In the setting of secure multiparty computation, a set of parties wish to compute a joint function of their private inputs. The computation should preserve security properties such as privacy, correctness, independence of inputs, fairness and guaranteed output delivery. In the case of no honest majority, fairness and guaranteed output delivery cannot always be obtained. Thus, protocols for secure multiparty computation are typically of two disparate types: protocols that assume an honest majority (and achieve all properties including fairness and guaranteed output delivery), and protocols that do not assume an honest majority (and achieve all properties except for fairness and guaranteed output delivery). In addition, in the two-party case, fairness and guaranteed output delivery are equivalent. As a result, the properties of fairness (which means that if corrupted parties receive output then so do the honest parties) and guaranteed output delivery (which means that corrupted parties cannot prevent the honest parties from receiving output in any case) have typically been considered to be the same. In this paper, we initiate a study of the relation between fairness and guaranteed output delivery in secure multiparty computation. We show that in the multiparty setting these proper-ties are distinct and proceed to study under what conditions fairness implies guaranteed output delivery (the opposite direction always holds). We also show the existence of non-trivial func-tions for which complete fairness is achievable (without an honest majority) but guaranteed output delivery is not, and the existence of non-trivial functions for which complete fairness and guaranteed output delivery are achievable. Our study sheds light on the role of broadcast in fairness and guaranteed output delivery, and shows that these properties should sometimes be considered separately.
In the setting of secure multiparty computation, a set of parties wish to compute a joint function of their private inputs. The computation should preserve security properties such as privacy, correctness, independence of inputs, fairness and guaranteed output delivery. In the case of no honest majority, fairness and guaranteed output delivery cannot always be obtained. Thus, protocols for secure multiparty computation are typically of two disparate types: protocols that assume an honest majority (and achieve all properties including fairness and guaranteed output delivery), and protocols that do not assume an honest majority (and achieve all properties except for fairness and guaranteed output delivery). In addition, in the two-party case, fairness and guaranteed output delivery are equivalent. As a result, the properties of fairness (which means that if corrupted parties receive output then so do the honest parties) and guaranteed output delivery (which means that corrupted parties cannot prevent the honest parties from receiving output in any case) have typically been considered to be the same. In this paper, we initiate a study of the relation between fairness and guaranteed output delivery in secure multiparty computation. We show that in the multiparty setting these proper-ties are distinct and proceed to study under what conditions fairness implies guaranteed output delivery (the opposite direction always holds). We also show the existence of non-trivial func-tions for which complete fairness is achievable (without an honest majority) but guaranteed output delivery is not, and the existence of non-trivial functions for which complete fairness and guaranteed output delivery are achievable. Our study sheds light on the role of broadcast in fairness and guaranteed output delivery, and shows that these properties should sometimes be considered separately.
In the setting of secure multiparty computation, a set of mutually distrustful parties wish to securely compute some joint function of their private inputs. The computation should be carried out in a secure way, meaning that the properties privacy, correctness, independence of inputs, fairness and guaranteed output delivery should all be preserved. Unfortunately, in the case of no honest majority – and specifically in the important two-party case – it is impossible to achieve fairness and guaranteed output delivery. In this paper, we show how a legal infrastructure that respects digital signatures can be used to enforce fairness in two-party computation. Our protocol has the property that if one party obtains output while the other does not (meaning that fairness is breached), then the party not obtaining output has a digitally signed cheque from the other party. Thus, fairness can be “enforced ” in the sense that any breach results in a loss of money by the adversarial party. 1
Two settings are traditionally considered for secure multiparty computation, depending on whether or not a majority of the parties are assumed to be honest. Existing protocols that assume an honest majority provide “full security” (and, in particular, guarantee output delivery and fairness) when this assumption holds, but are completely insecure if this assumption is violated. On the other hand, known protocols tolerating an arbitrary number of corruptions do not guarantee fairness or output delivery even if only a single party is dishonest. It is natural to wonder whether it is possible to achieve the “best of both worlds”: namely, a single protocol that simultaneously achieves the best possible security in both the above settings. Here, we rule out this possibility (at least for general functionalities) and show some positive results regarding what can be achieved.
Two settings are traditionally considered for secure multiparty computation, depending on whether or not a majority of the parties are assumed to be honest. Protocols designed under this assumption provide “full security ” (and, in particular, guarantee output delivery and fairness) when this assumption holds; unfortunately, these protocols are completely insecure if this assumption is violated. On the other hand, protocols tolerating an arbitrary number of corruptions do not guarantee fairness or output delivery even if only a single party is dishonest. It is natural to wonder whether it is possible to achieve the “best of both worlds”: namely, a single protocol that simultaneously achieves the best possible security in both the above settings. Here, we rule out this possibility (at least for general functionalities) but show some positive results regarding what can be achieved.
In the setting of secure multiparty computation, several distrustful parties wish to carry out a distributed computing task on their local private data while satisfying several security properties such as correctness, privacy, independence of inputs and fairness. The aim of secure multiparty computation (MPC) is to enable the parties to carry out the computation in a secure manner, eliminating any attempt of an adversarial entity to harm the execution. The concept of secure computation is very general and fundamental in cryptography, and models any distributed computing task, including simple computations as coin-tossing and broadcast, as well as more complex tasks such as electronic auctions and anonymous transactions. In this thesis, we study two foundational aspects of secure computation: perfect security and fairness. In the first part of this thesis, we study perfect security in secure computation. A protocol that is perfectly secure cannot be broken even when the adversary has unlimited computational power and its security holds unconditionally. One of the most fundamental results of secure computation was presented by Ben-Or, Goldwasser and Wigderson (BGW) in 1988. They demonstrated that any n-party functionality can be computed with perfect security, in the private channels model. When the adversary is semi-honest this holds as long as t < n/2 parties are corrupted, and when the adversary is malicious this holds as long as t < n/3 parties are corrupted. Unfortunately, a full proof of these results was never published. In this thesis, we remedy this situation and provide a full proof of security of the BGW protocol. This also includes a full description of the protocol for the malicious setting. In addition to the above, we observe that by some simple and natural modifications, the BGW protocol can be significantly simplified and one of its expensive (and perhaps most complicated) subprotocols can be saved. We present a new multiplication protocol that is based on the original construction, but is simpler and achieves higher efficiency. In the second part of this thesis, we study fairness in secure two party computation. Informally, the fairness property guarantees that if one party receives its output, then the other party does too. The well-known impossibility result of Cleve (STOC 1986) implies that, in general, it is impossible to securely compute a function with complete fairness without an honest majority. Until recently, the accepted belief has been that nothing non-trivial can be computed with complete fairness in the two party setting. The surprising work of Gordon, Hazay, Katz and Lindell (STOC 2008) shows that this belief is false, and that there exist some non-trivial (deterministic, finite-domain) Boolean functions that can be computed fairly. This raises the fundamental question of characterizing complete fairness in secure two-party computation. We focus on this question and give both positive and negative results. We first characterize
In the setting of secure two-party computation, two mutually distrusting parties wish to compute some function of their inputs while preserving, to the extent possible, various security properties such as privacy, correctness, and more. One desirable property is fairness which guarantees, informally, that if one party receives its output, then the other party does too. Cleve (STOC 1986) showed that complete fairness cannot be achieved in general without an honest majority. Since then, the accepted folklore has been that nothing non-trivial can be computed with complete fairness in the two-party setting, and the problem has been treated as closed since the late ’80s. In this paper, we demonstrate that this folklore belief is false by showing completely-fair protocols for various non-trivial functions in the two-party setting based on standard cryptographic assumptions. We first show feasibility of obtaining complete fairness when computing any function over polynomial-size domains that does not contain an “embedded XOR”; this class of functions includes boolean AND/OR as well as Yao’s “millionaires ’ problem”. We also demonstrate feasibility for certain functions that do contain an embedded XOR, and prove a lower bound showing that any completely-fair protocol for such functions must have round complexity super-logarithmic in the security parameter. Our results demonstrate that the question of completely-fair secure computation without an honest majority is far from closed.
In the setting of secure two-party computation, two mutually distrusting parties wish to compute some function of their inputs while preserving, to the extent possible, various security properties such as privacy, correctness, and more. One desirable property is fairness which guarantees, informally, that if one party receives its output, then the other party does too. Cleve [1986] showed that complete fairness cannot be achieved in general without an honest majority. Since then, the accepted folklore has been that nothing non-trivial can be computed with complete fairness in the two-party setting. We demonstrate that this folklore belief is false by showing completely fair protocols for various nontrivial functions in the two-party setting based on standard cryptographic assumptions. We first show feasibility of obtaining complete fairness when computing any function over polynomial-size domains that does not contain an “embedded XOR”; this class of functions includes boolean AND/OR as well as Yao’s “millionaires’ problem”. We also demonstrate feasibility for certain functions that do contain an embedded XOR, though we prove a lower bound showing that any completely fair protocol for such functions must have round complexity super-logarithmic in the security parameter. Our results demonstrate that the question of completely fair secure computation without an honest majority is far from closed.