Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Non-Malleable Codes Against Bounded Polynomial Time Tampering

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2019 (EUROCRYPT 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 11476))

  • 2809 Accesses

Abstract

We construct efficient non-malleable codes (NMC) that are (computationally) secure against tampering by functions computable in any fixed polynomial time. Our construction is in the plain (no-CRS) model and requires the assumptions that (1) \(\mathbf {E}\) is hard for \(\mathbf {NP}\) circuits of some exponential \(2^{\beta n}\) (\(\beta >0\)) size (widely used in the derandomization literature), (2) sub-exponential trapdoor permutations exist, and (3) \(\mathbf {P}\)-certificates with sub-exponential soundness exist.

While it is impossible to construct NMC secure against arbitrary polynomial-time tampering (Dziembowski, Pietrzak, Wichs, ICS ’10), the existence of NMC secure against \(O(n^c)\)-time tampering functions (for any fixed c), was shown (Cheraghchi and Guruswami, ITCS ’14) via a probabilistic construction. An explicit construction was given (Faust, Mukherjee, Venturi, Wichs, Eurocrypt ’14) assuming an untamperable CRS with length longer than the runtime of the tampering function. In this work, we show that under computational assumptions, we can bypass these limitations. Specifically, under the assumptions listed above, we obtain non-malleable codes in the plain model against \(O(n^c)\)-time tampering functions (for any fixed c), with codeword length independent of the tampering time bound.

Our new construction of NMC draws a connection with non-interactive non-malleable commitments. In fact, we show that in the NMC setting, it suffices to have a much weaker notion called quasi non-malleable commitments—these are non-interactive, non-malleable commitments in the plain model, in which the adversary runs in \(O(n^c)\)-time, whereas the honest parties may run in longer (polynomial) time. We then construct a 4-tag quasi non-malleable commitment from any sub-exponential OWF and the assumption that \(\mathbf {E}\) is hard for some exponential size \(\mathbf {NP}\)-circuits, and use tag amplification techniques to support an exponential number of tags.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    As we will see, in our setting of non-malleable codes against polynomially-bounded adversaries, our construction requires such derandomization assumptions in any case and so only standard one-way function is required in addition. However, for simplicity we will assume injective one-way function in the remainder of the exposition in this section.

  2. 2.

    For this exposition, we assume for simplicity that \(\psi '\) can be computed in deterministic time \(2^{\text{ input } \text{ length }}\) and that the injective OWF has linear circuit size. Recall that we do not require injective OWF and that any statistically binding, non-interactive commitment scheme is sufficient, but that for simplicity we assuming injective OWF in this exposition.

References

  1. Applebaum, B., Artemenko, S., Shaltiel, R., Yang, G.: Incompressible functions, relative-error extractors, and the power of nondeterministic reductions. Comput. Complex. 25(2), 349–418 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00037-016-0128-9

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Babai, L., Fortnow, L., Nisan, N., Wigderson, A.: BPP has subexponential time simulations unlessexptime has publishable proofs. Comput. Complex. 3(4), 307–318 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01275486

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Ball, M., Dachman-Soled, D., Guo, S., Malkin, T., Tan, L.Y.: Non-malleable codes for small-depth circuits. FOCS IEEE Computer Society Press, October 2018 (to appear). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/207

  4. Ball, M., Dachman-Soled, D., Kulkarni, M., Lin, H., Malkin, T.: Non-malleablecodes against bounded polynomial time tampering. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/1015 (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/1015

  5. Ball, M., Dachman-Soled, D., Kulkarni, M., Malkin, T.: Non-malleable codesfor bounded depth, bounded fan-in circuits. In: Fischlin and Coron [30], pp. 881–908

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Ball, M., Dachman-Soled, D., Kulkarni, M., Malkin, T.: Non-malleable codes from average-case hardness: \({\sf A\mathit{}{\sf C}}^0\), decision trees, and streaming space-bounded tampering. In: Nielsen, J.B., Rijmen, V. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2018, Part III. LNCS, vol. 10822, pp. 618–650. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78372-7_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Barak, B.: Constant-round coin-tossing with a man in the middle or realizing the shared random string model. In: 43rd FOCS, pp. 345–355. IEEE Computer Society Press, November 2002

    Google Scholar 

  8. Barak, B., Ong, S.J., Vadhan, S.: Derandomization in cryptography. SIAM J. Comput. 37(2), 380–400 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1137/050641958

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Barak, B., Pass, R.: On the possibility of one-message weak zero-knowledge. In: Naor, M. (ed.) TCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2951, pp. 121–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24638-1_7

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Bitansky, N., Lin, H.: One-message zero knowledge and non-malleable commitments. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/613 (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/613

  11. Chandran, N., Goyal, V., Mukherjee, P., Pandey, O., Upadhyay, J.: Block-wise non-malleable codes. In: Chatzigiannakis, I., Mitzenmacher, M., Rabani, Y., Sangiorgi, D. (eds.) ICALP 2016. LIPIcs, vol. 55, pp. 31:1–31:14. Schloss Dagstuhl (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chattopadhyay, E., Goyal, V., Li, X.: Non-malleable extractors and codes, withtheir many tampered extensions. In: Wichs and Mansour [69], pp. 285–298

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chattopadhyay, E., Li, X.: Non-malleable codes and extractors for small-depth circuits, and affine functions. In: Hatami, H., McKenzie, P., King, V. (eds.) 49th ACM STOC, pp. 1171–1184. ACM Press, June 2017

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cheraghchi, M., Guruswami, V.: Capacity of non-malleable codes. In: Naor, M. (ed.) ITCS 2014, pp. 155–168. ACM, January 2014

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chung, K.M., Lin, H., Pass, R.: Constant-round concurrent zero knowledge from P-certificates. In: FOCS 2013 [32] , pp. 50–59

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ciampi, M., Ostrovsky, R., Siniscalchi, L., Visconti, I.: Concurrent non-malleable commitments (and more) in 3 rounds. In: Robshaw, M., Katz, J. (eds.) CRYPTO 2016, Part III. LNCS, vol. 9816, pp. 270–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53015-3_10

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Ciampi, M., Ostrovsky, R., Siniscalchi, L., Visconti, I.: Four-round concurrentnon-malleable commitments from one-way functions. In: Katz and Shacham [44], pp. 127–157

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Coron, J.S., Holenstein, T., Künzler, R., Patarin, J., Seurin, Y., Tessaro, S.: How to build an ideal cipher: the indifferentiability of the Feistel construction. J. Cryptol. 29(1), 61–114 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Dachman-Soled, D., Katz, J., Thiruvengadam, A.: 10-round Feistel isindifferentiable from an ideal cipher. In: Fischlin and Coron [30], pp. 649–678

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Dai, Y., Steinberger, J.: Indifferentiability of 8-round feistel networks. In: Robshaw, M., Katz, J. (eds.) CRYPTO 2016, Part I. LNCS, vol. 9814, pp. 95–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53018-4_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Dolev, D., Dwork, C., Naor, M.: Nonmalleable cryptography. SIAM Rev. 45(4), 727–784 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Drucker, A.: Nondeterministic direct product reductions and the success probability of SAT solvers. In: FOCS 2013 [32], pp. 736–745

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dubrov, B., Ishai, Y.: On the randomness complexity of efficient sampling. In: Kleinberg, J.M. (ed.) 38th ACM STOC, pp. 711–720. ACM Press, May 2006

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dwork, C., Naor, M.: Zaps and their applications. In: FOCS 2000 [31], pp. 283–293

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dziembowski, S., Pietrzak, K., Wichs, D.: Non-malleable codes. In: Yao, A.C.C. (ed.) ICS 2010, pp. 434–452. Tsinghua University Press, January 2010

    Google Scholar 

  26. Faust, S., Hostáková, K., Mukherjee, P., Venturi, D.: Non-malleablecodes for space-bounded tampering. In: Katz and Shacham [44], pp. 95–126

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Faust, S., Mukherjee, P., Venturi, D., Wichs, D.: Efficient non-malleable codes and key-derivation for poly-size tampering circuits. In: Nguyen, P.Q., Oswald, E. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8441, pp. 111–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55220-5_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Feige, U., Lapidot, D., Shamir, A.: Multiple noninteractive zero knowledge proofs under general assumptions. SIAM J. Comput. 29(1), 1–28 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Feige, U., Lund, C.: On the hardness of computing the permanent of random matrices. Comput. Complex. 6(2), 101–132 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Fischlin, M., Coron, J.-S. (eds.): EUROCRYPT 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9666. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49896-5

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. 41st FOCS. IEEE Computer Society Press, November 2000

    Google Scholar 

  32. 54th FOCS. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 2013

    Google Scholar 

  33. 58th FOCS. IEEE Computer Society Press (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fortnow, L., Vadhan, S.P. (eds.): 43rd ACM STOC. ACM Press, June 2011

    Google Scholar 

  35. Goldreich, O., Wigderson, A.: Derandomization that is rarely wrong from short advice that is typically good. In: Rolim, J.D.P., Vadhan, S. (eds.) RANDOM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2483, pp. 209–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45726-7_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Goyal, V.: Constant round non-malleable protocols using one way functions. In: Fortnow and Vadhan [34], pp. 695–704

    Google Scholar 

  37. Goyal, V., Pandey, O., Richelson, S.: Textbook non-malleable commitments. In: Wichs and Mansour [69], pp. 1128–1141

    Google Scholar 

  38. Goyal, V., Richelson, S., Rosen, A., Vald, M.: An algebraic approach to non-malleability. In: 55th FOCS, pp. 41–50. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 2014

    Google Scholar 

  39. Groth, J., Ostrovsky, R., Sahai, A.: Non-interactive zaps and new techniques for NIZK. In: Dwork, C. (ed.) CRYPTO 2006. LNCS, vol. 4117, pp. 97–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11818175_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Gutfreund, D., Shaltiel, R., Ta-Shma, A.: Uniform hardness versus randomness tradeoffs for Arthur-Merlin games. Comput. Complex. 12(3–4), 85–130 (2003)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Harnik, D., Naor, M.: On the compressibility of \(\cal{NP}\) instances and cryptographic applications. SIAM J. Comput. 39(5), 1667–1713 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. Håstad, J., Impagliazzo, R., Levin, L.A., Luby, M.: A pseudorandom generator from any one-way function. SIAM J. Comput. 28(4), 1364–1396 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. Impagliazzo, R., Wigderson, A.: P = BPP if E requires exponential circuits: derandomizing the XOR lemma. In: 29th ACM STOC, pp. 220–229. ACM Press, May 1997

    Google Scholar 

  44. Katz, J., Shacham, H. (eds.): CRYPTO 2017, Part II. LNCS, vol. 10402. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63715-0

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Khurana, D.: Round optimal concurrent non-malleability from polynomial hardness. In: Kalai, Y., Reyzin, L. (eds.) TCC 2017, Part II. LNCS, vol. 10678, pp. 139–171. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70503-3_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Khurana, D., Sahai, A.: How to achieve non-malleability in one or two rounds. In: FOCS 2017 [33], pp. 564–575

    Google Scholar 

  47. Klivans, A.R., Van Melkebeek, D.: Graph nonisomorphism has subexponential size proofs unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses. SIAM J. Comput. 31(5), 1501–1526 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  48. Lin, H., Pass, R.: Non-malleability amplification. In: Mitzenmacher, M. (ed.) 41st ACM STOC, pp. 189–198. ACM Press, May/June 2009

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lin, H., Pass, R.: Constant-round non-malleable commitments from any one-way function. In: Fortnow and Vadhan [34], pp. 705–714

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lin, H., Pass, R., Soni, P.: Two-round and non-interactive concurrent non-malleable commitments from time-lock puzzles. In: FOCS 2017 [33], pp. 576–587

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lin, H., Pass, R., Venkitasubramaniam, M.: Concurrent non-malleable commitments from any one-way function. In: Canetti, R. (ed.) TCC 2008. LNCS, vol. 4948, pp. 571–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78524-8_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Lindell, Y.: A simpler construction of CCA2-secure public-key encryption under general assumptions. In: Biham, E. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2656, pp. 241–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-39200-9_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Lipton, R.J.: New directions in testing. In: Feigenbaum, J., Merritt, M. (eds.) Distributed Computing and Cryptography, Proceedings of a DIMACS Workshop, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, 4–6 October 1989, pp. 191–202 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Micali, S.: Computationally sound proofs. SIAM J. Comput. 30(4), 1253–1298 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  55. Miltersen, P.B., Vinodchandran, N.V.: Derandomizing Arthur-Merlin games using hitting sets. Comput. Complex. 14(3), 256–279 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  56. Naor, M., Yung, M.: Public-key cryptosystems provably secure against chosen ciphertext attacks. In: 22nd ACM STOC, pp. 427–437. ACM Press, May 1990

