Advertisement

Another Step Towards Realizing Random Oracles: Non-malleable Point Obfuscation

  • Ilan Komargodski
  • Eylon Yogev
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10820)

Abstract

The random oracle paradigm allows us to analyze the security of protocols and construction in an idealized model, where all parties have access to a truly random function. This is one of the most successful and well-studied models in cryptography. However, being such a strong idealized model, it is known to be susceptible to various weaknesses when implemented naively in “real-life”, as shown by Canetti, Goldreich and Halevi (J. ACM 2004).

As a counter-measure, one could try to identify and implement only one or few of the properties a random oracle possesses that are needed for a specific setting. Such a systematic study was initiated by Canetti (CRYPTO 1997), who showed how to implement the property that the output of the function does not reveal anything regarding the input by constructing a point function obfucator. This property turned out to suffice in many follow-up works and applications.

In this work, we tackle another natural property of random oracles and implement it in the standard model. The property we focus on is non-malleability, where it is guaranteed that the output on an input cannot be used to generate the output on any related point. We construct a point-obfuscator that is both point-hiding (à la Canetti) and is non-malleable. The cost of our construction is a single exponentiation on top of Canetti’s construction and could be used for any application where point obfuscators are used and obtain improved security guarantees. The security of our construction relies on variants of the DDH and power-DDH assumptions.

On the technical side, we introduce a new technique for proving security of a construction based on a DDH-like assumption. We call this technique “double-exponentiation” and believe it will be useful in the future.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers of EUROCRYPT 2018 for their elaborate and useful comments. We are grateful to Ran Canetti for multiple useful suggestions and feedback about this work. Thanks to Nir Bitansky, Abhishek Jain, and Omer Paneth for multiple discussions. Lastly, we thank Moni Naor for his encouragement, support and advice.

