Advertisement

Better Zero-Knowledge Proofs for Lattice Encryption and Their Application to Group Signatures

  • Fabrice Benhamouda
  • Jan Camenisch
  • Stephan Krenn
  • Vadim Lyubashevsky
  • Gregory Neven
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8873)

Abstract

Lattice problems are an attractive basis for cryptographic systems because they seem to offer better security than discrete logarithm and factoring based problems. Efficient lattice-based constructions are known for signature and encryption schemes. However, the constructions known for more sophisticated schemes such as group signatures are still far from being practical. In this paper we make a number of steps towards efficient lattice-based constructions of more complex cryptographic protocols. First, we provide a more efficient way to prove knowledge of plaintexts for lattice-based encryption schemes. We then show how our new protocol can be combined with a proof of knowledge for Pedersen commitments in order to prove that the committed value is the same as the encrypted one. Finally, we make use of this to construct a new group signature scheme that is a “hybrid” in the sense that privacy holds under a lattice-based assumption while security is discrete-logarithm-based.

Keywords

Verifiable Encryption Group Signatures Zero-Knowledge Proofs for Lattices 

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.
    Asokan, N., Shoup, V., Waidner, M.: Optimistic fair exchange of digital signatures. In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1403, pp. 591–606. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ateniese, G., Camenisch, J., Joye, M., Tsudik, G.: A practical and provably secure coalition-resistant group signature scheme. In: Bellare, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2000. LNCS, vol. 1880, pp. 255–270. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellare, M., Goldreich, O.: On defining proofs of knowledge. In: Brickell, E.F. (ed.) CRYPTO 1992. LNCS, vol. 740, pp. 390–420. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellare, M., Micciancio, D., Warinschi, B.: Foundations of group signatures: Formal definitions, simplified requirements, and a construction based on general assumptions. In: Biham, E. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2656, pp. 614–629. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boneh, D., Boyen, X.: Short signatures without random oracles. In: Cachin, C., Camenisch, J.L. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3027, pp. 56–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boneh, D., Boyen, X.: Short signatures without random oracles and the SDH assumption in bilinear groups. Journal of Cryptology 21(2), 149–177 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boneh, D., Boyen, X., Shacham, H.: Short group signatures. In: Franklin, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3152, pp. 41–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Camenisch, J., Dubovitskaya, M., Neven, G.: Oblivious transfer with access control. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 131–140 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Camenisch, J., Neven, G., Rückert, M.: Fully anonymous attribute tokens from lattices. In: Visconti, I., De Prisco, R. (eds.) SCN 2012. LNCS, vol. 7485, pp. 57–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chase, M., Lysyanskaya, A.: On signatures of knowledge. In: Dwork, C. (ed.) CRYPTO 2006. LNCS, vol. 4117, pp. 78–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chaum, D., van Heyst, E.: Group signatures. In: Davies, D.W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1991. LNCS, vol. 547, pp. 257–265. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cramer, R.: Modular Design of Secure yet Practical Cryptographic Protocols. Ph.D. thesis, CWI and University of Amsterdam (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Damgård, I.B.: Efficient concurrent zero-knowledge in the auxiliary string model. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1807, pp. 418–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Damgård, I.: On Σ-Protocols. Lecture on Cryptologic Protocol Theory; Faculty of Science, University of Aarhus (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Damgård, I.B., Fujisaki, E.: A statistically-hiding integer commitment scheme based on groups with hidden order. In: Zheng, Y. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2501, pp. 125–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Damgård, I.B., Goldreich, O., Okamoto, T., Wigderson, A.: Honest verifier vs dishonest verifier in public coin zero-knowledge proofs. In: Coppersmith, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 1995. LNCS, vol. 963, pp. 325–338. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Fujisaki, E., Okamoto, T.: Statistical zero knowledge protocols to prove modular polynomial relations. In: Kaliski Jr., B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garg, S., Gentry, C., Halevi, S.: Candidate multilinear maps from ideal lattices. In: Johansson, T., Nguyen, P.Q. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7881, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gentry, C.: Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices. In: STOC, pp. 169–178 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gentry, C., Peikert, C., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Trapdoors for hard lattices and new cryptographic constructions. In: STOC, pp. 197–206 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gordon, S.D., Katz, J., Vaikuntanathan, V.: A group signature scheme from lattice assumptions. In: Abe, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6477, pp. 395–412. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoffstein, J., Pipher, J., Silverman, J.H.: NTRU: A ring-based public key cryptosystem. In: Buhler, J.P. (ed.) ANTS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1423, pp. 267–288. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Laguillaumie, F., Langlois, A., Libert, B., Stehlé, D.: Lattice-based group signatures with logarithmic signature size. In: Sako, K., Sarkar, P. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8270, pp. 41–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ling, S., Nguyen, K., Stehlé, D., Wang, H.: Improved zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge for the ISIS problem, and applications. In: Kurosawa, K., Hanaoka, G. (eds.) PKC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7778, pp. 107–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lyubashevsky, V.: Lattice-based identification schemes secure under active attacks. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) PKC 2008. LNCS, vol. 4939, pp. 162–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lyubashevsky, V.: Fiat-shamir with aborts: Applications to lattice and factoring-based signatures. In: Matsui, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5912, pp. 598–616. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lyubashevsky, V.: Lattice signatures without trapdoors. In: Pointcheval, D., Johansson, T. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7237, pp. 738–755. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lyubashevsky, V., Peikert, C., Regev, O.: On ideal lattices and learning with errors over rings. J. ACM 60(6), 43 (2013), Preliminary version appeared in Gilbert, H. (ed.): EUROCRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6110, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Naor, M., Yung, M.: Public-key cryptosystems provably secure against chosen ciphertext attacks. In: 22nd ACM STOC. pp. 427–437. ACM Press (May 1990)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pedersen, T.P.: Non-interactive and Information-Theoretic Secure Verifiable Secret Sharing. In: Feigenbaum, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 1991. LNCS, vol. 576, pp. 129–140. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sahai, A.: Non-malleable non-interactive zero knowledge and adaptive chosen-ciphertext security. In: 40th FOCS, pp. 543–553. IEEE Computer Society Press (October 1999)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Santis, A.D., Persiano, G.: Zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge without interaction (extended abstract). In: 33rd FOCS, pp. 427–436. IEEE Computer Society Press (October)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stehlé, D., Steinfeld, R.: Making NTRU as secure as worst-case problems over ideal lattices. In: Paterson, K.G. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6632, pp. 27–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stehlé, D., Steinfeld, R., Tanaka, K., Xagawa, K.: Efficient public key encryption based on ideal lattices. In: Matsui, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5912, pp. 617–635. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stern, J.: A new identification scheme based on syndrome decoding. In: Stinson, D.R. (ed.) CRYPTO 1993. LNCS, vol. 773, pp. 13–21. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrice Benhamouda
    • 1
  • Jan Camenisch
    • 2
  • Stephan Krenn
    • 2
  • Vadim Lyubashevsky
    • 3
    • 1
  • Gregory Neven
    • 2
  1. 1.Département d’Informatique, École Normale Supérieure, ParisFrance
  2. 2.IBM Research Zurich – RüschlikonSwitzerland
  3. 3.INRIAFrance

Personalised recommendations