Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Interpolating between MPC and FHE

  • Ashish Choudhury
  • Jake Loftus
  • Emmanuela Orsini
  • Arpita Patra
  • Nigel P. Smart
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8270)

Abstract

We present a computationally secure MPC protocol for threshold adversaries which is parametrized by a value L. When L = 2 we obtain a classical form of MPC protocol in which interaction is required for multiplications, as L increases interaction is reduced, in that one requires interaction only after computing a higher degree function. When L approaches infinity one obtains the FHE based protocol of Gentry, which requires no interaction. Thus one can trade communication for computation in a simple way. Our protocol is based on an interactive protocol for “bootstrapping” a somewhat homomorphic encryption (SHE) scheme. The key contribution is that our presented protocol is highly communication efficient enabling us to obtain reduced communication when compared to traditional MPC protocols for relatively small values of L.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

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.
    Asharov, G., Jain, A., Wichs, D.: Multiparty computation with low communication, computation and interaction via threshold FHE. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2011:613 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Fehr, S., Ostrovsky, R.: Near-linear unconditionally-secure multiparty computation with a dishonest minority. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7417, pp. 663–680. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Bogdanov, D., Laur, S., Willemson, J.: Sharemind: A framework for fast privacy-preserving computations. In: Jajodia, S., Lopez, J. (eds.) ESORICS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5283, pp. 192–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brakerski, Z.: Fully homomorphic encryption without modulus switching from classical GapSVP. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7417, pp. 868–886. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brakerski, Z., Gentry, C., Vaikuntanathan, V.: (Leveled) fully homomorphic encryption without bootstrapping. In: ITCS, pp. 309–325. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brakerski, Z., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Efficient fully homomorphic encryption from (standard) LWE. In: FOCS, pp. 97–106. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Canetti, R.: Universally composable security: A new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In: FOCS, pp. 136–145 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Catrina, O., Saxena, A.: Secure computation with fixed-point numbers. In: Sion, R. (ed.) FC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6052, pp. 35–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cleve, R.: Limits on the security of coin flips when half the processors are faulty (Extended abstract). In: STOC, pp. 364–369. ACM (1986)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cover, T.M., Thomas, J.A.: Elements of Information theory. Wiley (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Damgård, I., Fitzi, M., Kiltz, E., Nielsen, J.B., Toft, T.: Unconditionally secure constant-rounds multi-party computation for equality, comparison, bits and exponentiation. In: Halevi, S., Rabin, T. (eds.) TCC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3876, pp. 285–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Damgård, I., Ishai, Y., Krøigaard, M., Nielsen, J.B., Smith, A.: Scalable multiparty computation with nearly optimal work and resilience. In: Wagner, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2008. LNCS, vol. 5157, pp. 241–261. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Damgård, I., Ishai, Y., Krøigaard, M.: Perfectly secure multiparty computation and the computational overhead of cryptography. In: Gilbert, H. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6110, pp. 445–465. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Damgård, I., Keller, M., Larraia, E., Miles, C., Smart, N.P.: Implementing AES via an actively/Covertly secure dishonest-majority MPC protocol. In: Visconti, I., De Prisco, R. (eds.) SCN 2012. LNCS, vol. 7485, pp. 241–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Damgård, I., Keller, M., Larraia, E., Pastro, V., Scholl, P., Smart, N.P.: Practical covertly secure MPC for dishonest majority – or: Breaking the SPDZ limits. In: Crampton, J., Jajodia, S., Mayes, K. (eds.) ESORICS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8134, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Damgård, I., Nielsen, J.B.: Universally composable efficient multiparty computation from threshold homomorphic encryption. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 247–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Damgård, I., Pastro, V., Smart, N., Zakarias, S.: Multiparty computation from somewhat homomorphic encryption. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7417, pp. 643–662. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Damgård, I., Zakarias, S.: Constant-overhead secure computation of boolean circuits using preprocessing. In: Sahai, A. (ed.) TCC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7785, pp. 621–641. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gentry, C.: A fully homomorphic encryption scheme. PhD thesis, Stanford University (2009), http://crypto.stanford.edu/craig
  23. 23.
    Gentry, C.: Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices. In: STOC, pp. 169–178. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Gentry, C., Halevi, S., Smart, N.P.: Homomorphic evaluation of the AES circuit. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7417, pp. 850–867. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goldreich, O.: The Foundations of Cryptography - Volume 2, Basic Applications. Cambridge University Press (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hirt, M., Nielsen, J.B.: Robust multiparty computation with linear communication complexity. In: Dwork, C. (ed.) CRYPTO 2006. LNCS, vol. 4117, pp. 463–482. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nielsen, J.B., Nordholt, P.S., Orlandi, C., Burra, S.S.: A new approach to practical active-secure two-party computation. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7417, pp. 681–700. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smart, N.P., Vercauteren, F.: Fully homomorphic encryption with relatively small key and ciphertext sizes. In: Nguyen, P.Q., Pointcheval, D. (eds.) PKC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6056, pp. 420–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smart, N.P., Vercauteren, F.: Fully homomorphic SIMD operations. To Appear in Designs, Codes and Cryptography (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashish Choudhury
    • 1
  • Jake Loftus
    • 1
  • Emmanuela Orsini
    • 1
  • Arpita Patra
    • 1
  • Nigel P. Smart
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. Computer ScienceUniversity of BristolUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations