Reducibility and Completeness in Private Computations
Abstract
We define the notions of reducibility and completeness in (two-party and multiparty) private computations. Let g be an n-argument function. We say that a function f is reducible to a function g if n honest-but-curious players can compute the function fn -privately, given a black box for g (for which they secretly give inputs and get the result of operating g on these inputs). We say that g is complete (for private computations) if every function f is reducible to g.
In this paper, we characterize the complete boolean functions: we show that a boolean function g is complete if and only if g itself cannot be computed n-privately (when there is no black box available). Namely, for n-argument boolean functions, the notions of completeness and n-privacy are complementary. This characterization provides a huge collection of complete functions any nonprivate boolean function!) compared to very few examples that were given (implicitly) in previous work. On the other hand, for nonboolean functions, we show that these two notions are not complementary.
[1] J. Bar‐Ilan and D. Beaver, Non‐cryptographic fault‐tolerant computing in a constant number of rounds, in Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1989, pp. 201–209.
[2] M. Ben‐or, S. Goldwasser, and A. Wigderson, Completeness theorems for non‐cryptographic fault‐tolerant distributed computation, in Proceedings of the 20th Symposium on the Theory of Computing, Chicago, IL, 1988, pp. 1–10.
[3] M. Blum, Applications of Oblivious Transfer, manuscript.
[4] , Minimum disclosure proofs of knowledge, J. Comput. System Sci., 37 (1988), 156–189, Twenty‐Seventh Annual IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science (Toronto, ON, 1986) 90g:68047
[5] G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, and J.‐M. Robert, Information theoretic reductions among disclosure problems, in Proceedings of the 27th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1986 pp. 168–173.
[6] D. Beaver and S. Goldwasser, Multiparty computation with faulty majority, in Proceedings of the 30th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1989, pp. 468–473.
[7] D. Beaver and A. Wool, Quorum‐based secure multi‐party computation, EuroCrypt (1998), in Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 1403, Springer‐Verlag, New York, pp. 375–390.
[8] , Adaptively secure multi‐party computation, ACM, New York, 1996, 639–648 1427563
[9] , Randomness versus fault‐tolerance, J. Cryptology, 13 (2000), 107–142 1732899
[10] D. Chaum, C. Crepeau, and I. Damgard, Multiparty unconditionally secure protocols, in Proceedings of the 20th Symposium on the Theory of Computing, Chicago, IL, 1988, pp. 11–19.
[11] , A zero‐one law for Boolean privacy, SIAM J. Discrete Math., 4 (1991), 36–47 92f:94007
[12] , Private computations over the integers, SIAM J. Comput., 24 (1995), 376–386 96h:68085
[13] , On the structure of the privacy hierarchy, J. Cryptology, 7 (1994), 53–60 94j:94013
[14] C. Crépeau, Equivalence between two flavors of oblivious transfer, Crypto (1987), in Lecture Notes. in Comput. Sci. 293, Springer‐Verlag, New York, pp. 350–354.
[15] , On the (im)possibility of basing oblivious transfer and bit commitment on weakened security assumptions, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., Vol. 1592, Springer, Berlin, 1999, 56–73 1717463
[16] , A randomized protocol for signing contracts, Comm. ACM, 28 (1985), 637–647 10.1145/3812.3818 800680
[17] U. Feige, J. Kilian, and M. Naor, A minimal model for secure computation, in Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on the Theory of Computing, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1994, pp. 554–563.
[18] M. Fischer, S. Micali, and C. Rackoff, An Oblivious Transfer Protocol Equivalent to Factoring, manuscript.
[19] Z. Galil, S, Haber, and M. Yung, Cryptographic computation: Secure fault‐tolerant protocols and the public‐key model, Crypto (1987), in Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 293, Springer‐Verlag, New York, pp. 135–155.
[20] , Adaptively secure multi‐party computation, ACM, New York, 1996, 639–648 1427563
[21] O. Goldreich, S. Micali, and A. Wigderson, How to play any mental game, in Proceedings of the 19th Symposium on the Theory of Computing, New York, 1987, pp. 218–229.
[22] O. Goldreich and R. Vainish, How to solve any protocol problem—An efficiency improvement, Crypto (1987), in Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 293, Springer‐Verlag, New York, pp. 73–86.
[23] S. Goldwasser and L. Levin, Fair computation of general functions in presence of immoral majority, Crypto (1990), in Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 537, Springer‐Verlag, New York, pp. 77–93.
[24] S. Goldwasser, S. Micali, and C. Rackoff, The knowledge complexity of interactive proof‐systems, in Proceedings of the 17th Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 1985, pp. 291–304.
[25] M. Hirt and U. Maurer, Complete characterization of adversaries tolerable in secure multi‐party computation, in Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, Santa Barbara, CA, 1997.
[26] R. Impagliazzo and M. Luby, One‐way functions are essential for complexity‐based cryptography, in Proceedings of the 30th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1989, pp. 230–235.
[27] R. Impagliazzo and S. Rudich, On the limitations of certain one‐way permutations, in Proceedings of the 21st Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 1989, pp. 44–61.
[28] J. Kilian, Basing cryptography on oblivious transfer, in Proceedings of the 20th Symposium on the Theory of Computing, Chicago, IL, 1988, pp. 20–31.
[29] J. Kilian, Completeness theorem for two‐party secure computation, in Proceedings of the 23rd Symposium on the Theory of Computing, New Orleans, LA, 1991, pp. 553–560.
[30] , Privacy and communication complexity, SIAM J. Discrete Math., 5 (1992), 273–284 93b:94001
[31] , Characterizing linear size circuits in terms of privacy, J. Comput. System Sci., 58 (1999), 129–136, Twenty‐eighth Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (Philadelphia, PA, 1996) 10.1006/jcss.1997.1544 2000h:68079
[32] E. Kushilevitz, R. Ostrovsky, and A. Rosén, Amortizing randomness in private multiparty computations, in Proceedings of the 17th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, 1998, pp. 81–90.
[33] E. Kushilevitz, S. Micali and R. Ostrovsky, Reducibility and completeness in multi‐party private computations, in Proceedings of the 35th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Santa Fe, NM, 1994, pp. 478–489.
[34] , A randomness‐rounds tradeoff in private computation, SIAM J. Discrete Math., 11 (1998), 61–80 2000e:94044
[35] , Fair games against an all‐powerful adversary, DIMACS Ser. Discrete Math. Theoret. Comput. Sci., Vol. 13, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1993, 155–169 94j:94017
[36] T. Rabin and M. Ben‐Or, Verifiable secret sharing and multiparty protocols with honest majority, in Proceedings of the 21st Symposium on the Theory of Computing, Seattle, WA, 1989, pp. 73–85.
[37] M. Rabin, How to Exchange Secrets by Oblivious Transfer, Tech. Report TR‐81, Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1981.
[38] , Conjugate coding, SIGACT News, 15 (1983), pp. 78–88. sig SIGNDM 0163-5700 SIGACT News
[39] , Protocols for secure computations, IEEE, New York, 1982, 160–164 780394
[40] A. C. Yao How to generate and exchange secrets, in Proceedings of the 27th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1986, pp. 162–167.
