Cross and Clean: Amortized Garbled Circuits with Constant Overhead

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9985)

Abstract

Garbled circuits (GC) are one of the main tools for secure two-party computation. One of the most promising techniques for efficiently achieving active-security in the context of GCs is the so called cut-and-choose approach, and the main measure of efficiency in cut-and-choose based protocols is the number of garbled circuits which need to be constructed, exchanged and evaluated.

In this paper we investigate the following, natural question: how many garbled circuits are needed to achieve active security? and we show that in the amortized setting (for large enough circuits and number of executions), it is possible to achieve active security while using only a constant number of garbled circuits.

References

  1. [BHR12]
    Bellare, M., Hoang, V.T., Rogaway, P.: Foundations of garbled circuits. In: The ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2012, Raleigh, NC, USA, 16–18 October 2012, pp. 784–796 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. [BMR90]
    Beaver, D., Micali, S., Rogaway, P.: The round complexity of secure protocols (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 13–17 May 1990, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, pp. 503–513 (1990)Google Scholar
  3. [Bra13]
    Brandão, L.T.A.N.: Secure two-party computation with reusable bit-commitments, via a cut-and-choose with forge-and-lose technique. In: Sako, K., Sarkar, P. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8270, pp. 441–463. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-42045-0_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [Can01]
    Canetti, R.: Universally composable security: a new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In: 42nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2001, 14–17 October 2001, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp. 136–145. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  5. [CLOS02]
    Canetti, R., Lindell, Y., Ostrovsky, R., Sahai, A.: Universally composable two-party and multi-party secure computation. In: Proceedings on 34th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 19–21 May 2002, Montréal, Québec, Canada, pp. 494–503 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. [FJN+13]
    Frederiksen, T.K., Jakobsen, T.P., Nielsen, J.B., Nordholt, P.S., Orlandi, C.: MiniLEGO: efficient secure two-party computation from general assumptions. In: Johansson, T., Nguyen, P.Q. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7881, pp. 537–556. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38348-9_32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [FJNT15]
    Frederiksen, T.K., Jakobsen, T.P., Nielsen, J.B., Trifiletti, R.: Tinylego: an interactive garbling scheme for maliciously. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2015:309 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. [FNO15]
    Frederiksen, T.K., Nielsen, J.B., Orlandi, C.: Privacy-free garbled circuits with applications to efficient zero-knowledge. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9057, pp. 191–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46803-6_7 Google Scholar
  9. [GMW87]
    Goldreich, O., Micali, S., Wigderson, A.: How to play any mental game or a completeness theorem for protocols with honest majority. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1987, New York, USA, pp. 218–229 (1987)Google Scholar
  10. [HKE13]
    Huang, Y., Katz, J., Evans, D.: Efficient secure two-party computation using symmetric cut-and-choose. In: Canetti, R., Garay, J.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8043, pp. 18–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40084-1_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [HKK+14]
    Huang, Y., Katz, J., Kolesnikov, V., Kumaresan, R., Malozemoff, A.J.: Amortizing garbled circuits. In: Garay, J.A., Gennaro, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8617, pp. 458–475. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44381-1_26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [JKO13]
    Jawurek, M., Kerschbaum, F., Orlandi, C.: Zero-knowledge using garbled circuits: how to prove non-algebraic statements efficiently. In: 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2013, Berlin, Germany, 4–8 November 2013, pp. 955–966 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. [JS07]
    Jarecki, S.: Efficient two-party secure computation on committed inputs. In: Naor, M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4515, pp. 97–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72540-4_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [Lin13]
    Lindell, Y.: Fast cut-and-choose based protocols for malicious and covert adversaries. In: Canetti, R., Garay, J.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8043, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40084-1_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [LP07]
    Lindell, Y., Pinkas, B.: An efficient protocol for secure two-party computation in the presence of malicious adversaries. In: Naor, M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4515, pp. 52–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72540-4_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [LR14]
    Lindell, Y., Riva, B.: Cut-and-choose yao-based secure computation in the online/offline and batch settings. In: Garay, J.A., Gennaro, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8617, pp. 476–494. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44381-1_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [LR15]
    Lindell, Y., Riva, B.: Blazing fast 2pc in the offline/online setting with security for malicious adversaries. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Denver, CO, USA, 12–16 October 2015, pp. 579–590 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. [MF06]
    Mohassel, P., Franklin, M.K.: Efficiency tradeoffs for malicious two-party computation. In: Yung, M., Dodis, Y., Kiayias, A., Malkin, T. (eds.) PKC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3958, pp. 458–473. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11745853_30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [MNPS04]
    Malkhi, D., Nisan, N., Pinkas, B., Sella, Y.: Fairplay - secure two-party computation system. In: Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium, 9–13 August 2004, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 287–302 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. [NO09]
    Nielsen, J.B., Orlandi, C.: LEGO for two-party secure computation. In: Reingold, O. (ed.) TCC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5444, pp. 368–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-00457-5_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [Pai99]
    Paillier, P.: Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residuosity classes. In: Stern, J. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1592, p. 223. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). doi:10.1007/3-540-48910-X_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [Yao82]
    Yao, A.C.-C.: Protocols for secure computations (extended abstract). In: FOCS, pp. 160–164 (1982)Google Scholar
  23. [ZRE15]
    Zahur, S., Rosulek, M., Evans, D.: Two halves make a whole. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9057, pp. 220–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46803-6_8 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations