Advertisement

Continuously Non-malleable Codes with Split-State Refresh

  • Antonio Faonio
  • Jesper Buus Nielsen
  • Mark Simkin
  • Daniele Venturi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10892)

Abstract

Non-malleable codes for the split-state model allow to encode a message into two parts, such that arbitrary independent tampering on each part, and subsequent decoding of the corresponding modified codeword, yields either the same as the original message, or a completely unrelated value. Continuously non-malleable codes further allow to tolerate an unbounded (polynomial) number of tampering attempts, until a decoding error happens. The drawback is that, after an error happens, the system must self-destruct and stop working, otherwise generic attacks become possible.

In this paper we propose a solution to this limitation, by leveraging a split-state refreshing procedure. Namely, whenever a decoding error happens, the two parts of an encoding can be locally refreshed (i.e., without any interaction), which allows to avoid the self-destruct mechanism. An additional feature of our security model is that it captures directly security against continual leakage attacks. We give an abstract framework for building such codes in the common reference string model, and provide a concrete instantiation based on the external Diffie-Hellman assumption.

Finally, we explore applications in which our notion turns out to be essential. The first application is a signature scheme tolerating an arbitrary polynomial number of split-state tampering attempts, without requiring a self-destruct capability, and in a model where refreshing of the memory happens only after an invalid output is produced. This circumvents an impossibility result from a recent work by Fuijisaki and Xagawa (Asiacrypt 2016). The second application is a compiler for tamper-resilient RAM programs. In comparison to other tamper-resilient compilers, ours has several advantages, among which the fact that, for the first time, it does not rely on the self-destruct feature.

Keywords

Non-malleable codes Tamper-resilient cryptography 

References

  1. 1.
    Aggarwal, D., Dodis, Y., Kazana, T., Obremski, M.: Non-malleable reductions and applications. In: STOC, pp. 459–468 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aggarwal, D., Dodis, Y., Lovett, S.: Non-malleable codes from additive combinatorics. In: STOC, pp. 774–783 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biham, E., Shamir, A.: Differential fault analysis of secret key cryptosystems. In: Kaliski, B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 513–525. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0052259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boneh, D., DeMillo, R.A., Lipton, R.J.: On the importance of checking cryptographic protocols for faults. In: Fumy, W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1233, pp. 37–51. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-69053-0_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chase, M., Kohlweiss, M., Lysyanskaya, A., Meiklejohn, S.: Malleable proof systems and applications. In: Pointcheval, D., Johansson, T. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7237, pp. 281–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29011-4_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dachman-Soled, D., Kulkarni, M., Shahverdi, A.: Tight upper and lower bounds for leakage-resilient, locally decodable and updatable non-malleable codes. In: Fehr, S. (ed.) PKC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10174, pp. 310–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54365-8_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dachman-Soled, D., Liu, F.-H., Shi, E., Zhou, H.-S.: Locally decodable and updatable non-malleable codes and their applications. In: Dodis, Y., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) TCC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9014, pp. 427–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46494-6_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davì, F., Dziembowski, S., Venturi, D.: Leakage-resilient storage. In: Garay, J.A., De Prisco, R. (eds.) SCN 2010. LNCS, vol. 6280, pp. 121–137. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15317-4_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dodis, Y., Lewko, A.B., Waters, B., Wichs, D.: Storing secrets on continually leaky devices. In: FOCS, pp. 688–697 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dziembowski, S., Pietrzak, K., Wichs, D.: Non-malleable codes. In: Innovations in Computer Science, pp. 434–452 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faonio, A., Nielsen, J.B.: Non-malleable codes with split-state refresh. In: Fehr, S. (ed.) PKC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10174, pp. 279–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54365-8_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Faust, S., Mukherjee, P., Nielsen, J.B., Venturi, D.: Continuous non-malleable codes. In: Lindell, Y. (ed.) TCC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8349, pp. 465–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54242-8_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fujisaki, E., Xagawa, K.: Public-key cryptosystems resilient to continuous tampering and leakage of arbitrary functions. In: Cheon, J.H., Takagi, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2016. LNCS, vol. 10031, pp. 908–938. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53887-6_33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gennaro, R., Lysyanskaya, A., Malkin, T., Micali, S., Rabin, T.: Algorithmic tamper-proof (ATP) security: theoretical foundations for security against hardware tampering. In: Naor, M. (ed.) TCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2951, pp. 258–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24638-1_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldreich, O.: Towards a theory of software protection and simulation by oblivious RAMs. In: STOC (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Govindavajhala, S., Appel, A.W.: Using memory errors to attack a virtual machine. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 154–165 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu, F.-H., Lysyanskaya, A.: Tamper and leakage resilience in the split-state model. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7417, pp. 517–532. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32009-5_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Otto, M.: Fault attacks and countermeasures. Ph.D. thesis, University of Paderborn, Germany (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Faonio
    • 1
  • Jesper Buus Nielsen
    • 2
  • Mark Simkin
    • 2
  • Daniele Venturi
    • 3
  1. 1.IMDEA Software InstituteMadridSpain
  2. 2.Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  3. 3.Sapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations