Advertisement

Public-Randomness in Public-Key Cryptography

Extended Abstract
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 473)

Abstract

In this work we investigate the power of Public Randomness in the context of Public-key cryptosystems. We consider the Diffie-Hellman Public-key model in which an additional short random string is shared by all users. This, which we call Public-Key Public-Randomness (PKPR) model, is very powerful as we show that it supports simple non-interactive implementations of important cryptographic primitives.

We give the first completely non-interactive implementation of Oblivious Transfer. Our implementation is also secure against receivers with unlimited computational power.

We propose the first implementation of non-interactive nature for Perfect Zero-Knowledge in the dual model of Brassard, Crépeau, and Chaum for all NP-languages.

Keywords

Quadratic Residue Oblivious Transfer Quadratic Residue Modulo Common Random String NIZK Proof 
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.

References

  1. [B]
    D. Beaver, Secure Multiparty Protocols Tolerating Half Faulty Processors, CRYPTO 1989.Google Scholar
  2. [Bl1]
    M. Blum, Coin Flipping by Telephone, IEEE COMPCON 1982, pp. 133–137.Google Scholar
  3. [Bl2]
    M. Blum, Three Applications of the Oblivious Transfer, Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  4. [Bl3]
    M. Blum, How to Prove a Theorem So No One Else Can Claim It, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Berkeley, California, 1986, pp. 1444–1451.Google Scholar
  5. [BC]
    G. Brassard and C. Crépeau, Non-transitive Transfer of Confidence: A Perfect Zero-Knowledge Interactive Protocol for SAT and Beyond, Proceedings of the 27th IEEE Symp. on Foundation of Computer Science, 1986, pp. 188–195.Google Scholar
  6. [BCC]
    G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, and D. Chaum, Minimum Disclosure Proofs of Knowledge, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, vol. 37, no. 2, October 1988, pp. 156–189.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [BCR]
    G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, and J.-M. Robert, Information Theoretic Reductions among Disclosure Problems, Proceedings of the 27th IEEE Symp. on Foundation of Computer Science, 1986, pp. 168–173.Google Scholar
  8. [BCY]
    G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, and M. Yung, Everything in NP can be Proven in Perfect Zero-Knowledge in a Bounded Number of Rounds, ICALP 89.Google Scholar
  9. [BDMP]
    M. Blum, A. De Santis, S. Micali, and G. Persiano, Non-Interactive Zero Knowledge, MIT Research Report MIT/LCS/TM-430, May 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [BFM]
    M. Blum, P. Feldman, and S. Micali, Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge Proof Systems and Applications, Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Chicago, Illinois, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. [BGW]
    M. Ben-Or, S. Goldwasser, and A. Wigderson, Completeness Theorems for Non-Cryptographic Fault-Tolerant Distributed Computations, Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1988, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  12. [BHZ]
    R. Boppana, J. Hastad, and S. Zachos, Does co-NP have Short Interactive Proofs?, Information Processing Letters, vol. 25, May 1987, pp. 127–132.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [BM]
    M. Bellare and S. Micali, Non-interactive Oblivious Transfer and Applications, CRYPTO 1989.Google Scholar
  14. [Bo]
    B. van Boer, Oblivious Transfer Protecting Secrecy, Eurocrypt 90.Google Scholar
  15. [Ch]
    D. Chaum, Demonstrating that a Public Predicate can be Satisfied Without Revealing any Information About How, in “Advances in Cryptology — CRYPTO 86”, vol. 263 of “Lecture Notes in Computer Science”, Springer Verlag, pp. 195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [Cr]
    C. Crépeau, Equivalence Between Two Flavors of Oblivious Transfer, in “Advances in Cryptology — CRYPTO 87”, vol. 293 of “Lecture Notes in Computer Science”, Springer Verlag, pp. 350–354.Google Scholar
  17. [CCD]
    D. Chaum, C. Crépeau, and I. Damgård, Multiparty Unconditionally Secure Protocols, Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Chicago, Illinois, 1988, pp. 11–19.Google Scholar
  18. [DII]
    W. Diffie and M. E. Hellman, New Directions in Cryptography, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. IT-22, no. 6, Nov. 1976, pp. 644–654.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [DMP1]
    A. De Santis, S. Micali, and G. Persiano, Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge Proof Systems, in “Advances in Cryptology — CRYPTO 87”, vol. 293 of “Lecture Notes in Computer Science”, Springer Verlag, pp. 52–72.Google Scholar
  20. [DMP2]
    A. De Santis, S. Micali, and G. Persiano, Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge Proof-Systems with Preprocessing, in “Advances in Cryptology-CRYPTO 88”, Ed. S. Goldwasser, vol. 403 of “Lecture Notes in Computer Science”, Springer-Verlag, pp. 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [DMP3]
    A. De Santis, S. Micali, and G. Persiano, Removing Interaction from Zero-Knowledge Proofs, in “Advanced International Workshop on Sequences”, Positano, Italy, June 1988, Ed. R. M. Capocelli, Springer-Verlag, pp. 377–393.Google Scholar
  22. [DY]
    A. De Santis and M. Yung, Cryptographic Applications of Metaproofs, CRYPTO 90.Google Scholar
  23. [EGL]
    S. Even, O. Goldreich, and A. Lempel, A Randomized Protocol for Signing Contracts, CACM, vol. 28, 1985, pp. 637–647.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [F]
    L. Fortnow, The Complexity of Perfect Zero-Knowledge, Proceedings 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, New York, 1987, pp. 204–209.Google Scholar
  25. [FLS]
    U. Feige, D. Lapidot, and A. Shamir, Multiple Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge Proofs Based on a Single Random String, FOCS 90.Google Scholar
  26. [GHY]
    Z. Galil, S. Haber, and M. Yung, Cryptographic Computation: Secure Fault-Tolerant Protocols and the Public-Key Model, in “Advances in Cryptology — CRYPTO 87”, vol. 293 of “Lecture Notes in Computer Science”, Springer Verlag, pp. 135–155.Google Scholar
  27. [GM]
    S. Goldwasser and S. Micali, Probabilistic Encryption, Journal of Computer and System Science, vol. 28, n. 2, 1984, pp. 270–299.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [GMR]
    S. Goldwasser, S. Micali, and C. Rackoff, The Knowledge Complexity of Interactive Proof-Systems, SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 18, n. 1, February 1989.Google Scholar
  29. [GMW1]
    O. Goldreich, S. Micali, and A. Wigderson, Proofs that Yield Nothing but their Validity and a Methodology of Cryptographic Design, Proceedings of 27th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1986, pp. 174–187.Google Scholar
  30. [GMW2]
    O. Goldreich, S. Micali, and A. Wigderson, How to Play Any Mental Game, Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, New York, 1987, pp. 218–229.Google Scholar
  31. [HR]
    J. Halpern and M. O. Rabin, A Logic to Reason about Likelihood, Proceedings of the 15th Annual Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 1983, pp. 310–319.Google Scholar
  32. [IY]
    R. Impagliazzo and M. Yung, Direct Minimum Knowledge Computations, in “Advances in Cryptology — CRYPTO 87”, vol. 293 of “Lecture Notes in Computer Science”, Springer Verlag pp. 40–51.Google Scholar
  33. [K]
    J. Kilian, Founding Cryptography on Oblivious Transfer, Proceedings 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Chicago, Illinois, 1988, pp. 20–31.Google Scholar
  34. [KMO]
    J. Kilian, S. Micali, and R. Ostrowsky, Minimum-Resource Zero-Knowledge Proofs, Proceedings of the 30th IEEE Symposium on Foundation of Computer Science, 1989.Google Scholar
  35. [OY]
    R. Ostrowsky and M. Yung, On Necessary Conditions for Secure Distributed Computation, preprint 1989.Google Scholar
  36. [RB]
    T. Rabin and M. Ben-Or, Verifiable Secret Sharing and Multiparty Protocols with Honest Majority, Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Seattle, Washington, 1989, pp. 73–85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica ed ApplicazioniUniversità di SalernoBaronissi (Salerno)Italy
  2. 2.Aiken Comp. Lab.Harvard UniversityCambridge

Personalised recommendations