Advertisement

Uncovering Algebraic Structures in the MPC Landscape

  • Navneet AgarwalEmail author
  • Sanat Anand
  • Manoj Prabhakaran
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11477)

Abstract

A fundamental problem in the theory of secure multi-party computation (MPC) is to characterize functions with more than 2 parties which admit MPC protocols with information-theoretic security against passive corruption. This question has seen little progress since the work of Chor and Ishai (1996), which demonstrated difficulties in resolving it. In this work, we make significant progress towards resolving this question in the important case of aggregating functionalities, in which m parties \(P_1,\dots ,P_m\) hold inputs \(x_1,\dots ,x_m\) and an aggregating party \(P_0\) must learn \(f(x_1,\dots ,x_m)\).

We uncover a rich class of algebraic structures that are closely related to secure computability, namely, “Commuting Permutations Systems” (CPS) and its variants. We present an extensive set of results relating these algebraic structures among themselves and to MPC, including new protocols, impossibility results and separations. Our results include a necessary algebraic condition and slightly stronger sufficient algebraic condition for a function to admit information-theoretically secure MPC protocols.

We also introduce and study new models of minimally interactive MPC (called UNIMPC and Open image in new window ), which not only help in understanding our positive and negative results better, but also open up new avenues for studying the cryptographic complexity landscape of multi-party functionalities. Our positive results include novel protocols in these models, which may be of independent practical interest.

Finally, we extend our results to a definition that requires UC security as well as semi-honest security (which we term strong security). In this model we are able to carry out the characterization of all computable functions, except for a gap in the case of aggregating functionalities.

References

  1. [BGI+14]
    Beimel, A., Gabizon, A., Ishai, Y., Kushilevitz, E., Meldgaard, S., Paskin-Cherniavsky, A.: Non-interactive secure multiparty computation. In: Garay, J.A., Gennaro, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8617, pp. 387–404. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44381-1_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [BGW88]
    Ben-Or, M., Goldwasser, S., Wigderson, A.: Completeness theorems for non-cryptographic fault-tolerant distributed computation. In: Proceedings of the 20th STOC, pp. 1–10 (1988)Google Scholar
  3. [Blu81]
    Blum, M.: Three applications of the oblivious transfer: part I: coin flipping by telephone; part II: how to exchange secrets; part III: how to send certified electronic mail. Technical report, University of California, Berkeley (1981)Google Scholar
  4. [CCD88]
    Chaum, D., Crépeau, C., Damgård, I.,: Multiparty unconditionally secure protocols. In: Proceedings of the 20th STOC, pp. 11–19 (1988)Google Scholar
  5. [CI96]
    Chor, B., Ishai, Y., On privacy and partition arguments. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Israel Symposium on Theory of Computing and Systems, ISTCS 1996, Jerusalem, Israel, 10–12 June 1996, pp. 191–194 (1996). Journal version appears in Inf. Comput. 167(1)Google Scholar
  6. [CK91]
    Chor, B., Kushilevitz, E.: A zero-one law for Boolean privacy. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 4(1), 36–47 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [CKL06]
    Canetti, R., Kushilevitz, E., Lindell, Y.: On the limitations of universally composable two-party computation without set-up assumptions. J. Cryptol. 19(2), 135–167 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [FKN94]
    Feige, U., Kilian, J., Naor, M.: A minimal model for secure computation (extended abstract). In: STOC, pp. 554–563 (1994)Google Scholar
  9. [GL02]
    Goldwasser, S., Lindell, Y.: Secure computation without agreement. In: Malkhi, D. (ed.) DISC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2508, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36108-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [HIJ+16]
    Halevi, S., Ishai, Y., Jain, A., Kushilevitz, E., Rabin, T.: Secure multiparty computation with general interaction patterns. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, Cambridge, MA, USA, 14–16 January 2016, pp. 157–168 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. [HIJ+17]
    Halevi, S., Ishai, Y., Jain, A., Komargodski, I., Sahai, A., Yogev, E.: Non-interactive multiparty computation without correlated randomness. In: Takagi, T., Peyrin, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2017, Part III. LNCS, vol. 10626, pp. 181–211. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70700-6_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [HIKR18]
    Halevi, S., Ishai, Y., Kushilevitz, E., Rabin, T.: Best possible information-theoretic MPC. In: Proceedings of Theory of Cryptography - 16th Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC (2018, to appear)Google Scholar
  13. [HM97]
    Hirt, M., Maurer, U.M.: Complete characterization of adversaries tolerable in secure multi-party computation (extended abstract). In: PODC, pp. 25–34 (1997)Google Scholar
  14. [IK97]
    Ishai, Y., Kushilevitz, E.: Private simultaneous messages protocols with applications. In: Israel Symposium on the Theory of Computing and Systems, ISTCS, pp. 174–184 (1997)Google Scholar
  15. [IK00]
    Ishai, Y., Kushilevitz, E.: Randomizing polynomials: a new representation with applications to round-efficient secure computation. In: FOCS, pp. 294–304 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. [KMR09]
    Künzler, R., Müller-Quade, J., Raub, D.: Secure computability of functions in the IT setting with dishonest majority and applications to long-term security. In: Reingold, O. (ed.) TCC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5444, pp. 238–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00457-5_15CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [Kus89]
    Kushilevitz, E.: Privacy and communication complexity. In: FOCS, pp. 416–421 (1989)Google Scholar
  18. [MPR09]
    Maji, H.K., Prabhakaran, M., Rosulek, M.: Complexity of multi-party computation problems: the case of 2-party symmetric secure function evaluation. In: Reingold, O. (ed.) TCC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5444, pp. 256–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00457-5_16CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [MPR13]
    Maji, H., Prabhakaran, M., Rosulek, M.: Complexity of multi-party computation functionalities. In: Secure Multi-Party Computation. Cryptology and Information Security Series, vol. 10, pp. 249–283. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2013)Google Scholar
  20. [OY16]
    Obana, S., Yoshida, M.: An efficient construction of non-interactive secure multiparty computation. In: Foresti, S., Persiano, G. (eds.) CANS 2016. LNCS, vol. 10052, pp. 604–614. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48965-0_39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [PR08]
    Prabhakaran, M., Rosulek, M.: Cryptographic complexity of multi-party computation problems: classifications and separations. In: Wagner, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2008. LNCS, vol. 5157, pp. 262–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85174-5_15. Full version available as ECCC Report TR08-050 from https://eccc.weizmann.ac.ilCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [Rys51]
    Ryser, H.J.: A combinatorial theorem with an application to Latin rectangles. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2(4), 550–552 (1951)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [SRA79]
    Shamir, A., Rivest, R.L., Adleman, L.M.: Mental poker. Technical report LCS/TR-125, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, April 1979Google Scholar
  24. [Yao82]
    Yao, A.C.-C.: Protocols for secure computation. In: Proceedings of the 23rd FOCS, pp. 160–164 (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Navneet Agarwal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sanat Anand
    • 1
  • Manoj Prabhakaran
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations