Computer-aided proofs for multiparty computation with active security

June 19, 2018 ยท The Ethereal ยท ๐Ÿ› IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium

๐Ÿ”ฎ THE ETHEREAL: The Ethereal
Pure theory โ€” exists on a plane beyond code

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Helene Haagh, Aleksandr Karbyshev, Sabine Oechsner, Bas Spitters, Pierre-Yves Strub arXiv ID 1806.07197 Category cs.LO: Logic in CS Cross-listed cs.CR Citations 29 Venue IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium Last Checked 2 months ago
Abstract
Secure multi-party computation (MPC) is a general cryptographic technique that allows distrusting parties to compute a function of their individual inputs, while only revealing the output of the function. It has found applications in areas such as auctioning, email filtering, and secure teleconference. Given its importance, it is crucial that the protocols are specified and implemented correctly. In the programming language community it has become good practice to use computer proof assistants to verify correctness proofs. In the field of cryptography, EasyCrypt is the state of the art proof assistant. It provides an embedded language for probabilistic programming, together with a specialized logic, embedded into an ambient general purpose higher-order logic. It allows us to conveniently express cryptographic properties. EasyCrypt has been used successfully on many applications, including public-key encryption, signatures, garbled circuits and differential privacy. Here we show for the first time that it can also be used to prove security of MPC against a malicious adversary. We formalize additive and replicated secret sharing schemes and apply them to Maurer's MPC protocol for secure addition and multiplication. Our method extends to general polynomial functions. We follow the insights from EasyCrypt that security proofs can be often be reduced to proofs about program equivalence, a topic that is well understood in the verification of programming languages. In particular, we show that in the passive case the non-interference-based definition is equivalent to a standard game-based security definition. For the active case we provide a new NI definition, which we call input independence.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Logic in CS