, A.M. (ed.) CRYPTO 1986. LNCS, vol. 263, pp. 186–194. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)Google Scholar
  17. [GGP10]
    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)Google Scholar
  18. [GK03]
    Goldwasser, S., Kalai, Y.T.: On the (in)security of the fiat-shamir paradigm, pp. 102–113 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. [GKR08]
    Goldwasser, S., Kalai, Y.T., Rothblum, G.N.: Delegating computation: interactive proofs for muggles. In: STOC, pp. 113–122 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. [Kil92]
    Kilian, J.: A note on efficient zero-knowledge proofs and arguments (extended abstract). In: STOC, pp. 723–732 (1992)Google Scholar
  21. [KR09]
    Kalai, Y.T., Raz, R.: Probabilistically checkable arguments. In: Halevi, S. (ed.) CRYPTO 2009. LNCS, vol. 5677, pp. 143–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [LFKN92]
    Lund, C., Fortnow, L., Karloff, H.J., Nisan, N.: Algebraic methods for interactive proof systems. J. ACM 39(4), 859–868 (1992)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [Mic94]
    Micali, S.: Cs proofs (extended abstracts). In: FOCS, pp. 436–453 (1994)Google Scholar
  24. [Mic00]
    Micali, S.: Computationally sound proofs. SIAM J. Comput. 30(4), 1253–1298 (2000)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [Sha92]
    Shamir, A.: IP = PSPACE. Journal of the ACM 39(4), 869–877 (1992)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai-Min Chung
    • 1
  • Yael Tauman Kalai
    • 2
  • Feng-Hao Liu
    • 3
  • Ran Raz
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Microsoft Research New EnglandCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceBrown UniversityUSA
  4. 4.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceWeizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations