Advertisement

Multiparty Computation from Somewhat Homomorphic Encryption

  • Ivan Damgård
  • Valerio Pastro
  • Nigel Smart
  • Sarah Zakarias
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7417)

Abstract

We propose a general multiparty computation protocol secure against an active adversary corrupting up to \(n-1\) of the n players. The protocol may be used to compute securely arithmetic circuits over any finite field \(\mathbb {F}_{p^k}\). Our protocol consists of a preprocessing phase that is both independent of the function to be computed and of the inputs, and a much more efficient online phase where the actual computation takes place. The online phase is unconditionally secure and has total computational (and communication) complexity linear in n, the number of players, where earlier work was quadratic in n. Moreover, the work done by each player is only a small constant factor larger than what one would need to compute the circuit in the clear. We show this is optimal for computation in large fields. In practice, for 3 players, a secure 64-bit multiplication can be done in 0.05 ms. Our preprocessing is based on a somewhat homomorphic cryptosystem. We extend a scheme by Brakerski et al., so that we can perform distributed decryption and handle many values in parallel in one ciphertext. The computational complexity of our preprocessing phase is dominated by the public-key operations, we need \(O(n^2/s)\) operations per secure multiplication where s is a parameter that increases with the security parameter of the cryptosystem. Earlier work in this model needed \(\varOmega (n^2)\) operations. In practice, the preprocessing prepares a secure 64-bit multiplication for 3 players in about 13 ms.

Keywords

Secret Share Scheme Message Authentication Code Homomorphic Encryption Oblivious Transfer Arithmetic Circuit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beaver, D.: Efficient Multiparty Protocols Using Circuit Randomization. In: Feigenbaum, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 1991. LNCS, vol. 576, pp. 420–432. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bendlin, R., Damgård, I., Orlandi, C., Zakarias, S.: Semi-homomorphic Encryption and Multiparty Computation. In: Paterson, K.G. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6632, pp. 169–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brakerski, Z., Gentry, C., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Fully homomorphic encryption without bootstrapping. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC) 18, 111 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brakerski, Z., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Fully Homomorphic Encryption from Ring-LWE and Security for Key Dependent Messages. In: Rogaway, P. (ed.) CRYPTO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6841, pp. 505–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Canetti, R., Lindell, Y., Ostrovsky, R., Sahai, A.: Universally composable two-party and multi-party secure computation. In: STOC, pp. 494–503 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Damgård, I., Keller, M., Larraia, E., Miles, C., Smart, N.P.: Implementing AES via an actively/covertly secure dishonest-majority MPC protocol. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2012:262 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Damgård, I.B., Nielsen, J.B.: Perfect Hiding and Perfect Binding Universally Composable Commitment Schemes with Constant Expansion Factor. In: Yung, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2442, pp. 581–596. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Damgård, I., Orlandi, C.: Multiparty Computation for Dishonest Majority: From Passive to Active Security at Low Cost. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 558–576. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gentry, C.: Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices. In: Mitzenmacher, M. (ed.) STOC, pp. 169–178. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gentry, C., Halevi, S., Smart, N.P.: Fully Homomorphic Encryption with Polylog Overhead. In: Pointcheval, D., Johansson, T. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7237, pp. 465–482. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ishai, Y., Kushilevitz, E., Ostrovsky, R., Sahai, A.: Zero-knowledge from secure multiparty computation. In: Johnson, D.S., Feige, U. (eds.) STOC, pp. 21–30. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ishai, Y., Prabhakaran, M., Sahai, A.: Founding Cryptography on Oblivious Transfer – Efficiently. In: Wagner, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2008. LNCS, vol. 5157, pp. 572–591. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lindell, Y.: Highly-Efficient Universally-Composable Commitments Based on the DDH Assumption. In: Paterson, K.G. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6632, pp. 446–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Myers, S., Sergi, M., Shelat, A.: Threshold fully homomorphic encryption and secure computation. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2011:454 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nielsen, J.B., Nordholt, P.S., Orlandi, C., Burra, S.S.: A new approach to practical active-secure two-party computation. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2011:91 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smart, N.P., Vercauteren, F.: Fully homomorphic SIMD operations. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2011:133 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winkler, S., Wullschleger, J.: On the Efficiency of Classical and Quantum Oblivious Transfer Reductions. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 707–723. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2012 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Damgård
    • 1
  • Valerio Pastro
    • 1
  • Nigel Smart
    • 2
  • Sarah Zakarias
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceBristol UniversityBristolEngland

Personalised recommendations