We address the problem of efficiently verifying a commitment in a two-party computation. This addresses the scenario where a party P1 commits to a value x to be used in a subsequent secure computation with another party P2 that wants to receive assurance that P1 did not cheat, i.e. that x was indeed the value inputted into the secure computation. Our constructions operate in the publicly verifiable covert (PVC) security model, which is a relaxation of the malicious model of MPC, appropriate in settings where P1 faces a reputational harm if caught cheating.
We address the problem of efficiently verifying a commitment in a two-party computation. This addresses the scenario where a party P1 commits to a value x to be used in a subsequent secure computation with another party P2 that wants to receive assurance that P1 did not cheat, i.e. that x was indeed the value inputted into the secure computation. Our constructions operate in the publicly verifiable covert (PVC) security model, which is a relaxation of the malicious model of MPC, appropriate in settings where P1 faces a reputational harm if caught cheating.
Multiparty computation protocols (MPC) are said to be secure against covert adversaries if the honest parties are guaranteed to detect any misbehavior by the malicious parties with a constant probability. Protocols that, upon detecting a cheating attempt, additionally allow the honest parties to compute certificates, which enable third parties to be convinced of the malicious behavior of the accused parties, are called publicly verifiable. In this work, we make several contributions to the domain of MPC with security against covert adversaries. We identify a subtle flaw in a protocol of Goyal, Mohassel, and Smith (Eurocrypt 2008), meaning that their protocol does not allow to identify a cheating party, and show how to fix their original construction to obtain security against covert adversaries. We present generic compilers that transform arbitrary passively secure preprocessing protocols, i.e. protocols where the parties have no private inputs, into protocols that are secure against covert adversaries and publicly verifiable. Using our compiler, we construct the first efficient variants of the BMR and the SPDZ protocols that are secure and publicly verifiable against a covert adversary that corrupts all but one party, and also construct variants with covert security and identifiable abort. We observe that an existing impossibility result by Ishai, Ostrovsky, and Seyalioglu (TCC 2012) can be used to show that there exist certain functionalities that cannot be realized by parties, that have oracle-access to broadcast and arbitrary two-party functionalities, with information-theoretic security against a covert adversary.
We introduce the notion of covert security with public verifiability, building on the covert security model introduced by Aumann and Lindell (TCC 2007). Protocols that satisfy covert security guarantee that the honest parties involved in the protocol will notice any cheating attempt with some constant probability ɛ. The idea behind the model is that the fear of being caught cheating will be enough of a deterrent to prevent any cheating attempt. However, in the basic covert security model, the honest parties are not able to persuade any third party (say, a judge) that a cheating occurred. We propose (and formally define) an extension of the model where, when an honest party detects cheating, it also receives a certificate that can be published and used to persuade other parties, without revealing any information about the honest party’s input. In addition, malicious parties cannot create fake certificates in the attempt of framing innocents. Finally, we construct a secure two-party computation protocol for any functionality f that satisfies our definition, and our protocol is almost as efficient as the one of Aumann and Lindell. We believe that the fear of a public humiliation or even legal consequences vastly exceeds the
The covert security model (Aumann and Lindell, TCC 2007) offers an important security/-efficiency trade-off: a covert player may arbitrarily cheat, but is caught with a certain fixed probability. This permits more efficient protocols than the malicious setting while still giving meaningful security guarantees. However, one drawback is that cheating cannot be proven to a third party, which prevents the use of covert protocols in many practical settings. Recently, Asharov and Orlandi (ASIACRYPT 2012) enhanced the covert model by allowing the honest player to generate a proof of cheating, checkable by any third party. Their model, which we call the PVC (publicly verifiable covert) model, offers a very compelling trade-off. Asharov and Orlandi (AO) propose a practical protocol in the PVC model, which, however, relies on a specific expensive oblivious transfer (OT) protocol incompatible with OT extension. In this work, we improve the performance of the PVC model by constructing a PVC-compatible OT extension as well as making several practical improvements to the AO protocol. As com-pared to the state-of-the-art OT extension-based two-party covert protocol, our PVC protocol adds relatively little: four signatures and an ≈ 67 % wider OT extension matrix. This is a significant improvement over the AO protocol, which requires public-key-based OTs per input bit. We present detailed estimates showing (up to orders of magnitude) concrete performance improvements over the AO protocol and a recent malicious protocol.
In the last few years the efficiency of secure multi-party computation (MPC) increased in several orders of magnitudes. However, this alone might not be enough if we want MPC protocols to be used in practice. A crucial property that is needed in many applications is that everyone can check that a given (secure) computation was performed correctly – even in the extreme case where all the parties involved in the computation are corrupted, and even if the party who wants to verify the result was not participating. This is especially relevant in the clients-servers setting, where many clients provide input to a secure computation performed by a few servers. An obvious example of this is electronic voting, but also in many types of auctions one may want independent verification of the result. Traditionally, this is achieved by using non-interactive zero-knowledge proofs during the computation.A recent trend in MPC protocols is to have a more expensive preprocessing phase followed by a very efficient online phase, e.g., the recent so-called SPDZ protocol by Damgård et al. Applications such as voting and some auctions are perfect use-case for these protocols, as the parties usually know well in advance when the computation will take place, and using those protocols allows us to use only cheap information-theoretic primitives in the actual computation. Unfortunately no protocol of the SPDZ type supports an audit phase.In this paper, we show how to achieve efficient MPC with a public audit. We formalize the concept of publicly auditable secure computation and provide an enhanced version of the SPDZ protocol where, even if all the servers are corrupted, anyone with access to the transcript of the protocol can check that the output is indeed correct. Most importantly, we do so without significantly compromising the performance of SPDZ i.e. our online phase has complexity approximately twice that of SPDZ.
The aim of this paper is to present some of the recent progress in efficient secure multiparty computation (MPC). In MPC we have a set of parties owning a set of private inputs. The par ties want to compute a function of their inputs, but they do not trust each other, therefore they need a cryptographic protocol to perform the computation in a way that 1) the output is correct and 2) cheating parties will not be able to learn any information about the honest parties inputs. Even though this problem has been formulated and essentially solved almost 30 years ago, practical solutions that can be relevant for real-world applications have been discovered only in the last few years. We will present some of these advances, trying to explain to a non-specialized audience the significance of the several existing security notions.