## CryptoDB

### Iftach Haitner

#### Publications

Year
Venue
Title
2022
EUROCRYPT
We present a new OT-based two-party multiplication protocol that is almost as efficient as Gilboa's semi-honest protocol (Crypto '99), but has a high-level of security without further compilation. The achieved security suffices for many applications, and, assuming DDH, can be cheaply compiled into full security.
2022
CRYPTO
Succinct non-interactive arguments (SNARGs) have become a fundamental primitive in the cryptographic community. The focus of this work is constructions of SNARGs in the Random Oracle Model (ROM). Such SNARGs enjoy post-quantum security and can be deployed using lightweight cryptography to heuristically instantiate the random oracle. A ROM-SNARG is \emph{$(t,\varepsilon)$-sound} if no $t$-query malicious prover can convince the verifier to accept a false statement with probability larger than $\varepsilon$. Recently, Chiesa-Yogev (CRYPTO '21) presented a ROM-SNARG of length ${\Theta}(\log (t/\varepsilon) \cdot \log t)$ (ignoring $\log n$ factors, for $n$ being the instance size). This improvement, however, is still far from the (folklore) lower bound of $\Omega(\log (t/\varepsilon))$. Assuming the \textit{randomized exponential-time hypothesis}, we prove a tight lower bound of ${\Omega}(\log (t/\varepsilon) \cdot \log t)$ for the length of {$(t,\varepsilon)$-sound} ROM-SNARGs. Our lower bound holds for constructions with non-adaptive verifiers and strong soundness notion called \textit{salted soundness}, restrictions that hold for \emph{all} known constructions (ignoring contrived counterexamples). We prove our lower bound by transforming any short ROM-SNARG (of the considered family) into a same length ROM-SNARG in which the verifier asks only a \emph{few} oracles queries, and then apply the recent lower bound of Chiesa-Yogev (TCC '20) for such SNARGs.
2021
JOFC
In the setting of secure multiparty computation (MPC), a set of mutually distrusting parties wish to jointly compute a function, while guaranteeing the privacy of their inputs and the correctness of the output. An MPC protocol is called fully secure if no adversary can prevent the honest parties from obtaining their outputs. A protocol is called fair if an adversary can prematurely abort the computation, however, only before learning any new information. We present efficient transformations from fair computations to fully secure computations, assuming a constant fraction of honest parties (e.g., $1\%$ 1 % of the parties are honest). Compared to previous transformations that require linear invocations (in the number of parties) of the fair computation, our transformations require super-logarithmic, and sometimes even super-constant, such invocations. The main idea is to delegate the computation to random committees that invoke the fair computation. Apart from the benefit of uplifting security, the reduction in the number of parties is also useful, since only committee members are required to work, whereas the remaining parties simply “listen” to the computation over a broadcast channel. One application of these transformations is a new $\delta$ δ -bias coin-flipping protocol, whose round complexity has a super-logarithmic dependency on the number of parties, improving over the linear-dependency protocol of Beimel, Omri, and Orlov (Crypto 2010). A second application is a new fully secure protocol for computing the Boolean OR function, with a super-constant round complexity, improving over the protocol of Gordon and Katz (TCC 2009) whose round complexity is linear in the number of parties. Finally, we show that our positive results are in a sense optimal, by proving that for some functionalities, a super-constant number of (sequential) invocations of the fair computation is necessary for computing the functionality in a fully secure manner.
2020
CRYPTO
Hardness amplification is a central problem in the study of interactive protocols. While "natural" parallel repetition transformation is known to reduce the soundness error of some special cases of interactive arguments: three-message protocols (Bellare, Impagliazzo, and Naor [FOCS '97]) and public-coin protocols (Hastad, Pass, Wikstrom, and Pietrzak [TCC '10], Chung and Lu [TCC '10] and Chung and Pass [TCC '15]), it fails to do so in the general case (the above Bellare et al.; also Pietrzak and Wikstrom [TCC '07]). The only known round-preserving approach that applies to all interactive arguments is Haitner's random-terminating transformation [SICOMP '13], who showed that the parallel repetition of the transformed protocol reduces the soundness error at a weak exponential rate: if the original m-round protocol has soundness error (1 − ε) then the n-parallel repetition of its random-terminating variant has soundness error (1 − ε)^{ε n/m^4} (omitting constant factors). Hastad et al. have generalized this result to the so-called partially simulatable interactive arguments. In this work we prove that parallel repetition of random-terminating arguments reduces the soundness error at a much stronger exponential rate: the soundness error of the n parallel repetition is (1 − ε)^{n/m}, only an m factor from the optimal rate of (1 − ε)^n achievable in public-coin and three-message arguments. The result generalizes to partially simulatable arguments. This is achieved by presenting a tight bound on a relaxed variant of the KL-divergence between the distribution induced by our reduction and its ideal variant, a result whose scope extends beyond parallel repetition proofs. We prove the tightness of the above bound for random-terminating arguments, by presenting a matching protocol.
2020
TCC
2020
TCC
The shuffle model of differential privacy [Bittau et al. SOSP 2017; Erlingsson et al. SODA 2019; Cheu et al. EUROCRYPT 2019] was proposed as a viable model for performing distributed differentially private computations. Informally, the model consists of an untrusted analyzer that receives messages sent by participating parties via a shuffle functionality, the latter potentially disassociates messages from their senders. Prior work focused on one-round differentially private shuffle model protocols, demonstrating that functionalities such as addition and histograms can be performed in this model with accuracy levels similar to that of the curator model of differential privacy, where the computation is performed by a fully trusted party. A model closely related to the shuffle model was presented in the seminal work of Ishai et al. on establishing cryptography from anonymous communication [FOCS 2006]. Focusing on the round complexity of the shuffle model, we ask in this work what can be computed in the shuffle model of differential privacy with two rounds. Ishai et al. showed how to use one round of the shuffle to establish secret keys between every two parties. Using this primitive to simulate a general secure multi-party protocol increases its round complexity by one. We show how two parties can use one round of the shuffle to send secret messages without having to first establish a secret key, hence retaining round complexity. Combining this primitive with the two-round semi-honest protocol of Applebaum, Brakerski, and Tsabary [TCC 2018], we obtain that every randomized functionality can be computed in the shuffle model with an honest majority, in merely two rounds. This includes any differentially private computation. We hence move to examine differentially private computations in the shuffle model that (i) do not require the assumption of an honest majority, or (ii) do not admit one-round protocols, even with an honest majority. For that, we introduce two computational tasks: common element, and nested common element with parameter $\alpha$. For the common element problem we show that for large enough input domains, no one-round differentially private shuffle protocol exists with constant message complexity and negligible $\delta$, whereas a two-round protocol exists where every party sends a single message in every round. For the nested common element we show that no one-round differentially private protocol exists for this problem with adversarial coalition size $\alpha n$. However, we show that it can be privately computed in two rounds against coalitions of size $cn$ for every $c < 1$. This yields a separation between one-round and two-round protocols. We further show a one-round protocol for the nested common element problem that is differentially private with coalitions of size smaller than $c n$ for all $0 < c < \alpha < 1 / 2$.
2019
EUROCRYPT
Distributional collision resistance is a relaxation of collision resistance that only requires that it is hard to sample a collision (x, y) where x is uniformly random and y is uniformly random conditioned on colliding with x. The notion lies between one-wayness and collision resistance, but its exact power is still not well-understood. On one hand, distributional collision resistant hash functions cannot be built from one-way functions in a black-box way, which may suggest that they are stronger. On the other hand, so far, they have not yielded any applications beyond one-way functions.Assuming distributional collision resistant hash functions, we construct constant-round statistically hiding commitment scheme. Such commitments are not known based on one-way functions, and are impossible to obtain from one-way functions in a black-box way. Our construction relies on the reduction from inaccessible entropy generators to statistically hiding commitments by Haitner et al. (STOC ’09). In the converse direction, we show that two-message statistically hiding commitments imply distributional collision resistance, thereby establishing a loose equivalence between the two notions.A corollary of the first result is that constant-round statistically hiding commitments are implied by average-case hardness in the class ${\textsf {SZK}}$ (which is known to imply distributional collision resistance). This implication seems to be folklore, but to the best of our knowledge has not been proven explicitly. We provide yet another proof of this implication, which is arguably more direct than the one going through distributional collision resistance.
2019
JOFC
The focus of this work is hardness-preserving transformations of somewhat limited pseudorandom functions families (PRFs) into ones with more versatile characteristics. Consider the problem of domain extension of pseudorandom functions: given a PRF that takes as input elements of some domain $\mathcal {U}$U, we would like to come up with a PRF over a larger domain. Can we do it with little work and without significantly impacting the security of the system? One approach is to first hash the larger domain into the smaller one and then apply the original PRF. Such a reduction, however, is vulnerable to a “birthday attack”: after $\sqrt{\left| \mathcal {U}\right| }$U queries to the resulting PRF, a collision (i.e., two distinct inputs having the same hash value) is very likely to occur. As a consequence, the resulting PRF is insecure against an attacker making this number of queries. In this work, we show how to go beyond the aforementioned birthday attack barrier by replacing the above simple hashing approach with a variant of cuckoo hashing, a hashing paradigm that resolves collisions in a table by using two hash functions and two tables, cleverly assigning each element to one of the two tables. We use this approach to obtain: (i) a domain extension method that requires just two calls to the original PRF can withstand as many queries as the original domain size, and has a distinguishing probability that is exponentially small in the amount of non-cryptographic work; and (ii) a security-preserving reduction from non-adaptive to adaptive PRFs.
2019
TCC
Consider a ppt two-party protocol $\varPi = (\mathsf {A} ,\mathsf {B} )$ in which the parties get no private inputs and obtain outputs $O^{\mathsf {A} },O^{\mathsf {B} }\in \left\{ 0,1\right\}$, and let $V^\mathsf {A}$ and $V^\mathsf {B}$ denote the parties’ individual views. Protocol $\varPi$ has $\alpha$-agreement if $\Pr [O^{\mathsf {A} }=O^{\mathsf {B} }] = \tfrac{1}{2}+\alpha$. The leakage of $\varPi$ is the amount of information a party obtains about the event $\left\{ O^{\mathsf {A} }=O^{\mathsf {B} }\right\}$; that is, the leakage$\epsilon$ is the maximum, over $\mathsf {P} \in \left\{ \mathsf {A} ,\mathsf {B} \right\}$, of the distance between $V^\mathsf {P} |_{O^{\mathsf {A} }= O^{\mathsf {B} }}$ and $V^\mathsf {P} |_{O^{\mathsf {A} }\ne O^{\mathsf {B} }}$. Typically, this distance is measured in statistical distance, or, in the computational setting, in computational indistinguishability. For this choice, Wullschleger [TCC ’09] showed that if $\epsilon \ll \alpha$ then the protocol can be transformed into an OT protocol.We consider measuring the protocol leakage by the log-ratio distance (which was popularized by its use in the differential privacy framework). The log-ratio distance between X, Y over domain $\varOmega$ is the minimal $\epsilon \ge 0$ for which, for every $v \in \varOmega$, $\log \frac{\Pr [X=v]}{\Pr [Y=v]} \in [-\epsilon ,\epsilon ]$. In the computational setting, we use computational indistinguishability from having log-ratio distance $\epsilon$. We show that a protocol with (noticeable) accuracy $\alpha \in \varOmega (\epsilon ^2)$ can be transformed into an OT protocol (note that this allows $\epsilon \gg \alpha$). We complete the picture, in this respect, showing that a protocol with $\alpha \in o(\epsilon ^2)$ does not necessarily imply OT. Our results hold for both the information theoretic and the computational settings, and can be viewed as a “fine grained” approach to “weak OT amplification”.We then use the above result to fully characterize the complexity of differentially private two-party computation for the XOR function, answering the open question put by Goyal, Khurana, Mironov, Pandey, and Sahai, [ICALP ’16] and Haitner, Nissim, Omri, Shaltiel, and Silbak [22] [FOCS ’18]. Specifically, we show that for any (noticeable) $\alpha \in \varOmega (\epsilon ^2)$, a two-party protocol that computes the XOR function with $\alpha$-accuracy and $\epsilon$-differential privacy can be transformed into an OT protocol. This improves upon Goyal et al. that only handle $\alpha \in \varOmega (\epsilon )$, and upon Haitner et al. who showed that such a protocol implies (infinitely-often) key agreement (and not OT). Our characterization is tight since OT does not follow from protocols in which $\alpha \in o( \epsilon ^2)$, and extends to functions (over many bits) that “contain” an “embedded copy” of the XOR function.
2018
JOFC
2018
TCC
A two-party coin-flipping protocol is $\varepsilon$ε-fair if no efficient adversary can bias the output of the honest party (who always outputs a bit, even if the other party aborts) by more than $\varepsilon$ε. Cleve [STOC ’86] showed that r-round o(1 / r)-fair coin-flipping protocols do not exist. Awerbuch et al. [Manuscript ’85] constructed a $\varTheta (1/\sqrt{r})$Θ(1/r)-fair coin-flipping protocol, assuming the existence of one-way functions. Moran et al. [Journal of Cryptology ’16] constructed an r-round coin-flipping protocol that is $\varTheta (1/r)$Θ(1/r)-fair (thus matching the aforementioned lower bound of Cleve [STOC ’86]), assuming the existence of oblivious transfer.The above gives rise to the intriguing question of whether oblivious transfer, or more generally “public-key primitives”, is required for an $o(1/\sqrt{r})$o(1/r)-fair coin flipping. This question was partially answered by Dachman-Soled et al. [TCC ’11] and Dachman-Soled et al. [TCC ’14], who showed that restricted types of fully black-box reductions cannot establish $o(1/\sqrt{r})$o(1/r)-fair coin-flipping protocols from one-way functions. In particular, for constant-round coin-flipping protocols, [10] yields that black-box techniques from one-way functions can only guarantee fairness of order $1/\sqrt{r}$1/r.We make progress towards answering the above question by showing that, for any constant , the existence of an $1/(c\cdot \sqrt{r})$1/(c·r)-fair, r-round coin-flipping protocol implies the existence of an infinitely-often key-agreement protocol, where c denotes some universal constant (independent of r). Our reduction is non black-box and makes a novel use of the recent dichotomy for two-party protocols of Haitner et al. [FOCS ’18] to facilitate a two-party variant of the attack of Beimel et al. [FOCS ’18] on multi-party coin-flipping protocols.
2016
TCC
2016
JOFC
2015
JOFC
2015
CRYPTO
2014
JOFC
2013
TCC
2013
TCC
2012
TCC
2012
TCC
2010
EUROCRYPT
2010
EUROCRYPT
2009
TCC
2009
TCC
2009
JOFC
2008
TCC
2008
TCC
2006
CRYPTO
2005
EUROCRYPT
2004
TCC

Eurocrypt 2022
TCC 2021
Eurocrypt 2019
TCC 2018
TCC 2014
Crypto 2013
TCC 2012
Asiacrypt 2011
TCC 2010
Crypto 2009