Advertisement

Batch Proofs of Partial Knowledge

  • Ryan Henry
  • Ian Goldberg
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7954)

Abstract

This paper examines “batch zero-knowledge” protocols for communication- and computation-efficient proofs of propositions composed of many simple predicates. We focus specifically on batch protocols that use Cramer, Damgård, and Schoenmakers’ proofs of partial knowledge framework (Crypto 1994) to prove propositions that may be true even when some of their input predicates are false. Our main result is a novel system for batch zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge and equality of k-out-of-n discrete logarithms. Along the way, we propose the first general definition for batch zero-knowledge proofs and we revisit Peng and Bao’s batch zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge and equality of one-out-of-n discrete logarithms (Inscrypt 2008). Our analysis of the latter protocol uncovers a critical flaw in the security proof, and we present a practical lattice-based attack to exploit it.

Keywords

Batch proof and verification zero-knowledge cryptanalysis lattice-based attacks efficiency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Araujo, R., Foulle, S., Traoré, J.: A practical and secure coercion-resistant scheme for remote elections. In: Frontiers of Electronic Voting, Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol. 7311 (July 2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Au, M.H., Tsang, P.P., Kapadia, A.: PEREA: Practical TTP-free revocation of repeatedly misbehaving anonymous users. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 14(4), Article No. 29 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Au, M.H., Kapadia, A., Susilo, W.: BLACR: TTP-free blacklistable anonymous credentials with reputation. In: Proceedings of NDSS 2012, San Diego, CA, USA (February 2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellare, M., Garay, J.A., Rabin, T.: Batch verification with applications to cryptography and checking. In: Lucchesi, C.L., Moura, A.V. (eds.) LATIN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1380, pp. 170–191. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellare, M., Garay, J.A., Rabin, T.: Fast batch verification for modular exponentiation and digital signatures. In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1403, pp. 236–250. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bellare, M., Goldreich, O.: On defining proofs of knowledge. In: Brickell, E.F. (ed.) CRYPTO 1992. LNCS, vol. 740, pp. 390–420. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boneh, D., Boyen, X.: Short signatures without random oracles and the SDH assumption in bilinear groups. Journal of Cryptology 21(2), 149–177 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brands, S., Demuynck, L., De Decker, B.: A practical system for globally revoking the unlinkable pseudonyms of unknown users. In: Pieprzyk, J., Ghodosi, H., Dawson, E. (eds.) ACISP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4586, pp. 400–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cachin, C.: Efficient private bidding and auctions with an oblivious third party. In: Proceedings of CCS 1999, Singapore, pp. 120–127 (November 1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Catalano, D., Fiore, D., Messina, M.: Zero-knowledge sets with short proofs. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 433–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clark, J., Hengartner, U.: Selections: Internet voting with over-the-shoulder coercion-resistance. In: Danezis, G. (ed.) FC 2011. LNCS, vol. 7035, pp. 47–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cramer, R., Damgård, I., Schoenmakers, B.: Proof of partial knowledge and simplified design of witness hiding protocols. In: Desmedt, Y.G. (ed.) CRYPTO 1994. LNCS, vol. 839, pp. 174–187. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fiat, A., Shamir, A.: How to prove yourself: Practical solutions to identification and signature problems. In: Odlyzko, A.M. (ed.) CRYPTO 1986. LNCS, vol. 263, pp. 186–194. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fürer, M.: Faster integer multiplication. SIAM Journal on Computing 39(3), 979–1005 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gennaro, R., Leigh, D., Sundaram, R., Yerazunis, W.S.: Batching schnorr identification scheme with applications to privacy-preserving authorization and low-bandwidth communication devices. In: Lee, P.J. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3329, pp. 276–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldberg, I.: Improving the robustness of private information retrieval. In: Proceedings of IEEE S&P 2007, Oakland, CA, USA, pp. 131–148 (May 2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldreich, O.: A note on computational indistinguishability. Information Processing Letters 34(6), 277–281 (1990)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldreich, O., Micali, S., Wigderson, A.: Proofs that yield nothing but their validity or languages in NP have zero-knowledge proof systems. Journal of the ACM 38(3), 691–729 (1991)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldreich, O., Sahai, A., Vadhan, S.P.: Honest-verifier statistical zero-knowledge equals general statistical zero-knowledge. In: Proceedings of STOC 1998, Dallas, TX, USA, pp. 399–408 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldwasser, S., Micali, S., Rackoff, C.: The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of STOC 1985, Providence, RI, USA, pp. 291–304 (May 1985)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Groth, J.: A verifiable secret shuffle of homomorphic encryptions. Journal of Cryptology 23(4), 546–579 (2010)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Henry, R., Goldberg, I.: All-but-k mercurial commitments and their applications. Technical Report CACR 2012-26, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada (November 2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Henry, R., Goldberg, I.: Batch proofs of partial knowledge. Technical Report CACR 2013-08, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada (February 2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Henry, R., Olumofin, F.G., Goldberg, I.: Practical PIR for electronic commerce. In: Proceedings of CCS 2011, Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 677–690 (October 2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Juels, A., Catalano, D., Jakobsson, M.: Coercion-resistant electronic elections. In: Proceedings of WPES 2005, Alexandria, VA, USA, pp. 61–70 (November 2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kate, A., Zaverucha, G.M., Goldberg, I.: Constant-size commitments to polynomials and their applications. In: Abe, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6477, pp. 177–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lenstra, A.K., Lenstra, H.W., Lovász, L.: Factoring polynomials with rational coefficients. Mathematische Annalen 261(4), 515–534 (1982)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peng, K., Bao, F.: Batch ZK proof and verification of OR logic. In: Yung, M., Liu, P., Lin, D. (eds.) Inscrypt 2008. LNCS, vol. 5487, pp. 141–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peng, K., Bao, F.: Batch range proof for practical small ranges. In: Bernstein, D.J., Lange, T. (eds.) AFRICACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6055, pp. 114–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peng, K., Boyd, C., Dawson, E.: Batch zero-knowledge proof and verification and its applications. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 10(2), Article No. 6 (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sako, K., Kilian, J.: Receipt-free mix-type voting scheme. In: Guillou, L.C., Quisquater, J.-J. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 1995. LNCS, vol. 921, pp. 393–403. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Spycher, O., Koenig, R.E., Haenni, R., Schläpfer, M.: A new approach towards coercion-resistant remote e-voting in linear time. In: Danezis, G. (ed.) FC 2011. LNCS, vol. 7035, pp. 182–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tsang, P.P., Au, M.H., Kapadia, A., Smith, S.W.: BLAC: Revoking repeatedly misbehaving anonymous users without relying on TTPs. ACM Transactions on Information and Systems Security 13(4), Article No. 39 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tsang, P.P., Wei, V.K., Chan, T.K., Au, M.H., Liu, J.K., Wong, D.S.: Separable linkable threshold ring signatures. In: Canteaut, A., Viswanathan, K. (eds.) INDOCRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3348, pp. 384–398. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Weber, S.G., Araujo, R., Buchmann, J.: On coercion-resistant electronic elections with linear work. In: Proceedings of ARES 2007, Vienna, Austria, pp. 908–916 (April 2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan Henry
    • 1
  • Ian Goldberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Cheriton School of Computer ScienceUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations