1 / 27

Impossibility and Feasibility Results for Zero Knowledge with Public Keys

Impossibility and Feasibility Results for Zero Knowledge with Public Keys. Jo ël Alwen Tech. Univ. Vienna AUSTRIA. Giuseppe Persiano Univ. Salerno ITALY. Ivan Visconti Univ. Salerno ITALY. Outline. Zero Knowledge (ZK) Concurrent ZK & Resettable ZK (cZK & rZK)

cira
Download Presentation

Impossibility and Feasibility Results for Zero Knowledge with Public Keys

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impossibility and Feasibility Results for Zero Knowledge with Public Keys Joël Alwen Tech. Univ. Vienna AUSTRIA Giuseppe Persiano Univ. Salerno ITALY Ivan Visconti Univ. Salerno ITALY

  2. Outline • Zero Knowledge (ZK) • Concurrent ZK & Resettable ZK (cZK & rZK) • ZK with public keys (BPK-UPK) • Soundness in these PK models • Impossibility of 3-round sequentially-sound cZK in the BPK model • rZK proof of membership for LNP in the UPK model

  3. Interactive Proof Systems in the Plain Model theorem: “x  L” rP, w rV a b prover P verifier V  Accept or Reject z • Properties • Completeness: if the theorem is true  V outputs “Accept” • Soundness: if the theorem is false  V outputs “Reject”

  4. Interactive Proofs (2) Soundness: “no malicious prover P can convince V of a false theorem” Assumptions about P’s capabilities: P unbounded Interactive Proof P bounded Interactive Argument Most results are for Interactive Arguments, not proofs.

  5. Zero Knowledge • Intuition: Don’t give any extra information to any possible verifier rP, w theorem: “xL” rV a P V* prover b any verifier  Accept or Reject z • (Black-Box) Zero Knowledge   efficient S with oracle access to V* simulating V*’s view of the interaction with P for true theorems xL View of V* above(with rVas input) V* …  S (rV,a,b,…,z) black-box rS

  6. Outline • Zero Knowledge (ZK) • Concurrent ZK & Resettable ZK (cZK & rZK) • ZK with public keys (BPK-UPK) • Soundness in these PK models • Impossibility of 3-round sequentially-sound cZK in the BPK model • rZK proof of membership for LNP in the UPK model

  7. Concurrent ZK (cZK) V1 Evil Adversary V* x1 L . . . x2 L . . . V2 P xn L . . . Vn control network scheduling Note: possibly xi = xj with i  j

  8. Resettable ZK (rZK) • Adversary V* can: • Reset P to a previous state (including it’s random tape) spawning a new incarnation of P • Interact concurrently with all incarnations of P P1 = P(r1) r1 r2 P2 = P(r2) rn Pn = P(rn) control scheduling

  9. Outline • Zero Knowledge (ZK) • Concurrent ZK & Resettable ZK (cZK & rZK) • ZK with public keys (BPK-UPK) • Soundness in these PK models • Impossibility of 3-round sequentially-sound cZK in the BPK model • rZK proof of membership for LNP in the UPK model

  10. Models for ZK with Public Keys • In the plainmodel Constant round Black-Box rZK only possible for trivial languages (LBPP) [CKPR STOC 01] • For non Black-Box this remains open • So add some setup assumption to the model. • Bare Public Key (BPK) model • In a preprocessing stage, the verifiers register their public keys in a public file. • This stage is performed only by verifiers, is non-interactive and further the public file can be under the control of the adversary! • In the proof stage, the same public file is part of the common input in all proofs and the verifiers can use their private keys.

  11. BPK Preprocessing Stage maintains honest verifier Vi Vs Vt … pki … pks … pkt … public file

  12. Related Models • The verifier has a persistent counter (in all related models) • There is no bound; specifically for any public key it is possible to run any polynomial number of sessions. (Counter Public Key model = CPK) • For each public key there is a bound on the maximum number of sessions w.r.t. each statement (Weak Public Key model = WPK) • For each public key there is an upperbound on the number of sessions for which it can be used (Upperbound Public Key model = UPK)

  13. Outline • Zero Knowledge (ZK) • Concurrent ZK & Resettable ZK (cZK & rZK) • ZK with public keys (BPK-UPK) • Soundness in these PK models • Impossibility of 3-round sequentially-sound cZK in the BPK model • rZK proof of membership for LNP in the UPK model

  14. 4 Notions • [MR Crypto 01] (black-box ZK): • there are 4 distinct notions of soundness in the BPK model: • one-time soundness (OTS) • sequential soundness (SS) • concurrent soundness (CS) • resettable soundness (RS) sequential malicious prover attacking emulate P*1 x1 L x2 L P*2 V xn L P*n sequential network scheduling

  15. Outline • Zero Knowledge (ZK) • Concurrent ZK & Resettable ZK (cZK & rZK) • ZK with public keys (BPK-UPK) • Soundness in these PK models • Impossibility of 3-round sequentially-sound cZK in the BPK model • rZK proof of membership for LNP in the UPK model

  16. The Complete Round Complexity Analysis 3-Round OTS We have resolved the last open problem of the analysis of round complexity of various notions of ZK in the BPK model. 3-Round SS 4-Round CS sZK [MR Crypto 01] [DPV 04] [DPV Crypto 04] cZK [MR Crypto 01] Our Result [DPV Crypto 04] rZK [MR Crypto 01] Our Result [DPV Crypto 04]

  17. Related Proofs • Our result: 3-Round black box cZK with SS in the BPK model only exists for trivial languages. • [GK 96]: 3-Round black box ZK in the plain model only exists for trivial languages. • [MR Crypto 01]: 3-Round black box rZK with CS in the BPK model only exists for trivial languages.

  18. [GK 96] Proof • Assume 3-round black box ZK in the plain model exists for a language L  LBPP • Design a BPP deciding machine D for L by having the simulator S run against the honest V’s algorithm. • If S outputs an Accepting View then xL • If S outputs a Rejecting View then xL xL D emulate xL output (1) V … S (3) or execute xL rS (2) (rV,a,b,…,z)

  19. [GK 96] Proof (2) • Prove correctness of D by showing strong correlation between S’s output and the verity of the theorem. • The correctness of B.1 follows from the ZK property of the protocol • To show B.2 is correct demonstrate (by contradiction) how a malicious prover P* could run S to convince V of a false statement. • Prove that with only polynomial loss of efficiency V will be convinced by P* even without P* being able to reset V can reset V! xL xL V P* emulate interact V … S execute can’t reset V! rS

  20. [MR Crypto 01] Extension • Assume a 3-round black-box rZK protocol with CS in the BPK model exists for the language L • B.1 to C.1 the same in the BPK model • C.2 – C.3 need adjustment. • Require concurrent powers of P* in order to use S’s output to cheat against honest V. • Thus CS proved impossible but not SS which is weaker (i.e. gives less power to P*) public file V x1L xL x2L V P* emulate V … S xnL execute control scheduling rS V

  21. Our Addition • In order to show that sequential access to V by P* suffices we require an added power. • Use that S is a concurrent ZK simulator which works against any verifier algorithm including our specially designed V* V control scheduling x1L xL x2L V P* emulate V* … S xnL execute rS sequential scheduling V

  22. Our Addition (2) • Careful design of P* and V* we show that if S is efficient then it must solve at least one of the concurrent sessions with V* straight-line. (i.e. without a rewind). • Demonstrate how P* can efficiently enough guess which session this is and use it to convince V of a false statement.

  23. Outline • Zero Knowledge (ZK) • Concurrent ZK & Resettable ZK (cZK & rZK) • ZK with public keys (BPK-UPK) • Soundness in these PK models • Impossibility of 3-round sequentially-sound cZK in the BPK model • rZK proof of membership for LNP in the UPK model

  24. Result Overview • Result: • Present a 3-round rZK proof with CS for all NP in the UPK model. • Prover has unlimited computational power! So given a public key can calculate the secret key… So we need a public key which corresponds to a super-polynomial number of secret keys • Moreover no assumptions regarding the hardness of superpolynomial-time algorithms needs to be made. (No complexity leveraging) • Uses perfectly hiding commitment scheme to make (pk, sk1,…,skm)

  25. UPK Setup random coins { skj := (rj, xj)R {0,1}k x {0,1}k n times UPK Model pkj := commit(xj, rj) upper bound : n perfectly hiding security parameter : k … pki1 pki2 pkin … … Public File: pki

  26. The Protocol pkj := Com(xj, rj) Using FLS paradigm [FLS SJoComp ’99] pk witness to xL pkc counter : c xL [Com(), Dec()] : perfectly binding commitment scheme [Com(), Dec()] : perfectly hiding commitment scheme [Zap1, Zap2(.)] : two-round resettable witness-indistinguishable proof system implemented with Zaps from [DN FOCS ‘00] P V Com(w) = m pkc, skc := (xc, rc), Zap1 Zap2(“Dec(m) = w” and either “w = skc” or “w witness to xL”)

  27. Properties (Idea) • Complete: Honest prover P can send Com(w := witness to xL) in round 1 • Sound: Because when (unbounded) P* sends Com(w) in round 1, it has only seen a perfectly hiding commitment to skc in the public file. • rZK: The simulator can rewind V to use same counter and thus same skc again. After max n rewinds all secret keys are known. The rest can be simulated straight-line. That’s all folks. Thank you!

More Related