TY - JOUR
AB - Cryptographic security is usually defined as a guarantee that holds except when a bad event with negligible probability occurs, and nothing is guaranteed in that bad case. However, in settings where such failure can happen with substantial probability, one needs to provide guarantees even for the bad case. A typical example is where a (possibly weak) password is used instead of a secure cryptographic key to protect a session, the bad event being that the adversary correctly guesses the password. In a situation with multiple such sessions, a per-session guarantee is desired: any session for which the password has not been guessed remains secure, independently of whether other sessions have been compromised. A new formalism for stating such gracefully degrading security guarantees is introduced and applied to analyze the examples of password-based message authentication and password-based encryption. While a natural per-message guarantee is achieved for authentication, the situation of password-based encryption is more delicate: a per-session confidentiality guarantee only holds against attackers for which the distribution of password-guessing effort over the sessions is known in advance. In contrast, for more general attackers without such a restriction, a strong, composable notion of security cannot be achieved.
AU - Demay, Gregory
AU - Gazi, Peter
AU - Maurer, Ueli
AU - Tackmann, Bjorn
ID - 5887
IS - 1
JF - Journal of Computer Security
SN - 0926227X
TI - Per-session security: Password-based cryptography revisited
VL - 27
ER -
TY - CONF
AB - Proofs of space (PoS) [Dziembowski et al., CRYPTO'15] are proof systems where a prover can convince a verifier that he "wastes" disk space. PoS were introduced as a more ecological and economical replacement for proofs of work which are currently used to secure blockchains like Bitcoin. In this work we investigate extensions of PoS which allow the prover to embed useful data into the dedicated space, which later can be recovered. Our first contribution is a security proof for the original PoS from CRYPTO'15 in the random oracle model (the original proof only applied to a restricted class of adversaries which can store a subset of the data an honest prover would store). When this PoS is instantiated with recent constructions of maximally depth robust graphs, our proof implies basically optimal security. As a second contribution we show three different extensions of this PoS where useful data can be embedded into the space required by the prover. Our security proof for the PoS extends (non-trivially) to these constructions. We discuss how some of these variants can be used as proofs of catalytic space (PoCS), a notion we put forward in this work, and which basically is a PoS where most of the space required by the prover can be used to backup useful data. Finally we discuss how one of the extensions is a candidate construction for a proof of replication (PoR), a proof system recently suggested in the Filecoin whitepaper.
AU - Pietrzak, Krzysztof Z
ID - 7407
SN - 1868-8969
T2 - 10th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2019)
TI - Proofs of catalytic space
VL - 124
ER -
TY - JOUR
AB - The problem of private set-intersection (PSI) has been traditionally treated as an instance of the more general problem of multi-party computation (MPC). Consequently, in order to argue security, or compose these protocols one has to rely on the general theory that was developed for the purpose of MPC. The pursuit of efficient protocols, however, has resulted in designs that exploit properties pertaining to PSI. In almost all practical applications where a PSI protocol is deployed, it is expected to be executed multiple times, possibly on related inputs. In this work we initiate a dedicated study of PSI in the multi-interaction (MI) setting. In this model a server sets up the common system parameters and executes set-intersection multiple times with potentially different clients. We discuss a few attacks that arise when protocols are naïvely composed in this manner and, accordingly, craft security definitions for the MI setting and study their inter-relation. Finally, we suggest a set of protocols that are MI-secure, at the same time almost as efficient as their parent, stand-alone, protocols.
AU - Chatterjee, Sanjit
AU - Kamath Hosdurg, Chethan
AU - Kumar, Vikas
ID - 5980
IS - 1
JF - American Institute of Mathematical Sciences
TI - Private set-intersection with common set-up
VL - 12
ER -
TY - CONF
AB - Memory-hard functions (MHF) are functions whose evaluation cost is dominated by memory cost. MHFs are egalitarian, in the sense that evaluating them on dedicated hardware (like FPGAs or ASICs) is not much cheaper than on off-the-shelf hardware (like x86 CPUs). MHFs have interesting cryptographic applications, most notably to password hashing and securing blockchains.
Alwen and Serbinenko [STOC’15] define the cumulative memory complexity (cmc) of a function as the sum (over all time-steps) of the amount of memory required to compute the function. They advocate that a good MHF must have high cmc. Unlike previous notions, cmc takes into account that dedicated hardware might exploit amortization and parallelism. Still, cmc has been critizised as insufficient, as it fails to capture possible time-memory trade-offs; as memory cost doesn’t scale linearly, functions with the same cmc could still have very different actual hardware cost.
In this work we address this problem, and introduce the notion of sustained-memory complexity, which requires that any algorithm evaluating the function must use a large amount of memory for many steps. We construct functions (in the parallel random oracle model) whose sustained-memory complexity is almost optimal: our function can be evaluated using n steps and O(n/log(n)) memory, in each step making one query to the (fixed-input length) random oracle, while any algorithm that can make arbitrary many parallel queries to the random oracle, still needs Ω(n/log(n)) memory for Ω(n) steps.
As has been done for various notions (including cmc) before, we reduce the task of constructing an MHFs with high sustained-memory complexity to proving pebbling lower bounds on DAGs. Our main technical contribution is the construction is a family of DAGs on n nodes with constant indegree with high “sustained-space complexity”, meaning that any parallel black-pebbling strategy requires Ω(n/log(n)) pebbles for at least Ω(n) steps.
Along the way we construct a family of maximally “depth-robust” DAGs with maximum indegree O(logn) , improving upon the construction of Mahmoody et al. [ITCS’13] which had maximum indegree O(log2n⋅
AU - Alwen, Joel F
AU - Blocki, Jeremiah
AU - Pietrzak, Krzysztof Z
ID - 298
TI - Sustained space complexity
VL - 10821
ER -
TY - CONF
AB - At ITCS 2013, Mahmoody, Moran and Vadhan [MMV13] introduce and construct publicly verifiable proofs of sequential work, which is a protocol for proving that one spent sequential computational work related to some statement. The original motivation for such proofs included non-interactive time-stamping and universally verifiable CPU benchmarks. A more recent application, and our main motivation, are blockchain designs, where proofs of sequential work can be used – in combination with proofs of space – as a more ecological and economical substitute for proofs of work which are currently used to secure Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. The construction proposed by [MMV13] is based on a hash function and can be proven secure in the random oracle model, or assuming inherently sequential hash-functions, which is a new standard model assumption introduced in their work. In a proof of sequential work, a prover gets a “statement” χ, a time parameter N and access to a hash-function H, which for the security proof is modelled as a random oracle. Correctness requires that an honest prover can make a verifier accept making only N queries to H, while soundness requires that any prover who makes the verifier accept must have made (almost) N sequential queries to H. Thus a solution constitutes a proof that N time passed since χ was received. Solutions must be publicly verifiable in time at most polylogarithmic in N. The construction of [MMV13] is based on “depth-robust” graphs, and as a consequence has rather poor concrete parameters. But the major drawback is that the prover needs not just N time, but also N space to compute a proof. In this work we propose a proof of sequential work which is much simpler, more efficient and achieves much better concrete bounds. Most importantly, the space required can be as small as log (N) (but we get better soundness using slightly more memory than that). An open problem stated by [MMV13] that our construction does not solve either is achieving a “unique” proof, where even a cheating prover can only generate a single accepting proof. This property would be extremely useful for applications to blockchains.
AU - Cohen, Bram
AU - Pietrzak, Krzysztof Z
ID - 302
TI - Simple proofs of sequential work
VL - 10821
ER -