Secure protocols attempt to minimize the injuries to privacy and correctness inflicted by malicious participants who collude during run-time. They do not, however, prevent malicious parties from colluding and coordinating their actions in the first place!Eliminating such collusion of malicious parties during the execution of a protocol is an important and exciting direction for research in Cryptography. We contribute the first general result in this direction: (1) We provide a rigorous definition of what a collusion-free protocol is; and (2) We prove that, under standard physical and computational assumptions ---i.e., plain envelopes and trapdoor permutations---collusion-free protocols exist for all finite protocol tasks with publicly observable actions. (Note that such tasks are allowed to have secret global state, and thus include Poker, Bridge, and other such games.Our solution is tight in the sense that, for a collusion-free protocol to exist, each of (a) the finiteness of the game of interest, (b) the public observability of its actions, and (c) the use of some type of physically private channel is provably essential.
Secure protocols attempt to minimize the injuries to privacy and correctness inflicted by malicious participants who collude during run-time. They do not, however, prevent malicious parties from colluding and coordinating their actions in the first place!Eliminating such collusion of malicious parties during the execution of a protocol is an important and exciting direction for research in Cryptography. We contribute the first general result in this direction: (1) We provide a rigorous definition of what a collusion-free protocol is; and (2) We prove that, under standard physical and computational assumptions ---i.e., plain envelopes and trapdoor permutations---collusion-free protocols exist for all finite protocol tasks with publicly observable actions. (Note that such tasks are allowed to have secret global state, and thus include Poker, Bridge, and other such games.Our solution is tight in the sense that, for a collusion-free protocol to exist, each of (a) the finiteness of the game of interest, (b) the public observability of its actions, and (c) the use of some type of physically private channel is provably essential.
Steganography, the hiding of covert messages inside innocuous communication, is an active area of cryptographic research. Recent research has shown that provably undetectable steganography is possible in a wide variety of settings. We believe that the existence of such undetectable steganography will have far reaching implications. In this thesis, we investigate the impact of steganography on the design of cryptographic protocols. In particular, we show that all existing cryptographic protocols allow malicious players to collude and coordinate their actions by steganographicly hiding covert messages inside legitimate protocol traffic. Such collusion is devastating in many settings, and thus we argue that its elimination is an important direction for cryptographic research.
Defeating such steganographic collusion requires not only new cryptographic protocols, but also a new notion of protocol security. Traditional notions of protocol security attempt to minimize the injuries to privacy and correctness inflicted by malicious participants who collude during run-tune. They do not, however, prevent malicious parties from colluding and coordinating their actions in the first place! We therefore put forward the notion of a collusion-free protocol which guarantees that no set of players can use the protocol to maliciously coordinate their actions. As should be expected, such a strong notion of security is very difficult to achieve. We show that achieving collusion-free security is impossible in a model with only broadcast communication and that even with physically private communication (e.g. physical envelopes) there are still many ideal functionalities that have no collusion-free protocols.
Fortunately, under natural assumptions collusion-free protocols exist for an interesting class of ideal functionalities. Assuming the existence of trapdoor permutations, we construct collusion-free protocols, in a model with both broadcast messages and physical envelopes, for every finite ideal functionality in which all actions are public.
Current secure multiparty protocols have the following deficiency. The public transcript of the communication can be used as an involuntary commitment of the parties to their inputs and outputs. Thus parties can be later coerced by some authority to reveal their private data. Previous work that has pointed this interesting problem out contained only partial treatment. In this work we present the first general treatment of the coercion problem in secure computation. First we present a general definition of protocols that provide resilience to coercion. Our definition constitutes a natural extension of the general paradigm used for defining secure multiparty protocols. Next we show that if trapdoor permutations exist then any function can be incoercibly computed (i.e., computed by a protocol that provides resilience to coercion) in the presence of computationally bounded adversaries and only public communication channels. This holds as long as less than half the parties are coerced (or corrupted). In particular, ours are the first incoercible protocols without physical security assumptions. Also, our protocols constitute an alternative solution to the recently solved adaptive security problem. Our techniques are quite surprising and include non-standard use of deniable encryptions.
Current secure multiparty protocols have the following deficiency. The public transcript of the communication can be used as an involuntary commitment of the parties to their inputs and outputs. Thus parties can be later coerced by some authority to reveal their private data. Previous work that has pointed this interesting problem out contained only partial treatment. The authors present the first general treatment of the coercion problem in secure computation. They first present a general definition of protocols that provide resilience to coercion. Their definition constitutes a natural extension of the general paradigm used for defining secure multiparty protocols. They next show that if trapdoor permutations exist then any function can be incoercibly computed (i.e., computed by a protocol that provides resilience to coercion) in the presence of computationally bounded adversaries and only public communication channels. This holds as long as less than half the parties are coerced (or corrupted). In particular, theirs are the first incoercible protocols without physical security assumptions. Also, the protocols constitute an alternative solution to the recently solved adaptive security problem. Their techniques are quite surprising and include non-standard use of deniable encryptions.
Current secure multiparty protocols have the following deficiency. The public transcript of the communication can be used as an involuntary commitment of the parties to their inputs and outputs. Thus parties can be later coerced by some authority to reveal their private data. Previous work that has pointed this interesting problem out contained only partial treatment. In this work we present the first general treatment of the coercion problem in secure computation. First we present a general definition of protocols that provide resilience to coercion. Our definition constitutes a natural extension of the general paradigm used for defining secure multiparty protocols. Next we show that if trapdoor permutations exist then any function can be incoercibly computed (i.e., computed by a protocol that provides resilience to coercion) in the presence of computationally bounded adversaries and only public communication channels. This ...
Collusion-free (CF) and collusion-preserving (CP) protocols enrich the standard security offered by multi-party computation (MPC), to tackle settings where subliminal communication is undesirable. However, all existing solutions make arguably unrealistic assumptions on setups, such as physical presence of the parties, access to physical envelopes, or extreme isolation, where the only means of communication is a star-topology network. The above state of affairs remained a limitation of such protocols, which was even reinforced by impossibility results. Thus, for years, it has been unclear if and how the above setup assumptions could be relaxed towards more realistic scenarios. Motivated also by the increasing interest in using hardware tokens for cryptographic applications, in this work we provide the first solution to collusion preserving computation which uses weaker and more common assumptions than the state of the art, i.e., an authenticated broadcast functionality and access to honestly generated trusted hardware tokens. We prove that our protocol is collusion-preserving (in short, CP) secure as long as no parties abort. In the case of an aborting adversary, our protocol still achieves standard (G)UC security with identifiable (and unanimous) abort. Leveraging the above identifiability property, we augment our protocol with a penalization scheme which ensures that it is not profitable to abort, thereby obtaining CP security against incentive-driven attackers. To define (and prove) this latter result, we combine the Rational Protocol Design (RPD) methodology by Garay et al. [FOCS 2013] with the CP framework of Alwen et al. [CRYPTO 2012] to derive a definition of security in the presence of incentive-driven local adversaries which can be of independent interest. Similar to existing CP/CF solutions, our protocol preserves, as a fallback, security against monolithic adversaries, even when the setup (i.e., the hardware tokens) is compromised or corrupted. In addition, our fallback solution achieves identifiable and unanimous abort, which we prove are impossible in previous CP solutions.
We show that any function f can be securely evaluated by a protocol with ballots and a ballot box. That is, n mutually suspicious players, each player i possessing a secret input xi, can use ballots and ballot boxes to jointly evaluate f(x1,..., xn) = (y1,..., yn), so that (no matter how many players may collude and deviate from their prescribed instructions, and no matter how long they compute!) each player i learns exactly yi with the same privacy and correctness as if all players privately handed their secret inputs to a trusted party, who privately evaluates f and privately returns yi to each player i. Our protocol is (1) efficient, (2) enjoys perfect privacy, (3) guarantees perfect correctness, (4) is universally composable in the sense of [DoMi00] and [Can01], and (5) is always collusion-free in the sense of [LMS05], even for games with secret actions. 1 Main Theorem For any function f, mapping n private inputs to a single public output, there exists an n party protocol for a ballot-box network with public opening that securely evaluates f. We now procedure to define (1) a ballot-box network, (2) a ballot-box network with public opening and (3) the notion of securely evaluating a function. In a subsequent version of this work, we will provide a proof of our main theorem, generalize our results to functions with n inputs and n outputs and explore applications to economic mechanisms.