Abstract
Known constructions of UC secure protocols are based on the premise that different parties collectively agree on some trusted setup. In this paper, we consider the following two intriguing questions: Is it possible to achieve UC if the parties do not want to put all their trust in one entity (or more generally, in one setup)? What if the parties have a difference of opinion about what they are willing to trust? The first question has been studied in only a limited way, while the second has never been considered before.
In this paper, we initiate a systematic study to answer the above questions. We consider a scenario with multiple setup instances where each party in the system has some individual belief (setup assumption in terms of the given setups). The belief of a party corresponds to what it is willing to trust and its security is guaranteed given that its belief “holds.” The question considered is: “Given some setups and the (possibly) different beliefs of all the parties, when can UC security be achieved?” We present a general condition on the setups and the beliefs of all the parties under which UC security is possible. Surprisingly, we show that when parties have different beliefs, UC security can be achieved with a more limited “trust” than what is necessary in the traditional setting (where all parties have a common belief).
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
Barak, B., Canetti, R., Nielsen, J., Pass, R.: Universally composable protocols with relaxed set-up assumptions. In: FOCS (2004)
Barak, B., Prabhakaran, M., Sahai, A.: Concurrent non-malleable zero knowledge. In: FOCS (2006)
Ben-Or, M., Goldwasser, S., Wigderson, A.: Completeness theorems for non-cryptographic fault-tolerant distributed computation. In: STOC (1988)
Canetti, R.: Universally composable security: A new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In: FOCS (2001)
Canetti, R., Dodis, Y., Pass, R., Walfish, S.: Universally composable security with global setup. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 61–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Canetti, R., Fischlin, M.: Universally composable commitments. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 19–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Canetti, R., Kushilevitz, E., Lindell, Y.: On the limitations of universally composable two-party computation without set-up assumptions. J. Cryptology 19 (2006)
Canetti, R., Lindell, Y., Ostrovsky, R., Sahai, A.: Universally composable two-party and multi-party secure computation. In: STOC (2002)
Canetti, R., Pass, R., Shelat, A.: Cryptography from sunspots: How to use an imperfect reference string. In: FOCS (2007)
Chandran, N., Goyal, V., Sahai, A.: New constructions for UC secure computation using tamper-proof hardware. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 545–562. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Damgård, I., Nielsen, J.B., Wichs, D.: Isolated proofs of knowledge and isolated zero knowledge. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 509–526. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Goyal, V., Katz, J.: Universally composable multi-party computation with an unreliable common reference string. In: Canetti, R. (ed.) TCC 2008. LNCS, vol. 4948, pp. 142–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Groth, J., Ostrovsky, R.: Cryptography in the multi-string model. In: Menezes, A. (ed.) CRYPTO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4622, pp. 323–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Katz, J.: Universally composable multi-party computation using tamper-proof hardware. In: Naor, M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4515, pp. 115–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Kushilevitz, E., Lindell, Y., Rabin, T.: Information-theoretically secure protocols and security under composition. In: STOC (2006)
Lin, H., Pass, R., Venkitasubramaniam, M.: A unified framework for concurrent security: universal composability from stand-alone non-malleability. In: STOC (2009)
Lindell, Y.: Bounded-concurrent secure two-party computation without setup assumptions. In: STOC (2003)
Lindell, Y.: Lower bounds for concurrent self composition. In: Naor, M. (ed.) TCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2951, pp. 203–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Moran, T., Segev, G.: David and goliath commitments: UC computation for asymmetric parties using tamper-proof hardware. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 527–544. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Pass, R.: Bounded-concurrent secure multi-party computation with a dishonest majority. In: STOC (2004)
Pass, R., Rosen, A.: Bounded-concurrent secure two-party computation in a constant number of rounds. In: FOCS (2003)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 International Association for Cryptologic Research
About this paper
Cite this paper
Garg, S., Goyal, V., Jain, A., Sahai, A. (2011). Bringing People of Different Beliefs Together to Do UC. In: Ishai, Y. (eds) Theory of Cryptography. TCC 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6597. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19571-6_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19571-6_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19570-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19571-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)