Abstract Quorum systems are a key abstraction in distributed fault-tolerant computing for capturing trust assumptions. They can be found at the core of many algorithms for implementing reliable broadcasts, shared memory, consensus and other problems. This paper introduces asymmetric Byzantine quorum systems that model subjective trust. Every process is free to choose which combinations of other processes it trusts and which ones it considers faulty. Asymmetric quorum systems strictly generalize standard Byzantine quorum systems, which have only one global trust assumption for all processes. This work also presents protocols that implement abstractions of shared memory, broadcast primitives, and a consensus protocol among processes prone to Byzantine faults and asymmetric trust. The model and protocols pave the way for realizing more elaborate algorithms with asymmetric trust.

Token payment systems were the first application of blockchain technology and are still the most widely used one. Early implementations of such systems, like Bitcoin or Ethereum, provide virtually no privacy beyond basic pseudonymity: all transactions are written in plain to the blockchain, which makes them linkable and traceable.

One approach toward basing public-key encryption (PKE) schemes on weak and credible assumptions is to build “stronger” or more general schemes generically from “weaker” or more restricted ones. One particular line of work in this context was initiated by Myers and Shelat (FOCS ’09) and continued by Hohenberger, Lewko, and Waters (Eurocrypt ’12), who provide constructions of multi-bit CCA-secure PKE from single-bit CCA-secure PKE. It is well known that encrypting each bit of a plaintext string independently is not CCA-secure—the resulting scheme is malleable. We therefore investigate whether this malleability can be dealt with using the conceptually simple approach of applying a suitable non-malleable code (Dziembowski et al., ICS ’10) to the plaintext and subsequently encrypting the resulting codeword bit by bit. We find that an attacker’s ability to ask multiple decryption queries requires that the underlying code be continuously non-malleable (Faust et al., TCC ’14). Since, as we show, this flavor of non-malleability can only be achieved if the code is allowed to “self-destruct,” the resulting scheme inherits this property and therefore only achieves a weaker variant of CCA security. We formalize this new notion of so-called indistinguishability under self-destruct attacks (IND-SDA) as CCA security with the restriction that the decryption oracle stops working once the attacker submits an invalid ciphertext. We first show that the above approach based on non-malleable codes yields a solution to the problem of domain extension for IND-SDA-secure PKE, provided that the underlying code is continuously non-malleable against (a reduced form of) bit-wise tampering. Then, we prove that the code of Dziembowski et al. is actually already continuously non-malleable against bit-wise tampering. We further investigate the notion of security under self-destruct attacks and combine IND-SDA security with non-malleability under chosen-ciphertext attacks (NM-CPA) to obtain the strictly stronger notion of non-malleability under self-destruct attacks (NM-SDA). We show that NM-SDA security can be obtained from basic IND-CPA security by means of a black-box construction based on the seminal work by Choi et al. (TCC ’08). Finally, we provide a domain extension technique for building a multi-bit NM-SDA scheme from a single-bit NM-SDA scheme. To achieve this goal, we define and construct a novel type of continuous non-malleable code, called secret-state NMC, since, as we show, standard continuous NMCs are insufficient for the natural “encode-then-encrypt-bit-by-bit” approach to work.

Quorum systems are a key abstraction in distributed fault-tolerant computing for capturing trust assumptions. They can be found at the core of many algorithms for implementing reliable broadcasts, shared memory, consensus and other problems. This paper introduces asymmetric Byzantine quorum systems that model subjective trust. Every process is free to choose which combinations of other processes it trusts and which ones it considers faulty. Asymmetric quorum systems strictly generalize standard Byzantine quorum systems, which have only one global trust assumption for all processes. This work also presents protocols that implement abstractions of shared memory and broadcast primitives with processes prone to Byzantine faults and asymmetric trust. The model and protocols pave the way for realizing more elaborate algorithms with asymmetric trust.

Quorum systems are a key abstraction in distributed fault-tolerant computing for capturing trust assumptions. They can be found at the core of many algorithms for implementing reliable broadcasts, shared memory, consensus and other problems. This paper introduces asymmetric Byzantine quorum systems that model subjective trust. Every process is free to choose which combinations of other processes it trusts and which ones it considers faulty. Asymmetric quorum systems strictly generalize standard Byzantine quorum systems, which have only one global trust assumption for all processes. This work also presents protocols that implement abstractions of shared memory and broadcast primitives with processes prone to Byzantine faults and asymmetric trust. The model and protocols pave the way for realizing more elaborate algorithms with asymmetric trust.

Cryptographic security is usually defined as a guarantee that holds except when a bad event with negligible probability occurs, and nothing is guaranteed in that bad case. However, in settings where such failure can happen with substantial probability, one needs to provide guarantees even for the bad case. A typical example is where a (possibly weak) password is used instead of a secure cryptographic key to protect a session, the bad event being that the adversary correctly guesses the password. In a situation with multiple such sessions, a per-session guarantee is desired: any session for which the password has not been guessed remains secure, independently of whether other sessions have been compromised. A new formalism for stating such gracefully degrading security guarantees is introduced and applied to analyze the examples of password-based message authentication and password-based encryption. While a natural per-message guarantee is achieved for authentication, the situation of password-based encryption is more delicate: a per-session confidentiality guarantee only holds against attackers for which the distribution of password-guessing effort over the sessions is known in advance. In contrast, for more general attackers without such a restriction, a strong, composable notion of security cannot be achieved.

The security of today's widely used communication security protocols is based on trust in Certificate Authorities (CAs). However, the real security of this approach is debatable, since certificate handling is tedious and many recent attacks have undermined the trust in CAs. On the other hand, opportunistic encryption protocols such as Tcpcrypt, which are currently gaining momentum as an alternative to no encryption, have similar security to using untrusted CAs or self-signed certificates: they only protect against passive attackers. In this paper, we present a key exchange protocol, Secure Multipath Key Exchange (SMKEX), that enables all the benefits of opportunistic encryption (no need for trusted third parties or pre-established secrets), as well as proven protection against some classes of active attackers. Furthermore, SMKEX can be easily extended to a trust-on-first-use setting and can be easily integrated with TLS, providing the highest security for opportunistic encryption to date while also increasing the security of standard TLS. We show that SMKEX is made practical by the current availability of path diversity between different AS-es. We also show a method to create path diversity with encrypted tunnels without relying on the network topology. These allow SMKEX to provide protection against most adversaries for a majority of Alexa top 100 web sites. We have implemented SMKEX using a modified Multipath TCP kernel implementation and a user library that overwrites part of the socket API, allowing unmodified applications to take advantage of the security provided by SMKEX.

Complex information-processing systems, for example, quantum circuits, cryptographic protocols, or multi-player games, are naturally described as networks composed of more basic information-processing systems. A modular analysis of such systems requires a mathematical model of systems that is closed under composition, i.e., a network of these objects is again an object of the same type. We propose such a model and call the corresponding systems causal boxes. Causal boxes capture superpositions of causal structures, e.g., messages sent by a causal box A can be in a superposition of different orders or in a superposition of being sent to box B and box C. Furthermore, causal boxes can model systems whose behavior depends on time. By instantiating the abstract cryptography framework with causal boxes, we obtain the first composable security framework that can handle arbitrary quantum protocols and relativistic protocols.

Security of distributed cryptographic protocols usually requires privacy (inputs of the honest parties remain hidden), correctness (the adversary cannot improperly affect the outcome), and fairness (if the adversary learns the output, all honest parties do also). Cleve's seminal result (STOC '86) implies that satisfying these properties simultaneously is impossible in the presence of dishonest majorities, and led to several proposals for relaxed notions of fairness. While these works also suggest completeness results (i.e., the ability to design protocols which achieve their fairness notion), their assessment is typically of an all-or-nothing nature. In this work we put forth a new approach for defining relaxed fairness guarantees that allows for a quantitative comparison between protocols with regard to the level of fairness they achieve. The basic idea is to use an appropriate utility function to express the preferences of an adversary who wants to violate fairness. We also show optimal protocols with respect to our notion, in both the two-party and multi-party settings.

Most cryptographic security proofs require showing that two systems are indistinguishable. A central tool in such proofs is that of a game, where winning the game means provoking a certain condition, and it is shown that the two systems considered cannot be distinguished unless this condition is provoked. Upper bounding the probability of winning such a game, i.e., provoking this condition, for an arbitrary strategy is usually hard, except in the special case where the best strategy for winning such a game is known to be non-adaptive. A sufficient criterion for ensuring the optimality of non-adaptive strategies is that of conditional equivalence to a system, a notion introduced in [1]. In this paper, we show that this criterion is not necessary to ensure the optimality of non-adaptive strategies by giving two results of independent interest: 1) the optimality of non-adaptive strategies is not preserved under parallel composition; 2) in contrast, conditional equivalence is preserved under parallel composition.

Existing work on "rational cryptographic protocols" treats each party (or coalition of parties) running the protocol as a selfish agent trying to maximize its utility. In this work we propose a fundamentally different approach that is better suited to modeling a protocol under attack from an external entity. Specifically, we consider a two-party game between an protocol designer and an external attacker. The goal of the attacker is to break security properties such as correctness or privacy, possibly by corrupting protocol participants; the goal of the protocol designer is to prevent the attacker from succeeding. We lay the theoretical groundwork for a study of cryptographic protocol design in this setting by providing a methodology for defining the problem within the traditional simulation paradigm. Our framework provides ways of reasoning about important cryptographic concepts (e.g., adaptive corruptions or attacks on communication resources) not handled by previous game-theoretic treatments of cryptography. We also prove composition theorems that-for the first time-provide a sound way to design rational protocols assuming "ideal communication resources" (such as broadcast or authenticated channels) and then instantiate these resources using standard cryptographic tools. Finally, we investigate the problem of secure function evaluation in our framework, where the attacker has to pay for each party it corrupts. Our results demonstrate how knowledge of the attacker's incentives can be used to circumvent known impossibility results in this setting.

Various protocols in the cryptography and distributed systems literature assume some notion of time: One major (but not the only) example are “synchronous” models which assume that a protocol is executed in a well-defined sequence of rounds with round switches that occur (almost) simultaneously at the parties. In many of the considered models, the notion of time is either implicit, or it is closely interweaved with other mechanics of the model such that formally proving even simple statements becomes a tedious task. In this work, we develop an abstract formal model that captures exactly how the availability of clocks with “weak” synchrony guarantees can benefit parties; in particular, we show how — and at what cost — the “synchrony” of clocks can be improved. Proofs in this model are simple and the statements transfer to all models that satisfy the abstraction. The main contribution of this paper is not the actual statements we prove (which mostly verify folklore beliefs), but the formal model that follows the construction paradigm of abstract cryptography and allows to state these proofs in a simple yet rigorous manner. Indeed, the paper is a step towards a treatment of synchronous cryptographic protocols in this constructive sense.

A communication channel from an honest sender A to an honest receiver B can be described as a system with three interfaces labeled A, B, and E (the adversary), respectively, where the security properties of the channel are characterized by the capabilities provided at the E-interface.