Advertisement

Access Control Encryption for General Policies from Standard Assumptions

  • Sam KimEmail author
  • David J. Wu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10624)

Abstract

Functional encryption enables fine-grained access to encrypted data. In many scenarios, however, it is important to control not only what users are allowed to read (as provided by traditional functional encryption), but also what users are allowed to send. Recently, Damgård et al.  (TCC 2016) introduced a new cryptographic framework called access control encryption (ACE) for restricting information flow within a system in terms of both what users can read as well as what users can write. While a number of access control encryption schemes exist, they either rely on strong assumptions such as indistinguishability obfuscation or are restricted to simple families of access control policies.

In this work, we give the first ACE scheme for arbitrary policies from standard assumptions. Our construction is generic and can be built from the combination of a digital signature scheme, a predicate encryption scheme, and a (single-key) functional encryption scheme that supports randomized functionalities. All of these primitives can be instantiated from standard assumptions in the plain model and therefore, we obtain the first ACE scheme capable of supporting general policies from standard assumptions. One possible instantiation of our construction relies upon standard number-theoretic assumptions (namely, the \(\textsf {DDH} \) and \(\textsf {RSA} \) assumptions) and standard lattice assumptions (namely, \(\textsf {LWE} \)). Finally, we conclude by introducing several extensions to the ACE framework to support dynamic and more fine-grained access control policies.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Shashank Agrawal and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. This work was funded by NSF, DARPA, a grant from ONR, and the Simons Foundation. Opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of DARPA.

