Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Lecture notes in computer science

Implementing Oblivious Transfer Using Collection of Dense Trapdoor Permutations

Iftach Haitner

Published Jan 1, 2004• 49 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-3-540-24638-1_22

Related papers

Oblivious Transfer from Trapdoor Permutations in Minimal Rounds

Arka Rai Choudhuri, Michele Ciampi, Vipul Goyal +2 more

Lecture notes in computer science•Jan 1, 2021•10 citations

Weak Oblivious Transfer from Strong One-Way Permutations

圭介 田中, Keisuke Tanaka, 章央 山田 +3 more

•Jan 1, 2010•0 citations

Reducing Complexity Assumptions for Oblivious Transfer.

Kai-Yuen Cheong, Takeshi Koshiba

Reducing the minimum assumptions needed to construct various cryptographic primitives is an important andinteresting task in theoretical cryptography. Oblivious Transfer, one of the most basic cryptographic building blocks, is also studied under this scenario. Reducing the minimum assumptions for Oblivious Transfer seems not an easy task, as there are a few impossibility results under black-box reductions. Until recently, it is widely believed that Oblivious Transfer can be constructed with trapdoor permutations but not trapdoor functions in general. In this paper, we enhance previous results and show one Oblivious Transfer protocol based on a collection of trapdoor functions with some extra properties. We also provide reasons for adding the extra properties and argue that the assumptions in the protocol are nearly minimum.

•Jan 1, 2008•0 citations

The relationship between public key encryption and oblivious transfer

Yael Gertner, S. Kannan, Tal Malkin +2 more

In this paper we study the relationships among some of the most fundamental primitives and protocols in cryptography: public-key encryption (i.e. trapdoor predicates), oblivious transfer (which is equivalent to general secure multi-party computation), key agreement and trapdoor permutations. Our main results show that public-key encryption and oblivious transfer are incomparable under black-box reductions. These separations are tightly matched by our positive results where a restricted (strong) version of one primitive does imply the other primitive. We also show separations between oblivious transfer and key agreement. Finally, we conclude that neither oblivious transfer nor trapdoor predicates imply trapdoor permutations. Our techniques for showing negative results follow the oracle separations of R. Impagliazzo and S. Rudich (1989).

Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science•Nov 7, 2002•208 citations

Computationally Secure Oblivious Transfer

Moni Naor, Benny Pinkas B

Journal of Cryptology•Oct 21, 2004•181 citations

Computational Oblivious Transfer and Interactive Hashing

Kirill Morozov, George Savvides

We use interactive hashing to achieve the most efficient OT protocol to date based solely on the assumption that trapdoor permutations (TDP) exist. Our protocol can be seen as the following (simple) modification of either of the two famous OT constructions: 1) In the one by Even et al (1985), a receiver must send a random domain element to a sender through IH; 2) In the one by Ostrovsky et al (1993), the players should use TDP instead of one-way permutation. A similar approach is employed to achieve oblivious transfer based on the security of the McEliece cryptosystem. In this second protocol, the receiver inputs a public key into IH, while privately keeping the corresponding secret key. Two different versions of IH are used: the computationally secure one in the first protocol, and the information-theoretically secure one in the second.

•Jan 1, 2009•1 citation
Reducing the minimum assumptions needed to construct various cryptographic primitives is an important andinteresting task in theoretical cryptography. Oblivious Transfer, one of the most basic cryptographic building blocks, is also studied under this scenario. Reducing the minimum assumptions for Oblivious Transfer seems not an easy task, as there are a few impossibility results under black-box reductions. Until recently, it is widely believed that Oblivious Transfer can be constructed with trapdoor permutations but not trapdoor functions in general. In this paper, we enhance previous results and show one Oblivious Transfer protocol based on a collection of trapdoor functions with some extra properties. We also provide reasons for adding the extra properties and argue that the assumptions in the protocol are nearly minimum.
In this paper we study the relationships among some of the most fundamental primitives and protocols in cryptography: public-key encryption (i.e. trapdoor predicates), oblivious transfer (which is equivalent to general secure multi-party computation), key agreement and trapdoor permutations. Our main results show that public-key encryption and oblivious transfer are incomparable under black-box reductions. These separations are tightly matched by our positive results where a restricted (strong) version of one primitive does imply the other primitive. We also show separations between oblivious transfer and key agreement. Finally, we conclude that neither oblivious transfer nor trapdoor predicates imply trapdoor permutations. Our techniques for showing negative results follow the oracle separations of R. Impagliazzo and S. Rudich (1989).
We use interactive hashing to achieve the most efficient OT protocol to date based solely on the assumption that trapdoor permutations (TDP) exist. Our protocol can be seen as the following (simple) modification of either of the two famous OT constructions: 1) In the one by Even et al (1985), a receiver must send a random domain element to a sender through IH; 2) In the one by Ostrovsky et al (1993), the players should use TDP instead of one-way permutation. A similar approach is employed to achieve oblivious transfer based on the security of the McEliece cryptosystem. In this second protocol, the receiver inputs a public key into IH, while privately keeping the corresponding secret key. Two different versions of IH are used: the computationally secure one in the first protocol, and the information-theoretically secure one in the second.