Advertisement

Non-malleable Coding against Bit-Wise and Split-State Tampering

  • Mahdi Cheraghchi
  • Venkatesan Guruswami
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8349)

Abstract

Non-malleable coding, introduced by Dziembowski, Pietrzak and Wichs (ICS 2010), aims for protecting the integrity of information against tampering attacks in situations where error-detection is impossible. Intuitively, information encoded by a non-malleable code either decodes to the original message or, in presence of any tampering, to an unrelated message. Non-malleable coding is possible against any class of adversaries of bounded size. In particular, Dziembowski et al. show that such codes exist and may achieve positive rates for any class of tampering functions of size at most \(2^{2^{\alpha n}}\), for any constant α ∈ [0, 1). However, this result is existential and has thus attracted a great deal of subsequent research on explicit constructions of non-malleable codes against natural classes of adversaries.

In this work, we consider constructions of coding schemes against two well-studied classes of tampering functions; namely, bit-wise tampering functions (where the adversary tampers each bit of the encoding independently) and the much more general class of split-state adversaries (where two independent adversaries arbitrarily tamper each half of the encoded sequence). We obtain the following results for these models.

  1. 1

    For bit-tampering adversaries, we obtain explicit and efficiently encodable and decodable non-malleable codes of length n achieving rate 1 − o(1) and error (also known as “exact security”) \(\exp(-\tilde{\Omega}(n^{1/7}))\). Alternatively, it is possible to improve the error to \(\exp(-\tilde{\Omega}(n))\) at the cost of making the construction Monte Carlo with success probability \(1-\exp(-\Omega(n))\) (while still allowing a compact description of the code). Previously, the best known construction of bit-tampering coding schemes was due to Dziembowski et al. (ICS 2010), which is a Monte Carlo construction achieving rate close to .1887.

     
  2. 2

    We initiate the study of seedless non-malleable extractors as a natural variation of the notion of non-malleable extractors introduced by Dodis and Wichs (STOC 2009). We show that construction of non-malleable codes for the split-state model reduces to construction of non-malleable two-source extractors. We prove a general result on existence of seedless non-malleable extractors, which implies that codes obtained from our reduction can achieve rates arbitrarily close to 1/5 and exponentially small error. In a separate recent work, the authors show that the optimal rate in this model is 1/2. Currently, the best known explicit construction of split-state coding schemes is due to Aggarwal, Dodis and Lovett (ECCC TR13-081) which only achieves vanishing (polynomially small) rate.

     

Keywords

coding theory cryptography error detection information theory randomness extractors tamper-resilient storage 

References

  1. 1.
    Aggarwal, D., Dodis, Y., Lovett, S.: Non-malleable codes from additive combinatorics. ECCC Technical Report TR13-081 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barak, B., Rao, A., Shaltiel, R., Wigderson, A.: 2-source dispersers for sub-polynomial entropy and Ramsey graphs beating the Frankl-Wilson construction. Annals of Mathematics 176(3), 1483–1544 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bourgain, J.: More on the Sum-Product phenomenon in prime fields and its applications. International Journal of Number Theory 1(1), 1–32 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheraghchi, M.: Applications of Derandomization Theory in Coding. PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland (2010), http://eccc.hpi-web.de/static/books/Applications_of_Derandomization_Theory_in_Coding/
  5. 5.
    Cheraghchi, M., Guruswami, V.: Capacity of non-malleable codes. ECCC Technical Report TR13-118 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheraghchi, M., Guruswami, V.: Explicit optimal rate non-malleable codes for bit-tampering. IACR Technical Report 2013/565 (2013), http://eprint.iacr.org/2013/565
  7. 7.
    Chor, B., Goldreich, O.: Unbiased bits from sources of weak randomness and probabilistic communication complexity. SIAM Journal on Computing 2(17), 230–261 (1988)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cramer, R., Dodis, Y., Fehr, S., Padró, C., Wichs, D.: Detection of algebraic manipulation with applications to robust secret sharing and fuzzy extractors. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 471–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dodis, Y., Li, X., Wooley, T.D., Zuckerman, D.: Privacy amplification and non-malleable extractors via character sums. In: Proceedings of FOCS 2011, pp. 668–677 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dodis, Y., Wichs, D.: Non-malleable extractors and symmetric key cryptography from weak secrets. In: Proceedings of the 41st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 601–610 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dziembowski, S., Kazana, T., Obremski, M.: Non-malleable codes from two-source extractors. In: Canetti, R., Garay, J.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8043, pp. 239–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dziembowski, S., Pietrzak, K., Wichs, D.: Non-malleable codes. In: Proceedings of Innovations in Computer Science, ICS 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Forney, G.D.: Concatenated Codes. MIT Press (1966)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gohen, G., Raz, R., Segev, G.: Non-malleable extractors with short seeds and applications to privacy amplification. In: Proceedings of CCC 2012, pp. 298–308 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guruswami, V., Smith, A.: Codes for computationally simple channels: Explicit constructions with optimal rate. In: Proceedings of FOCS 2010, pp. 723–732 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Justesen, J.: A class of constructive asymptotically good algebraic codes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 18, 652–656 (1972)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalai, Y., Li, X., Rao, A.: 2-source extractors under computational assumptions and cryptography with defective randomness. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 617–626 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaplan, E., Naor, M., Reingold, O.: Derandomized constructions of k-wise (almost) independent permutations. In: Chekuri, C., Jansen, K., Rolim, J.D.P., Trevisan, L. (eds.) APPROX and RANDOM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3624, pp. 354–365. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, X.: Non-malleable extractors, two-source extractors and privacy amplification. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 688–697 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rao, A.: A 2-source almost-extractor for linear entropy. In: Goel, A., Jansen, K., Rolim, J.D.P., Rubinfeld, R. (eds.) APPROX and RANDOM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5171, pp. 549–556. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raz, R.: Extractors with weak random seeds. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 11–20 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raz, R., Yehudayoff, A.: Multilinear formulas, maximal-partition discrepancy and mixed-sources extractors. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 77(1), 167–190 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahdi Cheraghchi
    • 1
  • Venkatesan Guruswami
    • 2
  1. 1.CSAILMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentCarnegie Mellon UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations