Systematizing Secure Computation for Research and Decision Support

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8642)


We propose a framework for organizing and classifying research results in the active field of secure multiparty computation (MPC). Our systematization of secure computation consists of (1) a set of definitions circumscribing the MPC protocols to be considered; (2) a set of quantitative axes for classifying and comparing MPC protocols; and (3) a knowledge base of propositions specifying the known relations between axis values. We have classified a large number of MPC protocols on these axes and developed an interactive tool for exploring the problem space of secure computation. We also give examples of how this systematization can be put to use to foster new research and the adoption of MPC for real-world problems.


Secure Computation Broadcast Channel Oblivious Transfer Secure Multiparty Computation Malicious Adversary 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aumann, Y., Lindell, Y.: Security against covert adversaries: Efficient protocols for realistic adversaries. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 137–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barak, B., Canetti, R., Nielsen, J.B., Pass, R.: Universally composable protocols with relaxed set-up assumptions. In: Proceedings of the 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2004), pp. 186–195. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baum, C., Damgård, I., Orlandi, C.: Publicly auditable secure multi-party computation. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2014/075 (2014),
  4. 4.
    Ben-Or, M., Canetti, R., Goldreich, O.: Asynchronous secure computation. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 1993), pp. 52–61 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ben-Or, M., Goldwasser, S., Wigderson, A.: Completeness theorems for non-cryptographic fault-tolerant distributed computation (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 1988), pp. 1–10 (1988)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bitansky, N., Canetti, R., Halevi, S.: Leakage-tolerant interactive protocols. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) TCC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7194, pp. 266–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bogdanov, D., Kamm, L., Laur, S., Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P.: Secure multi-party data analysis: end user validation and practical experiments. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2013/826 (2013),
  8. 8.
    Bogetoft, P., Christensen, D., Damgård, I., Geisler, M., Jakobsen, T., Krøigaard, M., Nielsen, J., Nielsen, J., Nielsen, K., Pagter, J., Schwartzbach, M., Toft, T.: Secure multiparty computation goes live. In: Dingledine, R., Golle, P. (eds.) FC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5628, pp. 325–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Canetti, R., Kushilevitz, E., Lindell, Y.: On the limitations of universally composable two-party computation without set-up assumptions. In: Biham, E. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2656, pp. 68–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Cramer, R., Damgård, I.: Multiparty computation, an introduction. In: Contemporary Cryptology, pp. 41–87. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cramer, R., Damgård, I., Nielsen, J.B.: Secure Multiparty Computation and Secret Sharing: An Information Theoretic Approach. Self-published manuscript (2013),
  13. 13.
    Damgård, I., Geisler, M., Krøigaard, M., Nielsen, J.B.: Asynchronous multiparty computation: Theory and implementation. In: Jarecki, S., Tsudik, G. (eds.) PKC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5443, pp. 160–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feigenbaum, J., Ishai, Y., Malkin, T., Nissim, K., Strauss, M.J., Wright, R.N.: Secure multiparty computation of approximations. ACM Transactions on Algorithms 2(3), 435–472 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feigenbaum, J., Pinkas, B., Ryger, R., Saint-Jean, F.: Secure computation of surveys. In: EU Workshop on Secure Multiparty Protocols. Citeseer (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gennaro, R., Ishai, Y., Kushilevitz, E., Rabin, T.: On 2-round secure multiparty computation. In: Yung, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2442, pp. 178–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldreich, O.: The Foundations of Cryptography - Volume 2, Basic Applications. Cambridge University Press (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldreich, O., Micali, S., Wigderson, A.: How to play any mental game or a completeness theorem for protocols with honest majority. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 1987), pp. 218–229 (1987)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldwasser, S., Kalai, Y.T., Popa, R.A., Vaikuntanathan, V., Zeldovich, N.: Reusable garbled circuits and succinct functional encryption. In: Proceedings of the 45th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2013), pp. 555–564 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldwasser, S., Lindell, Y.: Secure computation without agreement. In: Malkhi, D. (ed.) DISC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2508, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gordon, S.D., Katz, J., Kolesnikov, V., Krell, F., Malkin, T., Raykova, M., Vahlis, Y.: Secure two-party computation in sublinear (amortized) time. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (ACM CCS 2012), pp. 513–524 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goyal, V., Mohassel, P., Smith, A.: Efficient two party and multi party computation against covert adversaries. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 289–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hazay, C., Lindell, Y.: Efficient Secure Two-Party Protocols – Techniques and Constructions. Information Security and Cryptography. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hirt, M., Lucas, C., Maurer, U., Raub, D.: Graceful degradation in multi-party computation (extended abstract). In: Fehr, S. (ed.) ICITS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6673, pp. 163–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ishai, Y., Kushilevitz, E., Ostrovsky, R., Sahai, A.: Cryptography with constant computational overhead. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2008), pp. 433–442. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ishai, Y., Prabhakaran, M., Sahai, A.: Founding cryptography on oblivious transfer – efficiently. In: Wagner, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2008. LNCS, vol. 5157, pp. 572–591. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Perry, J., Gupta, D., Feigenbaum, J., Wright, R.N.: The secure computation annotated bibliography (2014),
  28. 28.
    Prabhakaran, M., Sahai, A.: New notions of security: achieving universal composability without trusted setup. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2004), pp. 242–251 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rabin, T., Ben-Or, M.: Verifiable secret sharing and multiparty protocols with honest majority (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 1989), pp. 73–85 (1989)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yao, A.C.C.: Protocols for secure computations (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1982), pp. 160–164 (1982)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yao, A.C.C.: How to generate and exchange secrets (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1986), pp. 162–167 (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Yale UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations