DOCSLIB.ORG

MPF and PHMP

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MPF and PHMP MPF – Sergio Demian Lerner 1/83 MPF (Mental Poker Framework) A new family of practical and secure Mental Poker protocols Tesis de Licenciatura Autor: Sergio Demian Lerner Director: Dr. Hugo D. Scolnik Departamento de Computación Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales Universidad de Buenos Aires Noviembre de 2010 MPF – Sergio Demian Lerner 2/83 Agradecimientos A mi esposa Alush, que me alentó siempre a seguir mi camino. A mi hijo Ariel, por su infinita impaciencia. A mis padres, por enseñarme a aprender. A mi director, Dr. Hugo Scolnik, por darme la oportunidad y ayudarme. A los profesores de Exactas, que dan lo mejor de sí para engrandecer día a día la facultad. A mis amigos y en especial a Diego Bursztyn, por el puntapié inicial. Por último a Bruce Schneier, autor del primer libro sobre criptografía que cayó en mis manos. MPF – Sergio Demian Lerner 3/83 Table of Contents Abstract....................................................................................................................................................... 6 List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................. 7 List of Tables................................................................................................................................................ 7 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 8 1.1. Background...................................................................................................................................... 9 1.2. Mental Protocol Requirements.........................................................................................................9 1.2.1. Basic Requirements.................................................................................................................9 1.2.2. Extended Requirements.........................................................................................................11 1.2.3. Unreal Requirements.............................................................................................................12 1.3. Measuring Performance................................................................................................................13 1.4. Delayed Verifications.....................................................................................................................13 1.5. Non-interactive vs. Interactive Proofs............................................................................................13 1.6. External on-line Auditing ...............................................................................................................14 1.7. Hash Chains.................................................................................................................................. 14 1.8. Theoretical Security in Mental Poker Protocols.............................................................................14 1.9. Kinds of Proofs..............................................................................................................................14 2. MPF base concepts .............................................................................................................................. 16 2.1. MPF base protocols ...................................................................................................................... 18 2.2. MPF instantiation........................................................................................................................... 18 2.3. Verification Protocols.....................................................................................................................18 2.4. Unified Verification protocol (UniVP)..............................................................................................20 2.5. Ad-hoc Verification protocols and malleability................................................................................22 2.6. MPF compared to SRA..................................................................................................................23 2.7. MPF compared to Barnett-Smart...................................................................................................23 2.8. Keys Lifetime................................................................................................................................. 23 2.9. Open Cards Lifetime......................................................................................................................23 2.10. Encoding of Open-Cards.............................................................................................................24 2.10.1. VRF-based CO-PRNGP......................................................................................................24 2.10.2. Hash-based CO-PRNGP.....................................................................................................24 2.11. MPF Rounds................................................................................................................................ 26 2.12. Free Cards................................................................................................................................... 27 2.13. Card Keys.................................................................................................................................... 28 2.14. Card Dealing ...............................................................................................................................28 2.15. Master Card Keys........................................................................................................................ 29 2.16. Unverified Computations .............................................................................................................29 2.17. Card Transfers............................................................................................................................. 29 2.18. Suicide Cheaters.........................................................................................................................29 2.19. VSM-VPUM trick.......................................................................................................................... 30 2.20. VSM-L-OL, The Fastest Dealing Protocol....................................................................................30 2.21. Card Deal Preparation Phase .....................................................................................................31 2.22. Card showdowns......................................................................................................................... 31 2.23. Advanced Card Operations..........................................................................................................31 2.24. Abrupt Drop-out tolerance............................................................................................................31 2.25. Duplicated Cards......................................................................................................................... 33 2.26. Some known CGCs ....................................................................................................................34 3. MPF formal definition............................................................................................................................. 35 3.1. Definitions...................................................................................................................................... 35 3.2. Types............................................................................................................................................. 35 3.3. Private Data Structures..................................................................................................................35 3.4. Miscellaneous Operations..............................................................................................................36 3.5. Operations on Cards...................................................................................................................... 37 3.6. Introduction to MPF base protocols...............................................................................................37 3.6.1. VSM-L-OL..............................................................................................................................38 3.6.2. VSM-VL................................................................................................................................. 39 3.6.3. VSM-VPUM........................................................................................................................... 40 3.6.4. VSM-VL-VUM........................................................................................................................ 41 MPF – Sergio Demian Lerner 4/83 3.7. Card Protocols ..............................................................................................................................42 3.7.1. Create-Deck (CO-PRNGP)....................................................................................................43 3.7.2. Create-Deck (Locking)...........................................................................................................44 3.7.3. Shuffle-Deck.......................................................................................................................... 44 3.7.4. Prepare-Cards-To-Deal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Fast Mental Poker Protocol
    J. Math. Cryptol. 6 (2012), 39–68 DOI 10.1515/jmc-2012-0004 © de Gruyter 2012 A fast mental poker protocol Tzer-jen Wei and Lih-Chung Wang Communicated by Kwangjo Kim Abstract. In this paper, we present a fast and secure mental poker protocol. The basic structure is the same as Barnett & Smart’s and Castellà-Roca’s protocols but our encryp- tion scheme is different. With this alternative encryption scheme, our shuffle is not only twice as fast, but it also has different security properties. As such, Barnett & Smart’s and Castellà-Roca’s security proof cannot be applied to our protocol directly. Nevertheless, our protocol is still provably secure under the DDH assumption. The only weak point of our protocol is that reshuffling a small subset of cards might take longer than Barnett & Smart’s and Castellà-Roca’s protocols. Therefore, our protocol is more suitable for card games such as bridge, most poker games, mahjong, hearts, or black jack, which do not require much partial reshuffling. Keywords. Mental poker, DDH assumption. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 94A60, 68M12. 1 Introduction 1.1 Mental poker Mental poker is the study of protocols that allow players to play fair poker games over the net without a trusted third party. There are very few assumptions about the behavior of adversaries in mental poker. Adversaries are typically allowed to have a coalition of any size and can conduct active attacks. The main challenge is to design a secure mental poker protocol that is fast enough for practical needs. Numerous mental poker protocols have been proposed ([4,5,10–12,17,18,20,25,26,28,30,34–36]) and many of them are provably secure, but all commercial online poker rooms are still based on client-server architec- tures.
    [Show full text]
  • Protocols for Secure Computations (Extended Abstract)
    Protocols for Secure Computations (extended abstract) Andrew C. Yao University of California Berkeley, California 94720 1 Introduction without a precise model it would be hard to answer a Two millionaires wish to know who is richer; however, question such as “Is it possible for three mutually sus- they do not want to find out inadvertently any additional pecting parties to interactively generate a bit with bias information about each other’s wealth. How can they 1/e ?” carry out such a conversation? In response to this need, we propose to adopt the fol- This is a special case of the following general prob- lowing view. Two parties Alice and Bob, in possession lem. Suppose m people wish to compute the value of a of private variables i and j respectively, wish to commu- nicate so that Alice can evaluate a function f(i, j), and function f(x1, x2, x3, . , xm), which is an integer-valued Bob a function g(i, j). There may be some eavesdrop- function of m integer variables xi of bounded range. As- pers or saboteurs on the communication line. The pur- sume initially person Pi knows the value of xi and no other x’s. Is it possible for them to compute the value of pose of a protocol would be to design an algorithm for f, by communicating among themselves, without unduly Alice and Bob to follow, such that certain security con- giving away any information about the values of their own straints (against saboteur) and privacy constraints (Alice variables? The millionaires’ problem corresponds to the may not wish to reveal the exact value of i) can be satis- fied.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributions to Mental Poker
    Contributions to Mental Poker Submitted to Universitat Autonoma` de Barcelona in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science by Jordi Castell`a-Roca May 2005 c Copyright 2005 by Jordi Castell`a-Roca Abstract Computer networks and especially the Internet have allowed some common activities such as shopping or gambling to become remote (e-shopping and e-gambling). The poker game played over a network is known as mental poker. The problem with mental poker is the difficulty of keeping it practical while guaranteeing the same standards of security, fairness and auditability offered by standard casinos for physical poker. The important aspects to take into account when designing mental poker protocols are: functionality, security, and computational and communication cost. Proposals in the literature usually focus on the first two items only. This makes comparisons difficult. This thesis starts with a formal cost analysis of the main proposals in the literature. The analysis is not limited to costs, though; security is also analyzed and, in fact, our study detected a fundamental weakness in one of the compared mental poker protocols. The attack is presented in a separate chapter after the global comparative analysis. The three following chapters of this thesis present three new protocols that enhance the proposals in the literature in different ways. The first proposal belongs to the family of TTP-free protocols and does not preserve the confidentiality of player strategies; it reduces the computational cost by avoiding the use of zero- knowledge proofs. The second proposal is TTP-free, preserves the confidentiality of player strategies and reduces the computational cost by requiring players to perform less mathematical operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Cryptographic Primitives and Quantum Theory
    Cryptographic Primitives and Quantum Theory Claude CrCpeau Laboratoire d’hformatique de J’$cole Normale SupcXeure (CNRS URA 1327) * Abstract only using public key cryptography, but using quan- tum mechanics as a support. This paper summarizes the current knowledge in the field of two-party cryptographic protocols devised from quantum systems. We introduce the reader to the no- 2 Cryptographic Primitives tion of cryptographic protocols and describe a number of sample building blocks to achieve them. We also We now introduce the main two basic primitives give pointers for the reader who is interested to the that have been widely considered useful building quantum implementation of these building blocks. as blocks in the design of more elaborate cryptographic protocols: 1 Introduction Bit commitment: Alice can commit to the value of a bit b in such a way that Bob has no information Since the 1970’s the science of secret writing, cryp- about which bit it is, yet Alice can only open the tography, has changed substantially due to the intro- commitment to show the original bit b and not duction of “public key cryptosystems” [26, 411. The the opposite Tb. many properties of certain instances of these systems have open the door to several new applications (con- Oblivious transfer: Alice can send a bit b to Bob in sult [42, 25, 29, 44, 34, 28, 7, 30, 36, 32, 11, 19, 331 for such a way that the bit is received with proba- bility 50%. Neither party can influence the prob- instance, to mention just a few). The initial goal of cryptography, to provide secure communications, has ability that the bit is received.
    [Show full text]
  • Handout 11 Summary of This Handout: Certificates — Verisign — PGP — Commitment Schemes — Mental Coin Flipping — Mental Poker — Zero Knowledge Proofs
    06-20008 Cryptography The University of Birmingham Autumn Semester 2006 School of Computer Science Volker Sorge 12 December, 2006 Handout 11 Summary of this handout: Certificates — VeriSign — PGP — Commitment Schemes — Mental Coin Flipping — Mental Poker — Zero Knowledge Proofs IV.6 Digital Certificates For the public key ciphers as well as the digital signature algorithms discussed so far, we have only been concerned with the question how public keys can be generated, but not looked at the question how a public key can be published securely. We have simply assumed that Alice’s public key, once published, is available somewhere for Bob to encrypt messages and to check Alice’s signatures. However, Bob can never be absolutely certain that the public key he picks up has really been issued by Alice and not by some imposter. If a public key does not belong to the person that, for instance, claims has signed a message, Bob can be tricked into accepting and verifying signatures that are actually send by Mallory posing as Alice. It is therefore important that public keys can be trustedly associated with a particular party. This goal can be achieved by digital certificates. We note that in a symmetric key system, we do not have to certify which key belongs to which partici- pating party, as we assume that the key distribution is secure and that keys are only in the hands of the parties legitimately participating in the communication. Only if the key distribution mechanism fails or a key is compromised we have to renew and redistribute the common symmetric key to all parties involved, which should lead again to a closed and secure system.
    [Show full text]
  • Secure Fault-Tolerant Protocols and the Public-Key Model
    Cryptographic Computation: Secure Fault-Tolerant Protocols and the Public-Key Model (Extended Abstract) Zvi Galil'. 2* Stuart Habedl Moti Yung'r 3*4 Department of Computer Science, Columbia University Department of Computer Science, Tei Aviv University We give a general procedure for designing correct, secure, and fault-tolerant cryptographic protocols for many parties, thus enlarging the domain of tasks that can be performed efficiently by cryptographic means. We model the most general sort of feasible adversarial behavior, and describe fault-recovery procedures that can tolerate it. Our constructions minimize the use of cryptographic resources. By applying the complexity-theoretic approach to knowledge, we are able to measure and control the computational knowledge released to the various users, as well as its temporal availability. Supported in part by NSF grants MCS-8303139 and DCR-8511713. Supported in part by an IBM graduate fellowship. C. Pomerance (Ed.): Advances in Cryptology - CRYPT0 '87, LNCS 293, pp. 135-155, 1988. 0 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988 136 s-rg An important area of research in cryptography is the design of protocols for cawing on certain uansactions in a communications network, such as playing poker or holding an election. Many of the pr~tocolsproposed in this area have required the expensive on-line generation of a large number of new keys. On the other hand, fundamental research in the traditional problems of cryptography, such as encryption and authentication, has developed the public-key model, in which each user has a single validated public key. This model is appropriate to those situations in which generation and validation of new keys is very costly or is othewise limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Cryptographic Algorithms for Privacy-Preserving Online Applications
    Mathematical Foundations of Computing doi:10.3934/mfc.2018015 c American Institute of Mathematical Sciences Volume 1, Number 4, November 2018 pp. 311{330 CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHMS FOR PRIVACY-PRESERVING ONLINE APPLICATIONS Ruinian Li Computer Science Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43401, USA Yinhao Xiao and Cheng Zhang Computer Science Department George Washington University 2121 I St NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA Tianyi Song Computer Science Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43401, USA Chunqiang Hu∗ School of Big Data and Software Engineering Chongqing University Chongqing, China (Communicated by Zhipeng Cai) Abstract. Privacy in online applications has drawn tremendous attention in recent years. With the development of cloud-based applications, protecting users' privacy while guaranteeing the expected service from the server has become a significant issue. This paper surveyed the most popular cryptographic algorithms in privacy-preserving online applications to provide a tutorial-like introduction to researchers in this area. Particularly, this paper focuses on introduction to homomorphic encryption, secret sharing, secure multi-party computation and zero-knowledge proof. 1. Introduction. Cloud computing [60] and big data [45] technology have been developed rapidly in the last decade, and privacy protection in online applications has become a more critical issue than ever before. Nowadays users are becoming more aware of their privacy issues when utilizing online service, and great efforts are made by researchers in building secure and robust applications with privacy protection. In this paper, we surveyed recent research in privacy-preserving online applications, and introduce the most popular and powerful cryptographic mecha- nisms in building practical applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Bit Commitment Was Acheived from in a Quantum Computation Model It Was first Believed Any One-Way Function [NOV06]
    Commitment Claude Cre´peau ∗ 1 Commitment [B] Unveiling the content of the envelope is achieved by opening it and extracting the piece of paper inside (see A commitment scheme is a two-phase cryptographic pro- Figure 2). tocol between two parties, a sender and a receiver, satis- The terminology of commitments, influenced by the le- fying the following constraints. At the end of the Com- gal vocabulary, first appeared in the contract signing pro- mit phase the sender is committed to a specific value (of- tocols of Shimon Even [Eve82], although it seems fair to ten a single bit) that he cannot change later on (Commit- attribute the concept to Manuel Blum [Blu82] who im- ments are binding) and the receiver should have no in- plicitly uses it for coin flipping around the same time. In formation about the committed value, other than what he his Crypto 81 paper, Even refers to Blums contribution already knew before the protocol (Commitments are con- saying: “In the summer of 1980, in a conversation, M. cealing). In the Unveil phase, the sender sends extra in- Blum suggested the use of randomization for such pro- formation to the receiver that allows him to determine the tocols”. So apparently Blum introduced the idea of us- value that was concealed by the commitment. Bit commit- ing random hard problems to commit to something (coin, ments are important components of zero-knowledge pro- contract, etc). However, one can also argue that the earlier tocols [GMW91, BCC88], and other more general two- work of Shamir, Rivest and Adleman [SRA81] on “men- party cryptographic protocols [Kil88].
    [Show full text]
  • Secure Multi-Party Computation for Cloud-Based Control
    Secure Multi-party Computation for Cloud-based Control Andreea B. Alexandru and George J. Pappas Abstract In this chapter, we will explore the cloud-outsourced privacy-preserving computation of a controller on encrypted measurements from a (possibly distributed) system, taking into account the challenges introduced by the dynamical nature of the data. The privacy notion used in this work is that of cryptographic multi-party privacy, i.e., the computation of a functionality should not reveal anything more than what can be inferred only from the inputs and outputs of the functionality. The main theoretical concept used towards this goal is Homomorphic Encryption, which allows the evaluation of sums and products on encrypted data, and, when combined with other cryptographic techniques, such as Secret Sharing, results in a powerful tool for solving a wide range of secure multi-party problems. We will rigorously define these concepts and discuss how multi-party privacy can be enforced in the implementation of a Model Predictive Controller, which encompasses computing stabilizing control actions by solving an optimization problem on encrypted data. 1 Introduction Cloud computing has become a ubiquitous tool in the age of big data and geographically-spread systems, due to the capabilities of resource pooling, broad network access, rapid elasticity, measured service and on-demand self-service, as defined by NIST [55]. The computational power and storage space of a cloud service can be distributed over multiple servers. Cloud computing has been employed for machine learning applications in e.g., healthcare monitoring and social networks, smart grid control and other control engineering applications, and integration with arXiv:1906.09652v1 [eess.SY] 23 Jun 2019 the Internet of Things paradigm [69, 15].
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography on Mental Poker
    Bibliography on Mental Poker Heiko Stamer [email protected] Version 1.6 Abstract This bibliography maintains some references to scientific papers on the so-called “Mental Poker” problem: it asks whether it is possible to play a fair game of poker without physical cards and without a trusted dealer, i.e., by phone or over the Internet. This question has raised some interesting solutions in the early days of public research in cryptography and stimulated some important considerations like semantic security. Nowadays it gains again some attention due to the freaky hype of cryptocurrencies. References [AskarovSabelfeld:2005] Aslan Askarov and Andrei Sabelfeld. Security- Typed Languages for Implementation of Cryptographic Pro- tocols: A Case Study of Mutual Distrust. Technical Report 2005-13, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology and Goeborg¨ Univer- sity, 2005. [AskarovSabelfeld:2005:ESORICS] Aslan Askarov and Andrei Sabelfeld. Security-Typed Languages for Implementation of Crypto- graphic Protocols: A Case Study. In Sabrina De Capitani di Vimercati, Paul F. Syverson, and Dieter Gollmann, ed- itors, Computer Security - ESORICS 2005, Proceedings of the 10th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, volume 3679 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 197– 221. Springer Verlag, 2005. 1 Abstract: Security protocols are critical for pro- tecting modern communication infrastructures and are therefore subject to thorough analysis. However practical implementations of these pro- tocols lack the same level of attention and thus may be more exposed to attacks. This paper dis- cusses security assurance provided by security- typed languages when implementing crypto- graphic protocols. Our results are based on a case study using Jif, a Java-based security-typed language, for implementing a non-trivial crypto- graphic protocol that allows playing online poker without a trusted third party.
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy Homomorphisms for E-Gambling and Mental Poker Jordi Castella-Roca,` Vanesa Daza, Josep Domingo-Ferrer, Senior Member, IEEE, and Francesc Sebe´
    Privacy Homomorphisms for E-Gambling and Mental Poker Jordi Castella-Roca,` Vanesa Daza, Josep Domingo-Ferrer, Senior Member, IEEE, and Francesc Sebe´ Abstract— With the development of computer networks, situ- 3) The encrypted deck of cards is processed sequentially by ations where a set of players remotely play a game (e-gaming) all the players. During this process, the player receives have become usual. Often players play for money (e-gambling), the set C, permutes its elements and then re-masks (i.e. which requires standards of security similar to those in physical gambling. Cryptographic tools have been commonly used so far re-encrypts) them. The set resulting from the previous to provide security to e-gambling. Homomorphic encryption is step corresponds to the shuffled encrypted deck of cards. an example of such tools. The shuffled encrypted deck of cards is made up of 52 In this paper we review the mental poker protocols, where encrypted values such that none of the players knows which players are assumed to remotely play poker. We focus on the key advantage of using cryptosystems with homomorphic properties card is contained in each. Note that if Step 3 consisted of a (privacy homomorphisms) because they offer the possibility of single permutation, at least the player who performed Step 2 manipulating cards in encrypted form. would know the content of the final shuffled and encrypted Index Terms— Cryptography, privacy homomorphism, mental deck since she knows which cryptogram corresponds to each poker card. For a secure generation of the encrypted shuffled deck, it is necessary that, after permuting the encrypted deck, its elements are re-masked.
    [Show full text]
  • Secrecy Without One-Way Functions
    SECRECY WITHOUT ONE-WAY FUNCTIONS DIMA GRIGORIEV AND VLADIMIR SHPILRAIN Abstract. We show that some problems in information security can be solved with- out using one-way functions. The latter are usually regarded as a central concept of cryptography, but the very existence of one-way functions depends on difficult con- jectures in complexity theory, most notably on the notorious “P =6 NP ” conjecture. This is why cryptographic primitives that do not employ one-way functions are often called “unconditionally secure”. In this paper, we suggest protocols for secure computation of the sum, product, and some other functions of two or more elements of an arbitrary constructible ring, without using any one-way functions. A new input that we offer here is that, in contrast with other proposals, we conceal “intermediate results” of a computation. For example, when we compute the sum of k numbers, only the final result is known to the parties; partial sums are not known to anybody. Other applications of our method include voting/rating over insecure channels and a rather elegant and efficient solution of the “two millionaires problem”. Then, while it is fairly obvious that a secure (bit) commitment between two parties is impossible without a one-way function, we show that it is possible if the number of parties is at least 3. We also show how our unconditionally secure (bit) commit- ment scheme for 3 parties can be used to arrange an unconditionally secure (bit) commitment between just two parties if they use a “dummy” (e.g., a computer) as the third party.
    [Show full text]