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

UC Commitments for Modular Protocol Design and Applications to Revocation and Attribute Tokens

Jan L. Camenisch, Maria Dubovitskaya, Alfredo Rial

Published Jan 1, 2016• 11 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-3-662-53015-3_8

Related papers

Multi-Protocol UC and its Use for Building Modular and Efficient Protocols.

Jan L. Camenisch, Manu Drijvers, Björn Tackmann

•Jan 1, 2019•7 citations

A Universally Composable Commitment Protocol based on KEA1 and Revocable DDH Assumptions

Yosuke Iwasaki, Seiko Arita

IEICE Technical Report; IEICE Tech. Rep.•Nov 8, 2005•0 citations

Efficient UC Commitment Extension with Homomorphism for Free (and Applications)

Ignacio Cascudo, Ivan Damgård, Bernardo David +3 more

Lecture notes in computer science•Jan 1, 2019•12 citations

David and Goliath Commitments: UC Computation for Asymmetric Parties Using Tamper-Proof Hardware.

Tal Moran, Gil Segev

Designing secure protocols in the Universal Composability (UC) framework confers many advantages. In particular, it allows the protocols to be securely used as building blocks in more complex protocols, and assists in understanding their security properties. Unfortunately, most existing models in which universally composable computation is possible (for useful functionalities) require a trusted setup stage. Recently, Katz [Eurocrypt ’07] proposed an alternative to the trusted setup assumption: tamper-proof hardware. Instead of trusting a third party to correctly generate the setup information, each party can create its own hardware tokens, which it sends to the other parties. Each party is only required to trust that its own tokens are tamper-proof. Katz designed a UC commitment protocol that requires both parties to generate hardware tokens. In addition, his protocol relies on a specific number-theoretic assumption. In this paper, we construct UC commitment protocols for “David ” and “Goliath”: we only require a single party (Goliath) to be capable of generating tokens. We construct a version of the protocol that is secure for computationally unbounded parties, and a more efficient version that makes computational assumptions only about David (we require only the existence of a one-way function). Our protocols are simple enough to be performed by hand on David’s side. These properties may allow such protocols to be used in situations which are inherently asymmetric in real-life, especially those involving individuals versus large organizations. Classic examples include voting protocols (voters versus “the government”) and protocols involving private medical data (patients versus insurance-agencies or hospitals).

•Jan 1, 2008•1 citation

Modular Security Proofs for Key Agreement Protocols

Caroline Kudla, Kenneth G. Paterson

Lecture notes in computer science•Jan 1, 2005•128 citations

Everlasting UC Commitments from Fully Malicious PUFs

Bernardo Magri, Giulio Malavolta, Dominique Schröder +1 more

Abstract Everlasting security models the setting where hardness assumptions hold during the execution of a protocol but may get broken in the future. Due to the strength of this adversarial model, achieving any meaningful security guarantees for composable protocols is impossible without relying on hardware assumptions (Müller-Quade and Unruh, JoC’10). For this reason, a rich line of research has tried to leverage physical assumptions to construct well-known everlasting cryptographic primitives, such as commitment schemes. The only known everlastingly UC secure commitment scheme, due to Müller-Quade and Unruh (JoC’10), assumes honestly generated hardware tokens. The authors leave the possibility of constructing everlastingly UC secure commitments from malicious hardware tokens as an open problem. Goyal et al. (Crypto’10) constructs unconditionally UC-secure commitments and secure computation from malicious hardware tokens, with the caveat that the honest tokens must encapsulate other tokens. This extra restriction rules out interesting classes of hardware tokens, such as physically uncloneable functions (PUFs). In this work, we present the first construction of an everlastingly UC-secure commitment scheme in the fully malicious token modelwithout requiringhonest token encapsulation. Our scheme assumes the existence of PUFs and is secure in the common reference string model. We also show that our results are tight by giving an impossibility proof for everlasting UC-securecomputationfrom non-erasable tokens (such as PUFs), even with trusted setup.

Journal of Cryptology•Jul 1, 2022•5 citations
Designing secure protocols in the Universal Composability (UC) framework confers many advantages. In particular, it allows the protocols to be securely used as building blocks in more complex protocols, and assists in understanding their security properties. Unfortunately, most existing models in which universally composable computation is possible (for useful functionalities) require a trusted setup stage. Recently, Katz [Eurocrypt ’07] proposed an alternative to the trusted setup assumption: tamper-proof hardware. Instead of trusting a third party to correctly generate the setup information, each party can create its own hardware tokens, which it sends to the other parties. Each party is only required to trust that its own tokens are tamper-proof. Katz designed a UC commitment protocol that requires both parties to generate hardware tokens. In addition, his protocol relies on a specific number-theoretic assumption. In this paper, we construct UC commitment protocols for “David ” and “Goliath”: we only require a single party (Goliath) to be capable of generating tokens. We construct a version of the protocol that is secure for computationally unbounded parties, and a more efficient version that makes computational assumptions only about David (we require only the existence of a one-way function). Our protocols are simple enough to be performed by hand on David’s side. These properties may allow such protocols to be used in situations which are inherently asymmetric in real-life, especially those involving individuals versus large organizations. Classic examples include voting protocols (voters versus “the government”) and protocols involving private medical data (patients versus insurance-agencies or hospitals).
Abstract Everlasting security models the setting where hardness assumptions hold during the execution of a protocol but may get broken in the future. Due to the strength of this adversarial model, achieving any meaningful security guarantees for composable protocols is impossible without relying on hardware assumptions (Müller-Quade and Unruh, JoC’10). For this reason, a rich line of research has tried to leverage physical assumptions to construct well-known everlasting cryptographic primitives, such as commitment schemes. The only known everlastingly UC secure commitment scheme, due to Müller-Quade and Unruh (JoC’10), assumes honestly generated hardware tokens. The authors leave the possibility of constructing everlastingly UC secure commitments from malicious hardware tokens as an open problem. Goyal et al. (Crypto’10) constructs unconditionally UC-secure commitments and secure computation from malicious hardware tokens, with the caveat that the honest tokens must encapsulate other tokens. This extra restriction rules out interesting classes of hardware tokens, such as physically uncloneable functions (PUFs). In this work, we present the first construction of an everlastingly UC-secure commitment scheme in the fully malicious token modelwithout requiringhonest token encapsulation. Our scheme assumes the existence of PUFs and is secure in the common reference string model. We also show that our results are tight by giving an impossibility proof for everlasting UC-securecomputationfrom non-erasable tokens (such as PUFs), even with trusted setup.