Advertisement

BiTR: Built-in Tamper Resilience

  • Seung Geol Choi
  • Aggelos Kiayias
  • Tal Malkin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7073)

Abstract

The assumption of the availability of tamper-proof hardware tokens has been used extensively in the design of cryptographic primitives. For example, Katz (Eurocrypt 2007) suggests them as an alternative to other setup assumptions, towards achieving general UC-secure multi-party computation. On the other hand, a lot of recent research has focused on protecting security of various cryptographic primitives against physical attacks such as leakage and tampering.

In this paper we put forward the notion of Built-in Tamper Resilience (BiTR) for cryptographic protocols, capturing the idea that the protocol that is encapsulated in a hardware token is designed in such a way so that tampering gives no advantage to an adversary. Our definition is within the UC model, and can be viewed as unifying and extending several prior related works. We provide a composition theorem for BiTR security of protocols, impossibility results, as well as several BiTR constructions for specific cryptographic protocols or tampering function classes. In particular, we achieve general UC-secure computation based on a hardware token that may be susceptible to affine tampering attacks. We also prove that two existing identification and signature schemes (by Schnorr and Okamoto, respecitively) are already BiTR against affine attacks (without requiring any modification or endcoding). We next observe that non-malleable codes can be used as state encodings to achieve the BiTR property, and show new positive results for deterministic non-malleable encodings for various classes of tampering functions.

Keywords

Signature Scheme Cryptographic Protocol Commitment Scheme Cryptographic Primitive Composition Theorem 
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.
    Alwen, J., Dodis, Y., Wichs, D.: Leakage-Resilient Public-Key Cryptography in the Bounded-Retrieval Model. In: Halevi, S. (ed.) CRYPTO 2009. LNCS, vol. 5677, pp. 36–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, R.J., Kuhn, M.G.: Tamper resistance – a cautionary note. In: The Second USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce Proceedings, Oakland, California, pp. 1–11 (18-21, 1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Applebaum, B., Harnik, D., Ishai, Y.: Semantic security under related-key attacks and applications. In: Innovations in Computer Science - ICS 2011, pp. 45–60 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bar-El, H., Choukri, H., Naccache, D., Tunstall, M., Whelan, C.: The sorcerers apprentice guide to fault attacks. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2004/100 (2004), http://eprint.iacr.org/
  5. 5.
    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)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biham, E., Shamir, A.: Differential Fault Analysis of Secret Key Cryptosystems. In: Kaliski Jr., B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 513–525. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boneh, D., DeMillo, R.A., Lipton, R.J.: On the importance of eliminating errors in cryptographic computations. J. Cryptology 14(2), 101–119 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boyle, E., Segev, G., Wichs, D.: Fully Leakage-Resilient Signatures. In: Paterson, K.G. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6632, pp. 89–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brakerski, Z., Kalai, Y.T., Katz, J., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Overcoming the hole in the bucket: Public-key cryptography resilient to continual memory leakage. In: FOCS, pp. 501–510 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brumley, D., Boneh, D.: Remote timing attacks are practical. Computer Networks 48(5), 701–716 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Canetti, R.: Universally composable security: A new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In: FOCS, pp. 136–145 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Canetti, R., Fischlin, M.: Universally Composable Commitments. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 19–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Canetti, R., Goldreich, O., Goldwasser, S., Micali, S.: Resettable zero-knowledge (extended abstract). In: STOC, pp. 235–244 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Canetti, R., Kushilevitz, E., Lindell, Y.: On the Limitations of Universally Composable Two-Party Computation Without Set-Up Assumptions. In: Biham, E. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2656, pp. 68–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chandran, N., Goyal, V., Sahai, A.: New Constructions for UC Secure Computation Using Tamper-Proof Hardware. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 545–562. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Damgård, I., 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
  18. 18.
    Damgård, I., Nielsen, J.B., Wichs, D.: Isolated Proofs of Knowledge and Isolated Zero Knowledge. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 509–526. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dodis, Y., Haralambiev, K., López-Alt, A., Wichs, D.: Cryptography against continuous memory attacks. In: FOCS, pp. 511–520 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Döttling, N., Kraschewski, D., Müller-Quade, J.: Unconditional and Composable Security Using a Single Stateful Tamper-Proof Hardware Token. In: Ishai, Y. (ed.) TCC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6597, pp. 164–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dziembowski, S., Pietrzak, K., Wichs, D.: Non-malleable codes. In: ICS, pp. 434–452 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Faust, S., Kiltz, E., Pietrzak, K., Rothblum, G.N.: Leakage-Resilient Signatures. In: Micciancio, D. (ed.) TCC 2010. LNCS, vol. 5978, pp. 343–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goyal, V., Ishai, Y., Mahmoody, M., Sahai, A.: Interactive Locking, Zero-Knowledge PCPs, and Unconditional Cryptography. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 173–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goyal, V., Ishai, Y., Sahai, A., Venkatesan, R., Wadia, A.: Founding Cryptography on Tamper-Proof Hardware Tokens. In: Micciancio, D. (ed.) TCC 2010. LNCS, vol. 5978, pp. 308–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ishai, Y., Prabhakaran, M., Sahai, A., Wagner, D.: Private Circuits II: Keeping Secrets in Tamperable Circuits. In: Vaudenay, S. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4004, pp. 308–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ishai, Y., Sahai, A., Wagner, D.: Private Circuits: Securing Hardware against Probing Attacks. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 463–481. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Katz, J.: Universally Composable Multi-party Computation Using Tamper-Proof Hardware. In: Naor, M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4515, pp. 115–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kocher, P.C., Jaffe, J., Jun, B.: Differential Power Analysis. In: Wiener, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 1999. LNCS, vol. 1666, pp. 388–397. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kolesnikov, V.: Truly Efficient String Oblivious Transfer Using Resettable Tamper-Proof Tokens. In: Micciancio, D. (ed.) TCC 2010. LNCS, vol. 5978, pp. 327–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lewko, A.B., Lewko, M., Waters, B.: How to leak on key updates. In: STOC, pp. 725–734 (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Malkin, T., Teranishi, I., Vahlis, Y., Yung, M.: Signatures Resilient to Continual Leakage on Memory and Computation. In: Ishai, Y. (ed.) TCC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6597, pp. 89–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Micali, S., Reyzin, L.: Physically Observable Cryptography (Extended Abstract). In: Naor, M. (ed.) TCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2951, pp. 278–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moran, T., Segev, G.: David and Goliath Commitments: UC Computation for Asymmetric Parties Using Tamper-Proof Hardware. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 527–544. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Okamoto, T.: Efficient Blind and Partially Blind Signatures Without Random Oracles. In: Halevi, S., Rabin, T. (eds.) TCC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3876, pp. 80–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pedersen, T.P.: Non-interactive and Information-Theoretic Secure Verifiable Secret Sharing. In: Feigenbaum, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 1991. LNCS, vol. 576, pp. 129–140. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pietrzak, K.: A Leakage-Resilient Mode of Operation. In: Joux, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5479, pp. 462–482. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Quisquater, J.J., Samyde, D.: ElectroMagnetic Analysis (EMA): Measures and Counter-Measures for Smart Cards. In: Attali, S., Jensen, T. (eds.) E-smart 2001. LNCS, vol. 2140, pp. 200–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schnorr, C.P.: Efficient signature generation by smart cards. J. Cryptology 4(3), 161–174 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Skorobogatov, S.P.: Semi-invasive attacks – A new approach to hardware security analysis. Tech. Rep. UCAM-CL-TR-630, University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory (April 2005), http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-630.pdf
  41. 41.
    Standaert, F.X., Malkin, T.G., Yung, M.: A Unified Framework for the Analysis of Side-Channel Key Recovery Attacks. In: Joux, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5479, pp. 443–461. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seung Geol Choi
    • 1
  • Aggelos Kiayias
    • 2
  • Tal Malkin
    • 3
  1. 1.University of MarylandUSA
  2. 2.University of ConnecticutUSA
  3. 3.Columbia UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations