Advertisement

Improving Practical UC-Secure Commitments Based on the DDH Assumption

  • Eiichiro FujisakiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9841)

Abstract

At Eurocrypt 2011, Lindell presented practical static and adaptively UC-secure commitment schemes based on the DDH assumption. Later, Blazy et al. (at ACNS 2013) improved the efficiency of the Lindell’s commitment schemes. In this paper, we present static and adaptively UC-secure commitment schemes based on the same assumption and further improve the communication and computational complexity, as well as the size of the common reference string.

Keywords

Commitment Scheme Honest Party Security Notion Common Reference String Honest Parti 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the members of public-key crypto study workshop at NTT and the anonymous reviewers of SCN 2016 for nice feedback in the early version of this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdalla, M., Benhamouda, F., Pointcheval, D.: Public-key encryption indistinguishable under plaintext-checkable attacks. In: Katz [21], pp. 332–352. See also http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/609
  2. 2.
    Bellare, M., Desai, A., Pointcheval, D., Rogaway, P.: Relations among notions of security for public-key encryption scheme. In: Krawczyk [23], pp. 26–45Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blazy, O., Chevalier, C., Pointcheval, D., Vergnaud, D.: Analysis and improvement of Lindell’s UC-secure commitment schemes. In: Jacobson, M., Locasto, M., Mohassel, P., Safavi-Naini, R. (eds.) ACNS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7954, pp. 534–551. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Camenisch, J.L., Shoup, V.: Practical verifiable encryption and decryption of discrete logarithms. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 126–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Canetti, R.: Universally composable security: a new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In: FOCS 2001, pp. 136–145. IEEE Computer Society (2001). The full version available at Cryptology ePrint Archive http://eprint.iacr.org/2000/067
  6. 6.
    Canetti, R., Fischlin, M.: Universally composable commitments. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 19–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Canetti, R., Lindell, Y., Ostrovsky, R., Sahai, A.: Universally composable two-party and multi-party secure computation. In: STOC 2002, pp. 494–503. ACM (2002). The full version is available at http://eprint.iacr.org/2002/140
  8. 8.
    Cascudo, I., Damgård, I., David, B., Döttling, N., Nielsen, J.B.: Rate-1, linear time and additively homomorphic UC commitments. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2016:137 (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cascudo, I., Damgård, I., David, B.M., Giacomelli, I., Nielsen, J.B., Trifiletti, R.: Additively homomorphic UC commitments with optimal amortized overhead. In: Katz [21], pp. 495–515Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cramer, R., Shoup, V.: A practical public key cryptosystem provably secure against adaptive chosen ciphertext attack. In: Krawczyk [23], pp. 13–25Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Damgård, I., David, B.M., Giacomelli, I., Nielsen, J.B.: Compact VSS and efficient homomorphic UC commitments. In: Sarkar and Iwata [30], pp. 213–232Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Damgård, I., Groth, J.: Non-interactive and reusable non-malleable commitment schemes. In: STOC 2003, pp. 426–437. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Damgård, I.B., Nielsen, J.B.: Perfect hiding and perfect binding universally composable commitment schemes with constant expansion factor. In: Yung, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2442, pp. 581–596. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feigenbaum, J. (ed.): CRYPTO 1991. LNCS, vol. 576. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fischlin, M., Libert, B., Manulis, M.: Non-interactive and re-usable universally composable string commitments with adaptive security. In: Lee, D.H., Wang, X. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 7073, pp. 468–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frederiksen, T.K., Jakobsen, T.P., Nielsen, J.B., Trifiletti, R.: On the complexity of additively homomorphic UC commitments. In: Kushilevitz, E., Malkin, T. (eds.) TCC 2016-A. LNCS, vol. 9562, pp. 542–565. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-49096-9_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fujisaki, E.: All-but-many encryption - a new framework for fully-equipped UC commitments. In: Sarkar and Iwata [30], pp. 426–447Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fujisaki, E.: Improving practical UC-secure commitments based on the DDH assumption. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2016:656 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garay, J.A., Ishai, Y., Kumaresan, R., Wee, H.: On the complexity of UC commitments. In: Nguyen, P.Q., Oswald, E. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8441, pp. 677–694. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Groth, J., Sahai, A.: Efficient noninteractive proof systems for bilinear groups. SIAM J. Comput. 41(5), 1193–1232 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Katz, J. (ed.): PKC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9020. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kiltz, E.: Chosen-ciphertext security from tag-based encryption. In: Halevi, S., Rabin, T. (eds.) TCC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3876, pp. 581–600. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krawczyk, H. (ed.): CRYPTO 1998. LNCS, vol. 1462. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lindell, Y.: Highly-efficient universally-composable commitments based on the DDH assumption. In: Paterson, K.G. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6632, pp. 446–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    MacKenzie, P.D., Reiter, M.K., Yang, K.: Alternatives to non-malleability: definitions, constructions, and applications. In: Naor, M. (ed.) TCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2951, pp. 171–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nishimaki, R., Fujisaki, E., Tanaka, K.: An efficient non-interactive universally composable string-commitment scheme. IEICE Trans. 95–A(1), 167–175 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Okamoto, T., Pointcheval, D.: REACT: rapid enhanced-security asymmetric cryptosystem transform. In: Naccache, D. (ed.) CT-RSA 2001. LNCS, vol. 2020, pp. 159–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pedersen, T.P.: Non-interactive and information-theoretic secure verifiable secret sharing. In: Feigenbaum [14], pp. 129–140Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rackoff, C., Simon, D.R.: Non-interactive zero-knowledge proof of knowledge and chosen ciphertext attack. In: Feigenbaum [14], pp. 434–444Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sarkar, P., Iwata, T. (eds.): ASIACRYPT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8874. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shoup, V.: A proposal for an ISO standard for public key encryption. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2001/112, December 2001Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NTT Secure Platform LaboratoriesTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations