On the Centrality of Off-Line E-Cash to Concrete Partial Information Games

  • Seung Geol Choi
  • Dana Dachman-Soled
  • Moti Yung
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7485)

Abstract

Cryptography has developed numerous protocols for solving “partial information games” that are seemingly paradoxical. Some protocols are generic (e.g., secure multi-party computation) and others, due to the importance of the scenario they represent, are designed to solve a concrete problem directly. Designing efficient and secure protocols for (off-line) e-cash, e-voting, and e-auction are some of the most heavily researched concrete problems, representing various settings where privacy and correctness of the procedure is highly important.

In this work, we initiate the exploration of the relationships among e-cash, e-voting and e-auction in the universal composability (UC) framework, by considering general variants of the three problems. In particular, we first define ideal functionalities for e-cash, e-voting, and e-auction, and then give a construction of a protocol that UC-realizes the e-voting (resp., e-auction) functionality in the e-cash hybrid model. This (black-box) reducibility demonstrates the centrality of off-line e-cash and implies that designing a solution to e-cash may bear fruits in other areas. Constructing a solution to one protocol problem based on a second protocol problem has been traditional in cryptography, but typically has concentrated on building complex protocols on simple primitives (e.g., secure multi-party computation from Oblivious Transfer, signature from one-way functions, etc.). The novelty here is reducibility among mature protocols and using the ideal functionality as a design tool in realizing other ideal functionalities. We suggest this new approach, and we only consider the very basic general properties from the various primitives to demonstrate its viability. Namely, we only consider the basic coin e-cash model, the e-voting that is correct and private and relies on trusted registration, and e-auction relying on a trusted auctioneer. Naturally, relationships among protocols with further properties (i.e., extended functionalities), using the approach advocated herein, are left as open questions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [BT94]
    Benaloh, J.C., Tuinstra, D.: Receipt-free secret-ballot elections (extended abstract). In: STOC, pp. 544–553 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. [BY86]
    Benaloh, J.C., Yung, M.: Distributing the power of a government to enhance the privacy of voters (extended abstract). In: PODC, pp. 52–62 (1986)Google Scholar
  3. [Can01]
    Canetti, R.: Universally composable security: A new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In: FOCS, pp. 136–145 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. [CF85]
    Cohen, J.D., Fischer, M.J.: A robust and verifiable cryptographically secure election scheme (extended abstract). In: FOCS, pp. 372–382 (1985)Google Scholar
  5. [CFN88]
    Chaum, D., Fiat, A., Naor, M.: Untraceable Electronic Cash. In: Goldwasser, S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1988. LNCS, vol. 403, pp. 319–327. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  6. [Cha81]
    Chaum, D.: Untraceable electronic mail, return addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Commun. ACM 24(2), 84–88 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Cha83]
    Chaum, D.: Blind signature system. In: Advances in Cryptology, Proceedings of CRYPTO 1983, Santa Barbara, California, USA, August 21-24, p. 153. Plenum Press, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  8. [dMPQ07]
    de Marneffe, O., Pereira, O., Quisquater, J.-J.: Simulation-based analysis of e2e voting systems. In: Frontiers of Electronic Voting (2007)Google Scholar
  9. [DMS04]
    Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., Syverson, P.F.: Tor: The second-generation onion router. In: Proc. of the 13th. USENIX Security Symposium (August 2004)Google Scholar
  10. [FR96]
    Franklin, M.K., Reiter, M.K.: The design and implementation of a secure auction service. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 22(5), 302–312 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [GMW87]
    Goldreich, O., Micali, S., Wigderson, A.: How to play any mental game or a completeness theorem for protocols with honest majority. In: STOC, pp. 218–229 (1987)Google Scholar
  12. [Gro04]
    Groth, J.: Evaluating Security of Voting Schemes in the Universal Composability Framework. In: Jakobsson, M., Yung, M., Zhou, J. (eds.) ACNS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3089, pp. 46–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [IR89]
    Impagliazzo, R., Rudich, S.: Limits on the provable consequences of one-way permutations. In: STOC, pp. 44–61 (1989)Google Scholar
  14. [JCJ05]
    Juels, A., Catalano, D., Jakobsson, M.: Coercion-resistant electronic elections. In: WPES, pp. 61–70 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. [Lin09]
    Lindell, Y.: Legally enforceable fairness in secure two-party communication. Chicago J. Theor. Comput. Sci. (2009)Google Scholar
  16. [MPR09]
    Maji, H.K., Prabhakaran, M., Rosulek, M.: Complexity of Multi-party Computation Problems: The Case of 2-Party Symmetric Secure Function Evaluation. In: Reingold, O. (ed.) TCC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5444, pp. 256–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [MPR10a]
    Maji, H.K., Prabhakaran, M., Rosulek, M.: Cryptographic complexity classes and computational intractability assumptions. In: ICS, pp. 266–289 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. [MPR10b]
    Maji, H.K., Prabhakaran, M., Rosulek, M.: A Zero-One Law for Cryptographic Complexity with Respect to Computational UC Security. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 595–612. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  19. [NPS99]
    Naor, M., Pinkas, B., Sumner, R.: Privacy preserving auctions and mechanism design. In: ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 129–139 (1999)Google Scholar
  20. [PR08]
    Prabhakaran, M., Rosulek, M.: Cryptographic Complexity of Multi-Party Computation Problems: Classifications and Separations. In: Wagner, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2008. LNCS, vol. 5157, pp. 262–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  21. [RR98]
    Reiter, M.K., Rubin, A.D.: Crowds: Anonymity for Web Transactions. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 1(1), 66–92 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [SGR97]
    Syverson, P.F., Goldschlag, D.M., Reed, M.G.: Anonymous connections and onion routing. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, California, pp. 44–54 (1997)Google Scholar
  23. [SL00]
    Shields, C., Levine, B.: A Protocol for Anonymous Communication over the Internet. In: Proc. 7th ACM Conference on Computer and Communication Security (November 2000)Google Scholar
  24. [Tro05]
    Trolin, M.: A Universally Composable Scheme for Electronic Cash. In: Maitra, S., Veni Madhavan, C.E., Venkatesan, R. (eds.) INDOCRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3797, pp. 347–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [Yao86]
    Yao, A.C.-C.: How to generate an exchange secrets. In: FOCS, pp. 162–167 (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seung Geol Choi
    • 1
  • Dana Dachman-Soled
    • 2
  • Moti Yung
    • 3
  1. 1.University of MarylandUSA
  2. 2.Microsoft Research New EnglandUSA
  3. 3.Google Inc. & Columbia UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations