Advertisement

From Stateful Hardware to Resettable Hardware Using Symmetric Assumptions

  • Nico DöttlingEmail author
  • Daniel Kraschewski
  • Jörn Müller-Quade
  • Tobias Nilges
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9451)

Abstract

Universally composable multi-party computation is impossible without setup assumptions. Motivated by the ubiquitous use of secure hardware in many real world security applications, Katz (EUROCRYPT 2007) proposed a model of tamper-proof hardware as a UC-setup assumption. An important aspect of this model is whether the hardware token is allowed to hold a state or not. Real world examples of tamper-proof hardware that can hold a state are expensive hardware security modules commonly used in mainframes. Stateless, or resettable hardware tokens model cheaper devices such as smartcards, where an adversarial user can cut off the power supply, thus resetting the card’s internal state.

A natural question is how the stateful and the resettable hardware model compare in their cryptographic power, given that either the receiver or the sender of the token (and thus the token itself) might be malicious. In this work we show that any UC-functionality that can be implemented by a protocol using a single untrusted stateful hardware token can likewise be implemented using a single untrusted resettable hardware token, assuming only the existence of one-way functions.

We present two compilers that transform UC-secure protocols in the stateful hardware model into UC-secure protocols in the resettable hardware model. The first compiler can be proven secure assuming merely the existence of one-way functions. However, it (necessarily) makes use of computationally rather expensive non-black-box techniques. We provide an alternative second compiler that replaces the expensive non-black-box component of the first compiler by few additional seed OTs. While this second compiler introduces the seed OTs as additional setup assumptions, it is computationally very efficient.

Keywords

Tamper-proof hardware Universal composability   Protocol compilers 

References

  1. 1.
    Barak, B., Goldreich, O., Goldwasser, S., Lindell, Y.: Resettably-sound zero-knowledge and its applications. In: FOCS, pp. 116–125 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bitansky, N., Canetti, R., Goldwasser, S., Halevi, S., Kalai, Y.T., Rothblum, G.N.: Program obfuscation with leaky hardware. In: Lee, D.H., Wang, X. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 7073, pp. 722–739. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bitansky, N., Paneth, O.: On the impossibility of approximate obfuscation and applications to resettable cryptography. In: STOC (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brzuska, C., Fischlin, M., Schröder, H., Katzenbeisser, S.: Physically uncloneable functions in the universal composition framework. In: Rogaway, P. (ed.) CRYPTO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6841, pp. 51–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Canetti, R.: Universally composable security: a new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In: FOCS, pp. 136–145 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Canetti, R., Goldreich, O., Goldwasser, S., Micali, S.: Resettable zero-knowledge (extended abstract). In: STOC, pp. 235–244 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chandran, N., Goyal, V., Sahai, A.: New constructions for UC secure computation using tamper-proof hardware. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 545–562. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choi, S.G., Katz, J., Schröder, D., Yerukhimovich, A., Zhou, H.-S.: (Efficient) Universally composable oblivious transfer using a minimal number of stateless tokens. In: Lindell, Y. (ed.) TCC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8349, pp. 638–662. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chung, K.M., Pass, R., Seth, K.: Non-black-box simulation from one-way functions and applications to resettable security. In: STOC (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dachman-Soled, D., Fleischhacker, N., Katz, J., Lysyanskaya, A., Schröder, D.: Feasibility and infeasibility of secure computation with malicious PUFs. In: Garay, J.A., Gennaro, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8617, pp. 405–420. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Damgård, I., Scafuro, A.: Unconditionally secure and universally composable commitments from physical assumptions. In: Sako, K., Sarkar, P. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8270, pp. 100–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deng, Y., Feng, D., Goyal, V., Lin, D., Sahai, A., Yung, M.: Resettable cryptography in constant rounds – the case of zero knowledge. In: Lee, D.H., Wang, X. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 7073, pp. 390–406. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deng, Y., Goyal, V., Sahai, A.: Resolving the simultaneous resettability conjecture and a new non-black-box simulation strategy. In: FOCS, pp. 251–260 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Döttling, N., Kraschewski, D., Müller-Quade, J.: Unconditional and composable security using a single stateful tamper-proof hardware token. In: Ishai, Y. (ed.) TCC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6597, pp. 164–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Döttling, N., Kraschewski, D., Müller-Quade, J.: David & goliath oblivious affine function evaluation - asymptotically optimal building blocks for universally composable two-party computation from a single untrusted stateful tamper-proof hardware token. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2012, p. 135 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Döttling, N., Kraschewski, D., Müller-Quade, J., Nilges, T.: General statistically secure computation with bounded-resettable hardware tokens. In: Dodis, Y., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) TCC 2015, Part I. LNCS, vol. 9014, pp. 319–344. Springer, Heidelberg (2015) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Döttling, N., Mie, T., Müller-Quade, J., Nilges, T.: Implementing resettable UC-functionalities with untrusted tamper-proof hardware-tokens. In: Sahai, A. (ed.) TCC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7785, pp. 642–661. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goyal, V., Ishai, Y., Mahmoody, M., Sahai, A.: Interactive locking, zero-knowledge PCPs, and unconditional cryptography. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 173–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goyal, V., Ishai, Y., Sahai, A., Venkatesan, R., Wadia, A.: Founding cryptography on tamper-proof hardware tokens. In: Micciancio, D. (ed.) TCC 2010. LNCS, vol. 5978, pp. 308–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goyal, V., Maji, H.K.: Stateless cryptographic protocols. In: FOCS, pp. 678–687 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goyal, V., Sahai, A.: Resettably secure computation. In: Joux, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5479, pp. 54–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Håstad, J., Impagliazzo, R., Levin, L.A., Luby, M.: A pseudorandom generator from any one-way function. SIAM J. Comput. 28(4), 1364–1396 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    Katz, J.: Universally composable multi-party computation using tamper-proof hardware. In: Naor, M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4515, pp. 115–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kilian, J.: Founding cryptography on oblivious transfer. In: STOC, pp. 20–31 (1988)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Naor, M.: Bit commitment using pseudorandomness. J. Cryptology 4(2), 151–158 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Naor, M., Yung, M.: Universal one-way hash functions and their cryptographic applications. In: STOC, pp. 33–43 (1989)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ostrovsky, R., Scafuro, A., Visconti, I., Wadia, A.: Universally composable secure computation with (malicious) physically uncloneable functions. In: Johansson, T., Nguyen, P.Q. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7881, pp. 702–718. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pappu, R.S.: Physical One-Way Functions. Ph.D. thesis, MIT (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peikert, C., Vaikuntanathan, V., Waters, B.: A framework for efficient and composable oblivious transfer. In: Wagner, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2008. LNCS, vol. 5157, pp. 554–571. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prabhakaran, M., Sahai, A., Wadia, A.: Secure computation using leaky tokens. In: Esparza, J., Fraigniaud, P., Husfeldt, T., Koutsoupias, E. (eds.) ICALP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8572, pp. 907–918. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rompel, J.: One-way functions are necessary and sufficient for secure signatures. In: STOC, pp. 387–394 (1990)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rührmair, U.: Oblivious transfer based on physical unclonable functions. In: Acquisti, A., Smith, S.W., Sadeghi, A.-R. (eds.) TRUST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6101, pp. 430–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nico Döttling
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel Kraschewski
    • 2
  • Jörn Müller-Quade
    • 3
  • Tobias Nilges
    • 3
  1. 1.Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.TNG Technology Consulting GmbHMunichGermany
  3. 3.Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations