Assume that Alice can do only classical probabilistic polynomial-time computing while Bob can do quantum polynomial-time computing. Alice and Bob communicate over only classical channels, and finally Bob gets a state |x₀⟩+|x₁⟩ with some bit strings x₀ and x₁. Is it possible that Alice can know {x₀,x₁} but Bob cannot? Such a task, called remote state preparations, is indeed possible under some complexity assumptions, and is bases of many quantum cryptographic primitives such as proofs of quantumness, (classical-client) blind quantum computing, (classical) verifications of quantum computing, and quantum money. A typical technique to realize remote state preparations is to use 2-to-1 trapdoor collision resistant hash functions: Alice sends a 2-to-1 trapdoor collision resistant hash function f to Bob, and Bob evaluates it coherently, i.e., Bob generates ∑_x|x⟩|f(x)⟩. Bob measures the second register to get the measurement result y, and sends y to Alice. Bob’s post-measurement state is |x₀⟩+|x₁⟩, where f(x₀) = f(x₁) = y. With the trapdoor, Alice can learn {x₀,x₁} from y, but due to the collision resistance, Bob cannot. This Alice’s advantage can be leveraged to realize the quantum cryptographic primitives listed above. It seems that the collision resistance is essential here. In this paper, surprisingly, we show that the collision resistance is not necessary for a restricted case: we show that (non-verifiable) remote state preparations of |x₀⟩+|x₁⟩ secure against classical probabilistic polynomial-time Bob can be constructed from classically-secure (full-domain) trapdoor permutations. Trapdoor permutations are not likely to imply the collision resistance, because black-box reductions from collision-resistant hash functions to trapdoor permutations are known to be impossible. As an application of our result, we construct proofs of quantumness from classically-secure (full-domain) trapdoor permutations.
Assume that Alice can do only classical probabilistic polynomial-time computing while Bob can do quantum polynomial-time computing. Alice and Bob communicate over only classical channels, and finally Bob gets a state |x₀⟩+|x₁⟩ with some bit strings x₀ and x₁. Is it possible that Alice can know {x₀,x₁} but Bob cannot? Such a task, called remote state preparations, is indeed possible under some complexity assumptions, and is bases of many quantum cryptographic primitives such as proofs of quantumness, (classical-client) blind quantum computing, (classical) verifications of quantum computing, and quantum money. A typical technique to realize remote state preparations is to use 2-to-1 trapdoor collision resistant hash functions: Alice sends a 2-to-1 trapdoor collision resistant hash function f to Bob, and Bob evaluates it coherently, i.e., Bob generates ∑_x|x⟩|f(x)⟩. Bob measures the second register to get the measurement result y, and sends y to Alice. Bob’s post-measurement state is |x₀⟩+|x₁⟩, where f(x₀) = f(x₁) = y. With the trapdoor, Alice can learn {x₀,x₁} from y, but due to the collision resistance, Bob cannot. This Alice’s advantage can be leveraged to realize the quantum cryptographic primitives listed above. It seems that the collision resistance is essential here. In this paper, surprisingly, we show that the collision resistance is not necessary for a restricted case: we show that (non-verifiable) remote state preparations of |x₀⟩+|x₁⟩ secure against classical probabilistic polynomial-time Bob can be constructed from classically-secure (full-domain) trapdoor permutations. Trapdoor permutations are not likely to imply the collision resistance, because black-box reductions from collision-resistant hash functions to trapdoor permutations are known to be impossible. As an application of our result, we construct proofs of quantumness from classically-secure (full-domain) trapdoor permutations.
Assume that Alice can do only classical probabilistic polynomial-time computing while Bob can do quantum polynomial-time computing. Alice and Bob communicate over only classical channels, and finally Bob gets a state ∣x0⟩+∣x1⟩ with some bit strings x0 and x1. Is it possible that Alice can know {x0,x1} but Bob cannot? Such a task, called {\it remote state preparations}, is indeed possible under some complexity assumptions, and is bases of many quantum cryptographic primitives such as proofs of quantumness, (classical-client) blind quantum computing, (classical) verifications of quantum computing, and quantum money. A typical technique to realize remote state preparations is to use 2-to-1 trapdoor collision resistant hash functions: Alice sends a 2-to-1 trapdoor collision resistant hash function f to Bob, and Bob evaluates it on superposition and measures the image. Bob's post-measurement state is ∣x0⟩+∣x1⟩, where f(x0)=f(x1)=y. With the trapdoor, Alice can learn {x0,x1}, but due to the collision resistance, Bob cannot. This Alice's advantage can be leveraged to realize the quantum cryptographic primitives listed above. It seems that the collision resistance is essential here. In this paper, surprisingly, we show that the collision resistance is not necessary for a restricted case: we show that (non-verifiable) remote state preparations of ∣x0⟩+∣x1⟩ secure against {\it classical} probabilistic polynomial-time Bob can be constructed from classically-secure (full-domain) trapdoor permutations. Trapdoor permutations are not likely to imply the collision resistance, because black-box reductions from collision-resistant hash functions to trapdoor permutations are known to be impossible. As an application of our result, we construct proofs of quantumness from classically-secure (full-domain) trapdoor permutations.
Remote state preparation (RSP) is a central primitive in quantum cryptography, enabling classical parties to remotely construct quantum states using only classical communication. As a result, RSP serves as a key building block in numerous protocols involving classical clients and quantum servers, allowing classical parties to leverage the advantages offered by powerful quantum computers. All known constructions of RSP rely on strong cryptographic assumptions, typically variants of trapdoor claw-free functions (TCFs).
In this work, we initiate the study of a weaker form of remote state preparation, which we call eavesdropper-blind remote state preparation (EB-RSP). Informally, EB-RSP requires blindness only against external observers who see the transcript of the honest protocol, rather than against the quantum server itself. Despite this relaxed adversarial model, the resulting notion remains sufficient for useful cryptographic applications. In particular, we show that two-message EB-RSP already suffices to construct quantum public-key encryption with classical public keys and quantum ciphertexts. We then construct two-message EB-RSP protocols from specific one-way group actions, yielding a first step toward RSP-type primitives based on assumptions that do not rely on trapdoors. Finally, we observe that existing RSP constructions are likely naturally adaptable to the two-message EB-RSP notion; we demonstrate this explicitly for a concrete TCF-based RSP construction.
Quantum mechanical effects have enabled the construction of cryptographic primitives that are impossible classically. For example, quantum copy-protection allows for a program to be encoded in a quantum state in such a way that the program can be evaluated, but not copied. Many of these cryptographic primitives are two-party protocols, where one party, Bob, has full quantum computational capabilities, and the other party, Alice, is only required to send random BB84 states to Bob. In this work, we show how such protocols can generically be converted to ones where Alice is fully classical, assuming that Bob cannot efficiently solve the LWE problem. In particular, this means that all communication between (classical) Alice and (quantum) Bob is classical, yet they can still make use of cryptographic primitives that would be impossible if both parties were classical. We apply this conversion procedure to obtain quantum cryptographic protocols with classical communication for unclonable encryption, copy-protection, computing on encrypted data, and verifiable blind delegated computation. The key technical ingredient for our result is a protocol for classically-instructed parallel remote state preparation of BB84 states. This is a multi-round protocol between (classical) Alice and (quantum polynomial-time) Bob that allows Alice to certify that Bob must have prepared n uniformly random BB84 states (up to a change of basis on his space). While previous approaches could only certify one- or two-qubit states, our protocol allows for the certification of an n-fold tensor product of BB84 states. Furthermore, Alice knows which specific BB84 states Bob has prepared, while Bob himself does not. Hence, the situation at the end of this protocol is (almost) equivalent to one where Alice sent n random BB84 states to Bob. This allows us to replace the step of preparing and sending BB84 states in existing protocols by our remote-state preparation protocol in a generic and modular way.
How could quantum cryptography help us achieve what are not achievable in classical cryptography? In this work we study the classical cryptographic problem that two parties would like to perform secure computations with long outputs. As a basic primitive and example, we first consider the following problem which we call secure function sampling with long outputs: suppose f:{0,1}n→{0,1}m is a public, efficient classical function, where m is big; Alice would like to sample x from its domain and sends f(x) to Bob; what Bob knows should be no more than f(x) even if it behaves maliciously. Classical cryptography, like FHE and succinct arguments [Gen09,Kil92,HW15], allows us to achieve this task within communication complexity O(n+m); could we achieve this task with communication complexity independent of m? In this work, we first design a quantum cryptographic protocol that achieves secure function sampling with approximate security, within O(n) communication (omitting the dependency on the security parameter and error tolerance). We also prove the classical impossibility using techniques in [HW15], which means that our protocol indeed achieves a type of quantum advantage. Building on the secure function sampling protocol, we further construct protocols for general secure two-party computations [Yao86,GB01] with approximate security, with communication complexity only depending on the input length and the targeted security. In terms of the assumptions, we construct protocols for these problems assuming only the existence of collapsing hash functions [Unr16]; what's more, we also construct a classical-channel protocol for these problems additionally assuming the existence of noisy trapdoor claw-free functions [BCMVV,BKVV].
We introduce a protocol between a classical polynomial-time verifier and a quantum polynomial-time prover that allows the verifier to securely delegate to the prover the preparation of certain single-qubit quantum states The prover is unaware of which state he received and moreover, the verifier can check with high confidence whether the preparation was successful. The delegated preparation of single-qubit states is an elementary building block in many quantum cryptographic protocols. We expect our implementation of "random remote state preparation with verification", a functionality first defined in (Dunjko and Kashefi 2014), to be useful for removing the need for quantum communication in such protocols while keeping functionality. The main application that we detail is to a protocol for blind and verifiable delegated quantum computation (DQC) that builds on the work of (Fitzsimons and Kashefi 2018), who provided such a protocol with quantum communication. Recently, both blind an verifiable DQC were shown to be possible, under computational assumptions, with a classical polynomial-time client (Mahadev 2017, Mahadev 2018). Compared to the work of Mahadev, our protocol is more modular, applies to the measurement-based model of computation (instead of the Hamiltonian model) and is composable. Our proof of security builds on ideas introduced in (Brakerski et al. 2018).
Secure two-party computation considers the problem of two parties computing a joint function of their private inputs without revealing anything beyond the output of the computation. In this work, we take the first steps towards understanding the setting in which the two parties want to evaluate a joint quantum functionality while using only a classical channel between them. Our first result indicates that it is in general impossible to realize a two-party quantum functionality against malicious adversaries with black-box simulation, relying only on classical channels. The negative result stems from reducing the existence of a black-box simulator to an extractor for classical proof of quantum knowledge, which in turn leads to violation of the quantum no-cloning. Next, we introduce the notion of oblivious quantum function evaluation (OQFE). An OQFE is a two-party quantum cryptographic primitive with one fully classical party (Alice) whose input is (a classical description of a) quantum unitary, U, and a quantum party (Bob) whose input is a quantum state, ψ. In particular, Alice receives a classical output corresponding to the measurement of U(ψ) while Bob receives no output. In OQFE, Bob remains oblivious to Alice's input, while Alice learns nothing about ψ more than what can be learned from the output. We present two constructions, one secure against semi-honest parties and the other against malicious parties. Due to the no-go result mentioned above, we consider what is arguably the best possible notion obtainable in our model concerning malicious adversaries: one-sided simulation security. Our protocol relies on the assumption of injective homomorphic trapdoor OWFs, which in turn rely on the LWE problem. As a result, we put forward a first, simple and modular, construction of one-sided quantum two-party computation and quantum oblivious transfer over classical networks.