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawal, S., Wu, D.J.: Functional encryption: deterministic to randomized functions from simple assumptions. In: Coron, J.-S., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10211, pp. 30–61. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56614-6_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alwen, J., Barbosa, M., Farshim, P., Gennaro, R., Gordon, S.D., Tessaro, S., Wilson, D.A.: On the relationship between functional encryption, obfuscation, and fully homomorphic encryption. In: Cryptography and Coding (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ateniese, G., Chou, D.H., Medeiros, B., Tsudik, G.: Sanitizable signatures. In: Vimercati, S.C., Syverson, P., Gollmann, D. (eds.) ESORICS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3679, pp. 159–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11555827_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ateniese, G., Fu, K., Green, M., Hohenberger, S.: Improved proxy re-encryption schemes with applications to secure distributed storage. In: NDSS (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Badertscher, C., Matt, C., Maurer, U.: Strengthening access control encryption (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barak, B., Goldreich, O., Impagliazzo, R., Rudich, S., Sahai, A., Vadhan, S., Yang, K.: On the (im)possibility of obfuscating programs. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44647-8_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bell, D.E., LaPadula, L.J.: Secure computer systems: mathematical foundations. Technical report, DTIC Document (1973)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellare, M., Cash, D.: Pseudorandom functions and permutations provably secure against related-key attacks. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 666–684. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14623-7_36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bellare, M., Cash, D., Miller, R.: Cryptography secure against related-key attacks and tampering. In: Lee, D.H., Wang, X. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 7073, pp. 486–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25385-0_26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bellare, M., Fuchsbauer, G.: Policy-based signatures. In: Krawczyk, H. (ed.) PKC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8383, pp. 520–537. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54631-0_30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bellare, M., Kohno, T.: A theoretical treatment of related-key attacks: RKA-PRPs, RKA-PRFs, and applications. In: Biham, E. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2656, pp. 491–506. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-39200-9_31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bethencourt, J., Sahai, A., Waters, B.: Ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption. In: IEEE S&P (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Biham, E.: New types of cryptanalytic attacks using related keys. In: Helleseth, T. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1993. LNCS, vol. 765, pp. 398–409. Springer, Heidelberg (1994).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48285-7_34 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boneh, D.: The decision Diffie-Hellman problem. In: Buhler, J.P. (ed.) ANTS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1423, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0054851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boneh, D., Franklin, M.: Identity-based encryption from the weil pairing. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 213–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44647-8_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boneh, D., Sahai, A., Waters, B.: Functional encryption: definitions and challenges. In: Ishai, Y. (ed.) TCC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6597, pp. 253–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19571-6_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boneh, D., Waters, B.: Conjunctive, subset, and range queries on encrypted data. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 535–554. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70936-7_29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boneh, D., Waters, B.: Constrained pseudorandom functions and their applications. In: Sako, K., Sarkar, P. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8270, pp. 280–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-42045-0_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boyle, E., Goldwasser, S., Ivan, I.: Functional signatures and pseudorandom functions. In: Krawczyk, H. (ed.) PKC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8383, pp. 501–519. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54631-0_29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brzuska, C., Fischlin, M., Freudenreich, T., Lehmann, A., Page, M., Schelbert, J., Schröder, D., Volk, F.: Security of sanitizable signatures revisited. In: Jarecki, S., Tsudik, G. (eds.) PKC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5443, pp. 317–336. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00468-1_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cash, D., Hofheinz, D., Kiltz, E., Peikert, C.: Bonsai trees, or how to delegate a lattice basis. In: Gilbert, H. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6110, pp. 523–552. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13190-5_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cocks, C.: An identity based encryption scheme based on quadratic residues. In: Cryptography and Coding (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Damgård, I., Haagh, H., Orlandi, C.: Access control encryption: enforcing information flow with cryptography. In: Hirt, M., Smith, A. (eds.) TCC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9986, pp. 547–576. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53644-5_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Denning, D.E.: A lattice model of secure information flow. Commun. ACM 19(5), 236–243 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Denning, D.E., Denning, P.J.: Certification of programs for secure information flow. Commun. ACM 20(7), 504–513 (1977)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dodis, Y., Mironov, I., Stephens-Davidowitz, N.: Message transmission with reverse firewalls - secure communication on corrupted machines. In: CRYPTO (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fehr, V., Fischlin, M.: Sanitizable signcryption: sanitization over encrypted data (full version). IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fuchsbauer, G., Gay, R., Kowalczyk, L., Orlandi, C.: Access control encryption for equality, comparison, and more. In: Fehr, S. (ed.) PKC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10175, pp. 88–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54388-7_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Garg, S., Gentry, C., Halevi, S., Raykova, M., Sahai, A., Waters, B.: Candidate indistinguishability obfuscation and functional encryption for all circuits. In: FOCS (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goldwasser, S., Kalai, Y.T., Popa, R.A., Vaikuntanathan, V., Zeldovich, N.: Reusable garbled circuits and succinct functional encryption. In: STOC (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gorbunov, S., Vaikuntanathan, V., Wee, H.: Functional encryption with bounded collusions via multi-party computation. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7417, pp. 162–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32009-5_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gorbunov, S., Vaikuntanathan, V., Wee, H.: Predicate encryption for circuits from LWE. In: Gennaro, R., Robshaw, M. (eds.) CRYPTO 2015. LNCS, vol. 9216, pp. 503–523. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48000-7_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goyal, V., Jain, A., Koppula, V., Sahai, A.: Functional encryption for randomized functionalities. In: Dodis, Y., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) TCC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9015, pp. 325–351. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46497-7_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Goyal, V., Pandey, O., Sahai, A., Waters, B.: Attribute-based encryption for fine-grained access control of encrypted data. In: ACM CCS (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hopper, N.J., Langford, J., Ahn, L.: Provably secure steganography. In: Yung, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2442, pp. 77–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45708-9_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Katz, J., Sahai, A., Waters, B.: Predicate encryption supporting disjunctions, polynomial equations, and inner products. In: Smart, N. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 146–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78967-3_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kiayias, A., Papadopoulos, S., Triandopoulos, N., Zacharias, T.: Delegatable pseudorandom functions and applications. In: ACM CCS (2013)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kim, S., Wu, D.J.: Access control encryption for general policies from standard assumptions. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2017/467 (2017)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Komargodski, I., Segev, G., Yogev, E.: Functional encryption for randomized functionalities in the private-key setting from minimal assumptions. In: TCC (2015)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lewko, A., Okamoto, T., Sahai, A., Takashima, K., Waters, B.: Fully secure functional encryption: attribute-based encryption and (hierarchical) inner product encryption. In: Gilbert, H. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6110, pp. 62–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13190-5_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Maji, H.K., Prabhakaran, M., Rosulek, M.: Attribute-based signatures. In: Kiayias, A. (ed.) CT-RSA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6558, pp. 376–392. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19074-2_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mironov, I., Stephens-Davidowitz, N.: Cryptographic reverse firewalls. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9057, pp. 657–686. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46803-6_22 Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Okamoto, T., Takashima, K.: Hierarchical predicate encryption for inner-products. In: Matsui, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5912, pp. 214–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10366-7_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    O’Neill, A.: Definitional issues in functional encryption. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Osborn, S.L., Sandhu, R.S., Munawer, Q.: Configuring role-based access control to enforce mandatory and discretionary access control policies. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 3(2), 85–106 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rackoff, C., Simon, D.R.: Non-interactive zero-knowledge proof of knowledge and chosen ciphertext attack. In: Feigenbaum, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 1991. LNCS, vol. 576, pp. 433–444. Springer, Heidelberg (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46766-1_35 Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Raykova, M., Zhao, H., Bellovin, S.M.: Privacy enhanced access control for outsourced data sharing. In: Keromytis, A.D. (ed.) FC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7397, pp. 223–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32946-3_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Regev, O.: On lattices, learning with errors, random linear codes, and cryptography. In: STOC (2005)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rivest, R.L., Shamir, A., Adleman, L.M.: A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems. Commun. ACM 21(2), 120–126 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sabelfeld, A., Myers, A.C.: Language-based information-flow security. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 21(1), 5–19 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sahai, A., Seyalioglu, H.: Worry-free encryption: functional encryption with public keys. In: ACM CCS (2010)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sahai, A., Waters, B.: Fuzzy identity-based encryption. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3494, pp. 457–473. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11426639_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sandhu, R.S.: Lattice-based access control models. IEEE Comput. 26(11), 9–19 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sandhu, R.S., Coyne, E.J., Feinstein, H.L., Youman, C.E.: Role-based access control models. IEEE Comput. 29(2), 38–47 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shamir, A.: Identity-based cryptosystems and signature schemes. In: Blakley, G.R., Chaum, D. (eds.) CRYPTO 1984. LNCS, vol. 196, pp. 47–53. Springer, Heidelberg (1985).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-39568-7_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shi, E., Bethencourt, J., Chan, H.T., Song, D.X., Perrig, A.: Multi-dimensional range query over encrypted data. In: IEEE S&P (2007)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tan, G., Zhang, R., Ma, H., Tao, Y.: Access control encryption based on LWE. In: APKC@AsiaCCS (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations