Towards Characterizing Complete Fairness in Secure Two-Party Computation
The well known impossibility result of Cleve (STOC 1986) implies that in general it is impossible to securely compute a function with complete fairness without an honest majority. Since then, the accepted belief has been that nothing non-trivial can be computed with complete fairness in the two party setting. The surprising work of Gordon, Hazay, Katz and Lindell (STOC 2008) shows that this belief is false, and that there exist some non-trivial (deterministic, finite-domain) boolean functions that can be computed fairly. This raises the fundamental question of characterizing complete fairness in secure two-party computation.
In this work we show that not only that some or few functions can be computed fairly, but rather an enormous amount of functions can be computed with complete fairness. In fact, almost all boolean functions with distinct domain sizes can be computed with complete fairness (for instance, more than 99.999% of the boolean functions with domain sizes 31 ×30). The class of functions that is shown to be possible includes also rather involved and highly non-trivial tasks, such as set-membership, evaluation of a private (Boolean) function and private matchmaking.
In addition, we demonstrate that fairness is not restricted to the class of symmetric boolean functions where both parties get the same output, which is the only known feasibility result. Specifically, we show that fairness is also possible for asymmetric boolean functions where the output of the parties is not necessarily the same. Moreover, we consider the class of functions with non-binary output, and show that fairness is possible for any finite range.
The constructions are based on the protocol of Gordon et. al, and the analysis uses tools from convex geometry.
KeywordsComplete fairness secure two-party computation foundations malicious adversaries
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Asharov, G.: Towards characterizing complete fairness in secure two-party computation. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive (to appear)Google Scholar
- 6.Ben-Or, M., Goldwasser, S., Wigderson, A.: Completeness theorems for non-cryptographic fault-tolerant distributed computation (extended abstract). In: STOC, pp. 1–10 (1988)Google Scholar
- 8.Chaum, D., Crépeau, C., Damgård, I.: Multiparty unconditionally secure protocols (extended abstract). In: STOC, pp. 11–19 (1988)Google Scholar
- 9.Cleve, R.: Limits on the security of coin flips when half the processors are faulty (extended abstract). In: STOC, pp. 364–369 (1986)Google Scholar
- 10.Cleve, R.: Controlled gradual disclosure schemes for random bits and their applications. In: Brassard, G. (ed.) CRYPTO 1989. LNCS, vol. 435, pp. 573–588. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
- 11.Even, S., Goldreich, O., Lempel, A.: A randomized protocol for signing contracts. In: CRYPTO, pp. 205–210 (1982)Google Scholar
- 12.Even, S., Yacobi, Y.: Relations among public key signature schemes. Technical Report #175, Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Computer Science Department (1980), http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/users/wwwb/cgi-bin/trinfo.cgi/1980/CS/CS0175
- 13.Goldreich, O.: The Foundations of Cryptography - Basic Applications, vol. 2. Cambridge University Press (2004)Google Scholar
- 14.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
- 15.Goldwasser, S., Levin, L.: Fair computation of general functions in presence of immoral majority. In: Menezes, A.J., Vanstone, S.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 1990. LNCS, vol. 537, pp. 77–93. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
- 16.Gordon, S.D.: On fairness in secure computation. PhD thesis, University of Maryland (2010)Google Scholar
- 17.Gordon, S.D., Hazay, C., Katz, J., Lindell, Y.: Complete fairness in secure two-party computation. In: STOC, pp. 413–422 (2008); Extended full version available on: http://eprint.iacr.org/2008/303. Journal version: 
- 20.Grünbaum, B.: Convex Polytopes. In: Kaibel, V., Klee, V., Ziegler, G. (eds.) Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 2nd edn. Springer (May 2003)Google Scholar
- 21.Halpern, J.Y., Teague, V.: Rational secret sharing and multiparty computation: extended abstract. In: STOC, pp. 623–632 (2004)Google Scholar
- 24.Rabin, M.O.: How to exchange secrets with oblivious transfer. Technical Report TR-81, Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University (1981)Google Scholar
- 25.Rabin, T., Ben-Or, M.: Verifiable secret sharing and multiparty protocols with honest majority (extended abstract). In: STOC, pp. 73–85 (1989)Google Scholar
- 26.Roman, S.: Advanced Linear Algebra, 3rd edn. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 135, p. xviii. Springer, New York (2008)Google Scholar
- 28.Wood, P.J.: On the probability that a discrete complex random matrix is singular. PhD thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, AAI3379178 (2009)Google Scholar
- 29.Yao, A.C.C.: How to generate and exchange secrets (extended abstract). In: FOCS, pp. 162–167 (1986)Google Scholar
- 30.Ziegler, G.M.: Lectures on 0/1-polytopes. Polytopes: Combinatorics and Computation, Birkhauser, Basel. DMV Seminar, vol. 29, pp. 1–40 (2000)Google Scholar