    Google Scholar 

  57. Nisan, N., Wigderson, A.: Hardness vs randomness. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 49(2), 149–167 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0000(05)80043-1

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  58. Ostrovsky, R., Persiano, G., Venturi, D., Visconti, I.: Continuously non-malleable codes in the split-state model from minimal assumptions. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/542 (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/542

  59. Pass, R., Rosen, A.: Concurrent non-malleable commitments. In: 46th FOCS, pp. 563–572. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 2005

    Google Scholar 

  60. Pass, R., Rosen, A.: New and improved constructions of non-malleable cryptographic protocols. In: Gabow, H.N., Fagin, R. (eds.) 37th ACM STOC, pp. 533–542. ACM Press, May 2005

    Google Scholar 

  61. Pass, R., Wee, H.: Constant-round non-malleable commitments from sub-exponential one-way functions. In: Gilbert, H. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6110, pp. 638–655. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13190-5_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  62. Rivest, R.L., Shamir, A., Wagner, D.A.: Time-lock puzzles and timed-release crypto (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Sahai, A.: Non-malleable non-interactive zero knowledge and adaptive chosen-ciphertext security. In: 40th FOCS, pp. 543–553. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 1999

    Google Scholar 

  64. Shaltiel, R., Umans, C.: Simple extractors for all min-entropies and a new pseudorandom generator. J. ACM (JACM) 52(2), 172–216 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  65. Shaltiel, R., Umans, C.: Pseudorandomness for approximate counting and sampling. Comput. Complex. 15(4), 298–341 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  66. Shaltiel, R., Umans, C.: Low-end uniform hardness versus randomness tradeoffs for AM. SIAM J. Comput. 39(3), 1006–1037 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  67. Sudan, M., Trevisan, L., Vadhan, S.: Pseudorandom generators without the XOR Lemma. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 62(2), 236–266 (2001). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022000000917306

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  68. Trevisan, L., Vadhan, S.P.: Extracting randomness from samplable distributions. In: FOCS 2000 [31], pp. 32–42

    Google Scholar 

  69. Wichs, D., Mansour, Y. (eds.): 48th ACM STOC. ACM Press, June 2016

    Google Scholar 

  70. Yao, A.C.: Theory and applications of trapdoor functions (extended abstract). In: 23rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 3–5 November 1982, pp. 80–91. IEEE Computer Society (1982). https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1982.45

Download references

Acknowledgments

The first and fifth authors are supported in part by NSF grant #CCF1423306 and the Leona M. & Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. The first author is additionally supported in part by an IBM Research PhD Fellowship.The second and third authors are supported in part by NSF grants #CNS-1840893, #CNS-1453045 (CAREER), by a research partnership award from Cisco and by financial assistance award 70NANB15H328 from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. The fourth author is supported by NSF grants #CNS-1528178, #CNS-1514526, #CNS-1652849 (CAREER), a Hellman Fellowship, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Army Research Office (ARO) under Contract No. W911NF-15-C-0236, and a subcontract No. 2017-002 through Galois. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, or the U.S. Government. This work was performed, in part, while the first author was visiting IDC Herzliya’s FACT center and supported in part by ISF grant no. 1790/13 and the Check Point Institute for Information Security.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia University, New York, USA

    Marshall Ball & Tal Malkin

  2. University of Maryland, College Park, USA

    Dana Dachman-Soled & Mukul Kulkarni

  3. University of Washington, Seattle, USA

    Huijia Lin

Authors
  1. Marshall Ball
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dana Dachman-Soled
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mukul Kulkarni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Huijia Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tal Malkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marshall Ball .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Technion, Haifa, Israel

    Yuval Ishai

  2. COSIC Group, KU Leuven, Heverlee, Belgium

    Vincent Rijmen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 International Association for Cryptologic Research

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ball, M., Dachman-Soled, D., Kulkarni, M., Lin, H., Malkin, T. (2019). Non-Malleable Codes Against Bounded Polynomial Time Tampering. In: Ishai, Y., Rijmen, V. (eds) Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2019. EUROCRYPT 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11476. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17653-2_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17653-2_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17652-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17653-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships