Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Black-Box Reductions and Separations in Cryptography

  • Conference paper
Progress in Cryptology - AFRICACRYPT 2012 (AFRICACRYPT 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 7374))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Cryptographic constructions of one primitive or protocol from another one usually come with a reductionist security proof, in the sense that the reduction turns any adversary breaking the derived scheme into a successful adversary against the underlying scheme. Very often the reduction is black-box in the sense that it only looks at the input/output behavior of the adversary and of the underlying primitive. Here we survey the power and the limitations of such black-box reductions, and take a closer look at the recent method of meta-reductions.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akavia, A., Goldreich, O., Goldwasser, S., Moshkovitz, D.: On basing one-way functions on NP-hardness. In: Kleinberg, J.M. (ed.) 38th ACM STOC, May 21-23, pp. 701–710. ACM Press, Seattle (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barak, B.: How to go beyond the black-box simulation barrier. In: 42nd FOCS, October 14-17, pp. 106–115. IEEE Computer Society Press, Las Vegas (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bogdanov, A., Trevisan, L.: On worst-case to average-case reductions for np problems. SIAM J. Comput. 36(4), 1119–1159 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Boldyreva, A., Cash, D., Fischlin, M., Warinschi, B.: Foundations of Non-malleable Hash and One-Way Functions. In: Matsui, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5912, pp. 524–541. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Boneh, D., Venkatesan, R.: Breaking RSA May Not Be Equivalent to Factoring. In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1403, pp. 59–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Brakerski, Z., Katz, J., Segev, G., Yerukhimovich, A.: Limits on the Power of Zero-Knowledge Proofs in Cryptographic Constructions. In: Ishai, Y. (ed.) TCC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6597, pp. 559–578. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown, D.R.L.: Breaking rsa may be as difficult as factoring. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive (2005), http://eprint.iacr.org/2005/380

  8. Coron, J.-S.: Security Proof for Partial-Domain Hash Signature Schemes. In: Yung, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2442, pp. 613–626. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Dodis, Y., Haitner, I., Tentes, A.: On the Instantiability of Hash-and-Sign RSA Signatures. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) TCC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7194, pp. 112–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Dodis, Y., Oliveira, R., Pietrzak, K.: On the Generic Insecurity of the Full Domain Hash. In: Shoup, V. (ed.) CRYPTO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3621, pp. 449–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dwork, C., Naor, M., Sahai, A.: Concurrent zero-knowledge. J. ACM 51(6), 851–898 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Feige, U., Shamir, A.: Witness indistinguishable and witness hiding protocols. In: STOC, pp. 416–426. ACM (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fiore, D., Schröder, D.: Uniqueness Is a Different Story: Impossibility of Verifiable Random Functions from Trapdoor Permutations. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) TCC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7194, pp. 636–653. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Fischlin, M.: On the Impossibility of Constructing Non-interactive Statistically-Secret Protocols from Any Trapdoor One-Way Function. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) CT-RSA 2002. LNCS, vol. 2271, pp. 79–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Fischlin, M., Lehmann, A., Ristenpart, T., Shrimpton, T., Stam, M., Tessaro, S.: Random Oracles with(out) Programmability. In: Abe, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6477, pp. 303–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Fischlin, M., Schröder, D.: On the Impossibility of Three-Move Blind Signature Schemes. In: Gilbert, H. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6110, pp. 197–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Fortnow, L., Santhanam, R.: Infeasibility of instance compression and succinct PCPs for NP. In: Ladner, R.E., Dwork, C. (eds.) 40th ACM STOC, May 17-20, pp. 133–142. ACM Press, Victoria (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gentry, C., Wichs, D.: Separating succinct non-interactive arguments from all falsifiable assumptions. In: Fortnow, L., Vadhan, S.P. (eds.) 43rd ACM STOC, June 6-8, pp. 99–108. ACM Press, San Jose (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gertner, Y., Kannan, S., Malkin, T., Reingold, O., Viswanathan, M.: The relationship between public key encryption and oblivious transfer. In: 41st FOCS, November 12-14, pp. 325–335. IEEE Computer Society Press, Redondo Beach (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Goldreich, O., Goldwasser, S., Micali, S.: How to construct random functions. Journal of the ACM 33, 792–807 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Harnik, D., Naor, M.: On the compressibility of NP instances and cryptographic applications. In: 47th FOCS, October 21-24, pp. 719–728. IEEE Computer Society Press, Berkeley (2006)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Hofheinz, D.: Possibility and impossibility results for selective decommitments. Journal of Cryptology 24(3), 470–516 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Hsiao, C.-Y., Reyzin, L.: Finding Collisions on a Public Road, or Do Secure Hash Functions Need Secret Coins? In: Franklin, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3152, pp. 92–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Impagliazzo, R.: A personal view of average-case complexity. In: Structure in Complexity Theory Conference, pp. 134–147 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Impagliazzo, R., Luby, M.: One-way functions are essential for complexity-based cryptography. In: 30th FOCS, October 30-November 1, pp. 230–235. IEEE Computer Society Press, Research Triangle Park (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Impagliazzo, R., Rudich, S.: Limits on the provable consequences of one-way permutations. In: 21st ACM STOC, May 15-17, pp. 44–61. ACM Press, Seattle (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Luby, M., Rackoff, C.: How to construct pseudorandom permutations from pseudorandom functions. SIAM Journal on Computing 17(2) (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Naor, M.: On Cryptographic Assumptions and Challenges. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 96–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Naor, M., Yung, M.: Universal one-way hash functions and their cryptographic applications. In: 21st ACM STOC, May 15-17, pp. 33–43. ACM Press, Seattle (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Paillier, P., Vergnaud, D.: Discrete-Log-Based Signatures May Not Be Equivalent to Discrete Log. In: Roy, B. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3788, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Pass, R.: Limits of provable security from standard assumptions. In: Fortnow, L., Vadhan, S.P. (eds.) 43rd ACM STOC, June 6-8, pp. 109–118. ACM Press, San Jose (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Reingold, O., Trevisan, L., Vadhan, S.P.: Notions of Reducibility between Cryptographic Primitives. In: Naor, M. (ed.) TCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2951, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Rompel, J.: One-way functions are necessary and sufficient for secure signatures. In: 22nd ACM STOC, May 14-16, pp. 387–394. ACM Press, Baltimore (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rudich, S.: The Use of Interaction in Public Cryptosystems (Extended Abstract). In: Feigenbaum, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 1991. LNCS, vol. 576, pp. 242–251. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schnorr, C.P.: Efficient signature generation by smart cards. Journal of Cryptology 4(3), 161–174 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Seurin, Y.: On the Exact Security of Schnorr-Type Signatures in the Random Oracle Model. In: Pointcheval, D., Johansson, T. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7237, pp. 554–571. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Shannon, C.E.: Communication theory of secrecy systems. Bell Systems Technical Journal 28(4), 656–715 (1949)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Simon, D.R.: Findings Collisions on a One-Way Street: Can Secure Hash Functions Be Based on General Assumptions? In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1403, pp. 334–345. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany

    Marc Fischlin

Authors
  1. Marc Fischlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ecole Polytechnice Fédérale de Lausanne, IC - LASEC, Bâtiment INF 238, Station 14, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Aikaterini Mitrokotsa  & Serge Vaudenay  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Fischlin, M. (2012). Black-Box Reductions and Separations in Cryptography. In: Mitrokotsa, A., Vaudenay, S. (eds) Progress in Cryptology - AFRICACRYPT 2012. AFRICACRYPT 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7374. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31410-0_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31410-0_26

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31409-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31410-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation