MetaCartSign in to MyCiteSeer

Include Citations | Advanced Search | Help

Include Citations | Advanced Search | Help

  y

Download:
pdf | ps
by Peter Gemmell, Moti Yung
ftp://ftp.cs.sandia.gov/pub/papers/psgemme/feb24.ps
Add To MetaCart

Abstract:

We suggest a new methodology for "result checking " that enables us to extend the notion of Blum's program result checking to the on-line checking of cryptographic functions. In our model, the checker not only needs to be assured of the correctness of the result but the owner of the program needs to be sure not to give away anything but the requested result on the (authorized) input. The existing approaches for program result checking of numerical problems often ask the program a number of extra queries (different from the actual input). In the case of cryptographic functions, this may be in contradiction with the security requirement of the program owner. Additional queries, in fact, may be used to gain unauthorized advantage (for example, imagine the implications of the on-line checking of a decryption device that requires the decryption of extra ciphertexts). In [Blum88], the notion of a simple checker was introduced where, for the purpose of efficiency, extra queries are not allowed. In our model, we do allow extra queries, but only when the response is simulate able. We define a new "witness-based " approach and give constructions that apply to various cryptographic scenarios while making sure that the checker/program interaction releases no extra "knowledge". A particularly useful application is achieving "efficient robust function sharing", a method by which the power to apply a cryptographic function (e.g., RSA decryption / signature) is shared among multiple trustees. As long as a quorum of the trustees is not corrupted and is available, we can apply the function on the input parameters while maintaining the security of the function. With robustness we are able to tolerate and identify misbehaving trustees, both with efficiency and on-line, when computing a function value.

Citations

897 Random oracles are practical: A paradigm for designing efficient protocols – Bellare, Rogaway - 1993
693 The Knowledge Complexity of Interactive Proof-Systems (Extended Abstract – Goldwasser, Micali, et al. - 1985
553 How to prove yourself: Practical solutions to identification and signature problems – Fiat, Shamir - 1987
259 Designing programs that check their work – Blum, Khanna - 1995
197 Threshold cryptosystem – Desmedt, Frankel - 1989
69 Software Reliability via RunTime Result-Checking – Wasserman, Blum - 1997
66 How to Share a Function Securely – Santis, Desmedt, et al.
50 Checking the correctness of memories – Blum, Evans, et al. - 1994
37 How to securely replicate services – Reiter, Birman - 1994
36 A mathematical theory of self-checking, self-testing and self-correcting Programs – Rubinfeld - 1990
32 Coherent functions and program checkers – Yao - 1990
30 Self-testing I correcting with applications to numerical problems – Blum, Luby, et al. - 1993
28 A practical protocol for large group oriented networks – Frankel - 1989
22 New directions in testing. Distributed Computing and Cryptography – Lipton - 1991
4 Key escrowing now – Denning, Smid - 1994
1 On Hiding Information from an Oracle, STOC 87 – Abadi, Feigenbaum, et al.
1 Designing programs to check their work, ICSI technical report TR-88-009. x i is chosen this way so that x \Gamma1 i and (x i \Gamma x j ) \Gamma1 (for i 6= j) exist. This is not relament to our discussion but is necessary for the Lagrange interpolation to – Blum
1 Yung Proactive RSA Submitted to Crypto '96. Available from authors by request. (SAND report available soon – Frankel, Gemmell, et al.