Advertisement

Optimal Algebraic Manipulation Detection Codes in the Constant-Error Model

  • Ronald Cramer
  • Carles Padró
  • Chaoping Xing
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9014)

Abstract

Algebraic manipulation detection (AMD) codes, introduced at EUROCRYPT 2008, may, in some sense, be viewed as keyless combinatorial authentication codes that provide security in the presence of an oblivious, algebraic attacker. Its original applications included robust fuzzy extractors, secure message transmission and robust secret sharing. In recent years, however, a rather diverse array of additional applications in cryptography has emerged. In this paper we consider, for the first time, the regime of arbitrary positive constant error probability ε in combination with unbounded cardinality M of the message space. There are several applications where this model makes sense. Adapting a known bound to this regime, it follows that the binary length ρ of the tag satisfies ρ ≥ loglogM + Ω ε (1). In this paper, we shall call AMD codes meeting this lower bound optimal. Known constructions, notably a construction based on dedicated polynomial evaluation codes, are a multiplicative factor 2 off from being optimal. By a generic enhancement using error-correcting codes, these parameters can be further improved but remain suboptimal. Reaching optimality efficiently turns out to be surprisingly nontrivial. We propose a novel constructive method based on symmetries of codes. This leads to an explicit construction based on certain BCH codes that improves the parameters of the polynomial construction and to an efficient randomized construction of optimal AMD codes based on certain quasi-cyclic codes. In all our results, the error probability ε can be chosen as an arbitrarily small positive real number.

Keywords

Error Probability Cyclic Code Message Space Secure Multiparty Computation Small Positive Real Number 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmadi, H., Safavi-Naini, R.: Detection of Algebraic Manipulation in the Presence of Leakage. In: Padró, C. (ed.) ICITS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8317, pp. 238–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bazzi, L.M.J., Mitter, S.K.: Some Randomized Code Constructions from Group Actions. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 52, 3210–3219 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broadbent, A., Tapp, A.: Information-theoretic security without an honest majority. In: Kurosawa, K. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4833, pp. 410–426. Springer, Heidelberg (2007), http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cabello, S., Padró, C., Sáez, G.: Secret sharing schemes with detection of cheaters for a general access structure. Des. Codes Cryptogr. 25, 175–188 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cramer, R., Dodis, Y., Fehr, S., Padró, C., Wichs, D.: Information-theoretic security without an honest majority. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 471–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cramer, R., Fehr, S., Padró, C.: Algebraic manipulation detection codes. Sci. China Math. 56, 1349–1358 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dziembowski, S., Pietrzak, K., Wichs, D.: Non-Malleable Codes. In: Innovations in Computer Science, ICS 2010, pp. 434–452 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fan, Y., Lin, L.: Thresholds of random quasi-abelian codes (2013), http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.5377.pdf
  9. 9.
    Gordon, D., Ishai, Y., Moran, T., Ostrovsky, R., Sahai, A.: On Complete Primitives for Fairness. In: Micciancio, D. (ed.) TCC 2010. LNCS, vol. 5978, pp. 91–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guruswami, V., Smith, A.: Codes for Computationally Simple Channels: Explicit Constructions with Optimal Rate. In: FOCS 2010, pp. 723–732 (2010), Full version available at arXiv.org, arXiv:1004.4017 [cs.IT]Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karpovski, M., Wang, Z.: Algebraic Manipulation Detection Codes and Their Applications for Design of Secure Communication or Computation Channels (2011) (manuscript), http://mark.bu.edu/papers/226.pdf
  12. 12.
    Wang, Z., Karpovsky, M.: Algebraic manipulation detection codes and their applications for design of secure cryptographic devices. In: IEEE 17th International On-Line Testing Symposium, IOLTS 2011, pp. 234–239 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wee, H.: Public Key Encryption against Related Key Attacks. In: Fischlin, M., Buchmann, J., Manulis, M. (eds.) PKC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7293, pp. 262–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald Cramer
    • 1
  • Carles Padró
    • 2
  • Chaoping Xing
    • 3
  1. 1.CWI, Amsterdam and Mathematical InstituteLeiden UniversityThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.School of Physical and Mathematical SciencesNanyang Technological UniversitySingapore

Personalised recommendations