References

  1. 1.
    Applebaum, B., Harnik, D., Ishai, Y.: Semantic security under related-key attacks and applications. In: Innovations in Computer Science - ICS. pp. 45–60 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baecher, P., Fischlin, M., Schröder, D.: Expedient non-malleability notions for hash functions. In: Kiayias, A. (ed.) CT-RSA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6558, pp. 268–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19074-2_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barak, B., Goldreich, O., Impagliazzo, R., Rudich, S., Sahai, A., Vadhan, S.P., Yang, K.: On the (im)possibility of obfuscating programs. Journal of the ACM 59(2), 6 (2012). Preliminary version appeared in CRYPTO 2001MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellare, M., Boldyreva, A., O’Neill, A.: Deterministic and efficiently searchable encryption. In: Menezes, A. (ed.) CRYPTO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4622, pp. 535–552. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74143-5_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellare, M., Hoang, V.T., Keelveedhi, S.: Instantiating random oracles via UCEs. In: Canetti, R., Garay, J.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2013. LNCS, vol. 8043, pp. 398–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40084-1_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Random oracles are practical: a paradigm for designing efficient protocols. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS, pp. 62–73 (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bellare, M., Stepanovs, I.: Point-function obfuscation: a framework and generic constructions. In: Kushilevitz, E., Malkin, T. (eds.) TCC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9563, pp. 565–594. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49099-0_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bitansky, N., Canetti, R.: On strong simulation and composable point obfuscation. J. Cryptol. 27(2), 317–357 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bitansky, N., Canetti, R., Kalai, Y.T., Paneth, O.: On virtual grey box obfuscation for general circuits. In: Garay, J.A., Gennaro, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2014. LNCS, vol. 8617, pp. 108–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44381-1_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bitansky, N., Paneth, O.: Point obfuscation and 3-round zero-knowledge. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) TCC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7194, pp. 190–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28914-9_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boldyreva, A., Cash, D., Fischlin, M., Warinschi, B.: Foundations of non-malleable hash and one-way functions. In: Matsui, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5912, pp. 524–541. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10366-7_31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brenner, H., Goyal, V., Richelson, S., Rosen, A., Vald, M.: Fast non-malleable commitments. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS, pp. 1048–1057. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brzuska, C., Farshim, P., Mittelbach, A.: Random-oracle uninstantiability from indistinguishability obfuscation. In: Dodis, Y., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) TCC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9015, pp. 428–455. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46497-7_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Camenisch, J., Neven, G., Shelat, A.: Simulatable adaptive oblivious transfer. In: Naor, M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4515, pp. 573–590. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72540-4_33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Canetti, R.: Towards realizing random oracles: hash functions that hide all partial information. In: Kaliski, B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 455–469. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0052255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Canetti, R., Fuller, B., Paneth, O., Reyzin, L., Smith, A.: Reusable fuzzy extractors for low-entropy distributions. In: Fischlin, M., Coron, J.-S. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9665, pp. 117–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49890-3_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Canetti, R., Goldreich, O., Halevi, S.: The random oracle methodology, revisited. J. ACM 51(4), 557–594 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Canetti, R., Micciancio, D., Reingold, O.: Perfectly one-way probabilistic hash functions (preliminary version). In: Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, STOC, pp. 131–140. ACM (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Canetti, R., Varia, M.: Non-malleable obfuscation. In: Reingold, O. (ed.) TCC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5444, pp. 73–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00457-5_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen, Y., Qin, B., Zhang, J., Deng, Y., Chow, S.S.M.: Non-malleable functions and their applications. In: Cheng, C.-M., Chung, K.-M., Persiano, G., Yang, B.-Y. (eds.) PKC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9615, pp. 386–416. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49387-8_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Crescenzo, G.D., Katz, J., Ostrovsky, R., Smith, A.D.: Efficient and non-interactive non-malleable commitment. In: Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT, pp. 40–59 (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dolev, D., Dwork, C., Naor, M.: Nonmalleable cryptography. SIAM Rev. 45(4), 727–784 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fischlin, M., Fischlin, R.: Efficient non-malleable commitment schemes. J. Cryptol. 24(1), 203–244 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garg, S., Gentry, C., Halevi, S., Raykova, M., Sahai, A., Waters, B.: Candidate indistinguishability obfuscation and functional encryption for all circuits. In: 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS, pp. 40–49 (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gentry, C.: Practical identity-based encryption without random oracles. In: Vaudenay, S. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4004, pp. 445–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11761679_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goldwasser, S., Kalai, Y.T.: On the (in)security of the Fiat-Shamir paradigm. In: 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science FOCS, pp. 102–113 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goldwasser, S., Kalai, Y.T., Peikert, C., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Robustness of the learning with errors assumption. In: Innovations in Computer Science - ICS 2010, pp. 230–240. Tsinghua University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Golle, P., Jarecki, S., Mironov, I.: Cryptographic primitives enforcing communication and storage complexity. In: Blaze, M. (ed.) FC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2357, pp. 120–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36504-4_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goyal, V., Khurana, D., Sahai, A.: Breaking the three round barrier for non-malleable commitments. In: IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS, pp. 21–30. IEEE Computer Society (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goyal, V., Pandey, O., Richelson, S.: Textbook non-malleable commitments. In: Proceedings of the 48th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC, pp. 1128–1141. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Khurana, D., Sahai, A.: How to achieve non-malleability in one or two rounds. In: 58th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS, pp. 564–575. IEEE Computer Society (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lin, H., Pass, R.: Constant-round nonmalleable commitments from any one-way function. J. ACM 62(1), 5:1–5:30 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lin, H., Pass, R., Soni, P.: Two-round concurrent non-malleable commitment from time-lock puzzles. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2017, 273 (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pandey, O., Pass, R., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Adaptive one-way functions and applications. In: Wagner, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2008. LNCS, vol. 5157, pp. 57–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85174-5_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pass, R.: Unprovable security of perfect NIZK and non-interactive non-malleable commitments. Comput. Complex. 25(3), 607–666 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pass, R., Rosen, A.: Concurrent nonmalleable commitments. SIAM J. Comput. 37(6), 1891–1925 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pass, R., Shelat, A., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Construction of a non-malleable encryption scheme from any semantically secure one. In: Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO, pp. 271–289 (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sahai, A.: Non-malleable non-interactive zero knowledge and adaptive chosen-ciphertext security. In: 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS, pp. 543–553 (1999)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stevens, M., Bursztein, E., Karpman, P., Albertini, A., Markov, Y.: The first collision for full SHA-1. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Archive 2017, 190 (2017)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wagner, D.A., Goldberg, I.: Proofs of security for the Unix password hashing algorithm. In: Advances in Cryptology - ASIACRYPT, pp. 560–572 (2000)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang, X., Yin, Y.L., Yu, H.: Finding collisions in the full SHA-1. In: Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO, pp. 17–36 (2005)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wang, X., Yu, H.: How to break MD5 and other hash functions. In: Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT, pp. 19–35 (2005)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wee, H.: On obfuscating point functions. In: STOC, pp. 523–532. ACM (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cornell TechNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations