Non-malleable Obfuscation

  • Ran Canetti
  • Mayank Varia
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5444)

Abstract

Existing definitions of program obfuscation do not rule out malleability attacks, where an adversary that sees an obfuscated program is able to generate another (potentially obfuscated) program that is related to the original one in some way.

We formulate two natural flavors of non-malleability requirements for program obfuscation, and show that they are incomparable in general. We also construct non-malleable obfuscators of both flavors for some program families of interest. Some of our constructions are in the Random Oracle model, whereas another one is in the common reference string model. We also define the notion of verifiable obfuscation which is of independent interest.

Keywords

Random Oracle Auxiliary Information Random Oracle Model Exact Functionality Output Program 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldwasser, S., Kalai, Y.T.: On the impossibility of obfuscation with auxiliary input. In: FOCS, pp. 553–562. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldwasser, S., Rothblum, G.N.: On best-possible obfuscation. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 194–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canetti, R.: Towards realizing random oracles: Hash functions that hide all partial information. In: Kaliski Jr., B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 455–469. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Canetti, R., Micciancio, D., Reingold, O.: Perfectly one-way probabilistic hash functions. In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 131–140 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lynn, B., Prabhakaran, M., Sahai, A.: Positive results and techniques for obfuscation. In: Cachin, C., Camenisch, J.L. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3027, pp. 20–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wee, H.: On obfuscating point functions. In: Proceedings of the 37th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 523–532 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Canetti, R., Dakdouk, R.R.: Obfuscating point functions with multibit output. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 489–508. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hofheinz, D., Malone-Lee, J., Stam, M.: Obfuscation for cryptographic purposes. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 214–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hohenberger, S., Rothblum, G.N., Shelat, A., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Securely obfuscating re-encryption. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 233–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sahai, A.: Non-malleable non-interactive zero knowledge and adaptive chosen-ciphertext security. In: FOCS, pp. 543–553 (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Santis, A., Di Crescenzo, G., Ostrovsky, R., Persiano, G., Sahai, A.: Robust non-interactive zero knowledge. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 566–598. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Canetti, R., Varia, M.: Non-mallable obfuscation. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2008/495 (2008), http://eprint.iacr.org/2008/495
  14. 14.
    Lamport, L.: Constructing digital signatures from a one-way function. Technical Report SRI-CSL-98, SRI International Computer Science Laboratory (1979)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ran Canetti
    • 1
  • Mayank Varia
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceTel Aviv UniversityIsrael
  2. 2.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyUSA

Personalised recommendations