Rational cryptography has recently emerged as a very promising field of research by combining notions and techniques from cryptography and game theory, because it offers an alternative to the rather inexible traditional cryptographic model. In contrast to the classical view of cryptography where protocol participants are considered either honest or arbitrarily malicious, rational cryptography models participants as rational players that try to maximize their benefit and thus deviate from the protocol only if they gain an advantage by doing so. The main research goals for rational cryptography are the design of more ecient protocols when players adhere to a rational model, the design and implementation of automated proofs for rational security notions and the study of the intrinsic connections between game theoretic and cryptographic notions. In this thesis, we address all these issues. First we present the mathematical model and the design for a new rational file sharing protocol which we call RatFish. Next, we develop a general method for automated verification for rational cryptographic protocols and we show how to apply our technique in order to automatically derive the rational security property for RatFish. Finally, we study the intrinsic connections between game theory and cryptography by defining a new game theoretic notion, which we call game universal implementation, and by showing its equivalence with the notion of weak stand-alone security.
Rational cryptography has recently emerged as a very promising field of research by combining notions and techniques from cryptography and game theory, because it offers an alternative to the rather inexible traditional cryptographic model. In contrast to the classical view of cryptography where protocol participants are considered either honest or arbitrarily malicious, rational cryptography models participants as rational players that try to maximize their benefit and thus deviate from the protocol only if they gain an advantage by doing so. The main research goals for rational cryptography are the design of more ecient protocols when players adhere to a rational model, the design and implementation of automated proofs for rational security notions and the study of the intrinsic connections between game theoretic and cryptographic notions. In this thesis, we address all these issues. First we present the mathematical model and the design for a new rational file sharing protocol which we call RatFish. Next, we develop a general method for automated verification for rational cryptographic protocols and we show how to apply our technique in order to automatically derive the rational security property for RatFish. Finally, we study the intrinsic connections between game theory and cryptography by defining a new game theoretic notion, which we call game universal implementation, and by showing its equivalence with the notion of weak stand-alone security.
The field of rational cryptography considers the design of cryptographic protocols in the presence of rational agents seeking to maximize local utility functions. This departs from the standard secure multiparty computation setting, where players are assumed to be either honest or malicious. We detail the construction of both a two-party and a multiparty game theoretic framework for constructing rational cryptographic protocols. Our framework specifies the utility function assumptions necessary to realize the privacy, correctness, and fairness guarantees for protocols. We demonstrate that our framework correctly models cryptographic protocols, such as rational secret sharing, where existing work considers equilibrium concepts that yield unreasonable equilibria. Similarly, we demonstrate that cryptography may be applied to the game theoretic domain, constructing an auction market not realizable in the original formulation. Additionally, we demonstrate that modeling players as rational agents allows us to design a protocol that destabilizes coalitions. Thus, we establish a mutual benefit from combining the two fields, while demonstrating the applicability of our framework to real-world market environments. We also give an application of game theory to adversarial interactions where cryptography is not necessary. Specifically, we consider adversarial machine learning, where the adversary is rational and reacts to the presence of a data miner. We give a general extension to classification algorithms that returns greater expected utility for the data miner than existing classification methods.
Existing work on "rational cryptographic protocols" treats each party (or coalition of parties) running the protocol as a selfish agent trying to maximize its utility. In this work we propose a fundamentally different approach that is better suited to modeling a protocol under attack from an external entity. Specifically, we consider a two-party game between an protocol designer and an external attacker. The goal of the attacker is to break security properties such as correctness or privacy, possibly by corrupting protocol participants; the goal of the protocol designer is to prevent the attacker from succeeding. We lay the theoretical groundwork for a study of cryptographic protocol design in this setting by providing a methodology for defining the problem within the traditional simulation paradigm. Our framework provides ways of reasoning about important cryptographic concepts (e.g., adaptive corruptions or attacks on communication resources) not handled by previous game-theoretic treatments of cryptography. We also prove composition theorems that-for the first time-provide a sound way to design rational protocols assuming "ideal communication resources" (such as broadcast or authenticated channels) and then instantiate these resources using standard cryptographic tools. Finally, we investigate the problem of secure function evaluation in our framework, where the attacker has to pay for each party it corrupts. Our results demonstrate how knowledge of the attacker's incentives can be used to circumvent known impossibility results in this setting.
Existing work on “rational cryptographic protocols ” treats each party (or coalition of parties) running the protocol as a selfish agent trying to maximize its utility. In this work we propose a fundamentally different approach that is better suited to modeling a protocol under attack from an external entity. Specifically, we consider a two-party game between an protocol designer and an external attacker. The goal of the attacker is to break security properties such as correctness or privacy, possibly by corrupting protocol participants; the goal of the protocol designer is to prevent the attacker from succeeding. We lay the theoretical groundwork for a study of cryptographic protocol design in this setting by providing a methodology for defining the problem within the traditional simulation paradigm. Our framework provides ways of reasoning about important cryptographic concepts (e.g., adaptive corruptions or attacks on communication resources) not handled by previous game-theoretic treatments of cryptography. We also prove composition theorems that—for the first time—provide a sound way to design rational protocols assuming “ideal communication resources ” (e.g., broadcast or authenticated channels) and then instantiate these resources using standard cryptographic tools. Finally, we investigate the problem of secure function evaluation in our framework, where the attacker has to pay for each party it corrupts. Our results demonstrate how knowledge of the attacker’s incentives can be used to circumvent known impossibility results in this setting. 1
This thesis is concerned with two security mechanisms: authenticated key transport and rational exchange protocols. These mechanisms are potential building blocks in the security architecture of a range of different services. Authenticated key transport protocols are used to build secure channels between entities, which protect their communications against eaves-dropping and alteration by an outside attacker. In contrast, rational exchange protocols can be used to protect the entities involved in an exchange transaction from each other. This is important, because often the entities do not trust each other, and both fear that the other will gain an advantage by misbehaving. Rational exchange protocols alleviate this problem by ensuring that a misbehaving party cannot gain any advantages. This means that misbehavior becomes uninteresting and it should happen only rarely. The thesis is focused on the construction of formal models for authenticated key transport and rational exchange protocols. In the first part of the thesis, we propose a formal model for key transport protocols, which is based on a logic of belief. Building on this model, we also propose an original systematic protocol construction approach. The main idea is that we reverse some implications that can be derived from the axioms of the logic, and turn them into synthesis rules. The synthesis rules can be used to construct a protocol and to derive a set of assumptions starting from a set of goals. The main advantage is that the resulting protocol is guaranteed to be correct in the sense that all the specified goals can be derived from the protocol and the assumptions using the underlying logic. Another important advantage is that all the assumptions upon which the correctness of the protocol depends are made explicit. The protocol obtained in the synthesis process is an abstract protocol, in which idealized messages that contain logical formulae are sent on channels with various access properties. The abstract protocol can then be implemented in several ways by replacing the idealized messages and the channels with appropriate bit strings and cryptographic primitives, respectively. We illustrate the usage of the logic and the synthesis rules through an example: We analyze an authenticated key transport protocol proposed in the literature, identify several weaknesses, show how these can be exploited by various attacks, and finally, we redesign the protocol using the proposed systematic approach. We obtain a protocol that resists against the presented attacks, and in addition, it is simpler than the original one. In the second part of the thesis, we propose an original formal model for exchange protocols, which is based on game theory. In this model, an exchange protocol is represented as a set of strategies in a game played by the protocol parties and the network that they use to communicate with each other. We give formal definitions for various properties of exchange protocols in this model, including rationality and fairness. Most importantly, rationality is defined in terms of a Nash equilibrium in the protocol game. The model and the formal definitions allow us to rigorously study the relationship between rational exchange and fair exchange, and to prove that fairness implies rationality (given that the protocol satisfies some further usual properties), but the reverse is not true in general. We illustrate how the formal model can be used for rigorous verification of existing protocols by analyzing two exchange protocols, and formally proving that they satisfy the definition of rational exchange. We also present an original application of rational exchange: We show how the concept of rationality can be used to improve a family of micropayment schemes with respect to fairness without substantial loss in efficiency. Finally, in the third part of the thesis, we extend the concept of rational exchange, and describe how similar ideas can be used to stimulate the nodes of a self-organizing ad hoc network for cooperation. More precisely, we propose an original approach to stimulate the nodes for packet forwarding. Like in rational exchange protocols, our design does not guarantee that a node cannot deny packet forwarding, but it ensures that it cannot gain any advantages by doing so. We analyze the proposed solution analytically and by means of simulation.
In this work, we investigate the security of interactive computations. The main emphasis is on the mathematical methodology that is needed to formalise and analyse various security properties. Differently from many classical treatments of secure multi-party computations, we always quantify security in exact terms. Although working with concrete time bounds and success probabilities is technically more demanding, it also has several advantages. As all security guarantees are quantitative, we can always compare different protocol designs. Moreover, these security guarantees also have a clear economical interpretation and it is possible to compare cryptographic and non-cryptographic solutions. The latter is extremely important in practice, since cryptographic techniques are just one possibility to achieve practical security. Also, working with exact bounds makes reasoning errors more apparent, as security proofs are less abstract and it is easier to locate false claims. The choice of topics covered in this thesis was guided by two principles. Firstly, we wanted to give a coherent overview of the secure multi-party computation that is based on exact quantification of security guarantees. Secondly, we focused on topics that emerged from the author's own research. In that sense, the thesis generalises many methodological discoveries made by the author. As surprising as it may seem, security definitions and proofs mostly utilise principles of hypothesis testing and analysis of stochastic algorithms. Thus, we start our treatment with hypothesis testing and its generalisations. In particular, we show how to quantify various security properties, using security games as tools. Next, we review basic proof techniques and explain how to structure complex proofs so they become easily verifiable. In a nutshell, we describe how to represent a proof as a game tree, where each edge corresponds to an elementary proof step. As a result, one can first verify the overall structure of a proof by looking at the syntactic changes in the game tree and only then verify all individual proof steps corresponding to the edges. The remaining part of the thesis is dedicated to various aspects of protocol design. Firstly, we discuss how to formalise various security goals, such as input-privacy, output-consistency and complete security, and how to choose a security goal that is appropriate for a specific setting. Secondly, we also explore alternatives to exact security. More precisely, we analyse connections between exact and asymptotic security models and rigorously formalise a notion of subjective security. Thirdly, we study in which conditions protocols preserve their security guarantees and how to safely combine several protocols. Although composability results are common knowledge, we look at them from a slightly different angle. Namely, it is irrational to design universally composable protocols at any cost; instead, we should design computationally efficient protocols with minimal usage restrictions. Thus, we propose a three-stage design procedure that leads to modular security proofs and minimises usage restrictions.
Abstract. Rational secret sharing was proposed by Halpern and Teague in [12]. The authors show that, in a setting with rational players, secret sharing and multiparty computation are only possible if the actual secret reconstruction round remains unknown to the players. All the subsequent works use a similar approach with different assumptions. We change the direction by bridging cryptography, game theory, and reputation systems, and propose a “social model ” for repeated rational secret sharing. We provide a novel scheme, named socio-rational secret sharing, in which players are invited to each game based on their reputations in the community. The players run secret sharing protocols while founding and sustaining a public trust network. As a result, new concepts such as a rational foresighted player, social game, and social Nash equilibrium are introduced. To motivate our approach, consider a repeated secret sharing game such as “secure auctions”, where the auctioneers receive sealed-bids from the bidders to compute the auction outcome without revealing the losing bids. If we assume each party has a reputation value, we can then penalize (or reward) the players who are selfish (or unselfish) from game to game. We show that this social reinforcement rationally stimulates the players to be cooperative.