Abstract
Security proofs in the Random Oracle Model (ROM) often make use of the fact that the queries made by the adversary to the oracle are observable as well as the responses to those queries can be programmed. While, the issue of programmability of query responses has received attention in the literature, to the best of our knowledge, observability of the adversary’s queries has not been identified as an artificial artefact of the Random Oracle Model. In this work, we propose a variant of ROM, in which the challenger of the security game cannot “observe” the adversary’s queries to the random oracle, but can (possibly) continue to “program” the query responses. We show that this model is separable from ROM by proving that Fischlin’s online extractors from [Fis05]) cannot exist when they are Non Observing. At the same time, we also show that reductions/extractors that seem to rely on observability, can sometimes achieve the same effect by programming of the responses. We also show that the schemes RSA-PFDH and Schnorr signatures are still secure with Non Observing reductions.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
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
Ananth, P., Bhaskar, R.: Non observability in the random oracle model. IACR ePrint (2012)
Abdalla, M., Chevalier, C., Pointcheval, D.: Smooth projective hashing for conditionally extractable commitments. In: Halevi, S. (ed.) CRYPTO 2009. LNCS, vol. 5677, pp. 671–689. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Random Oracles are Practical: A Paradigm for Designing Efficient Protocols. In: Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 62–73 (1993)
Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Optimal Asymmetric Encryption. In: De Santis, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1994. LNCS, vol. 950, pp. 92–111. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: The exact security of digital signatures - how to sign with RSA and rabin. In: Maurer, U.M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1070, pp. 399–416. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)
Canetti, R., Goldreich, O., Halevi, S.: The Random Oracle Methodology, Revisited. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 51(4), 557–594 (2004)
De Santis, A., Persiano, G.: Zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge without interaction. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 427–436. IEEE (1992)
Fischlin, M.: Communication-efficient non-interactive proofs of knowledge with online extractors. In: Shoup, V. (ed.) CRYPTO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3621, pp. 152–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Fischlin, M., Lehmann, A., Ristenpart, T., Shrimpton, T., Stam, M., Tessaro, S.: Random oracles with(out) programmability. In: Abe, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6477, pp. 303–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Halevi, S., Krawczyk, H.: Strengthening Digital Signatures Via Randomized Hashing. In: Dwork, C. (ed.) CRYPTO 2006. LNCS, vol. 4117, pp. 41–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Liskov, M.: Constructing an Ideal Hash Function from Weak Ideal Compression Functions. In: Biham, E., Youssef, A.M. (eds.) SAC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4356, pp. 358–375. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Mironov, I.: Collision-Resistant No More: Hash-and-Sign Paradigm Revisited. In: Yung, M., Dodis, Y., Kiayias, A., Malkin, T. (eds.) PKC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3958, pp. 140–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Micali, S., Reyzin, L.: Signing with Partially Adversarial Hashing. Technical Report 575, MIT/LCS/TM (1998)
Nielsen, J.B.: Separating Random Oracle Proofs from Complexity Theoretic Proofs: The Non-committing Encryption Case. In: Yung, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2442, pp. 111–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Numayama, A., Isshiki, T., Tanaka, K.: Security of Digital Signature Schemes in Weakened Random Oracle Models. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) PKC 2008. LNCS, vol. 4939, pp. 268–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Pass, R.: On deniability in the common reference string and random oracle model. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 316–337. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Pass, R.: On deniability in the common reference string and random oracle model. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 316–337. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Pointcheval, D., Stern, J.: Security Arguments for Digital Signatures and Blind Signatures. J. Cryptology 13(3), 361–396 (2000)
Pasini, S., Vaudenay, S.: Hash-and-Sign with Weak Hashing Made Secure. In: Pieprzyk, J., Ghodosi, H., Dawson, E. (eds.) ACISP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4586, pp. 338–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Shoup, V., Gennaro, R.: Securing threshold cryptosystems against chosen ciphertext attack. In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1403, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
Unruh, D.: Random Oracles and Auxiliary Input. In: Menezes, A. (ed.) CRYPTO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4622, pp. 205–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ananth, P., Bhaskar, R. (2013). Non Observability in the Random Oracle Model. In: Susilo, W., Reyhanitabar, R. (eds) Provable Security. ProvSec 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8209. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41227-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41227-1_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-41226-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-41227-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)