Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

An Algebraic Approach to Maliciously Secure Private Set Intersection

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2019 (EUROCRYPT 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 11478))

Abstract

Private set intersection (PSI) is an important area of research and has been the focus of many works over the past decades. It describes the problem of finding an intersection between the input sets of at least two parties without revealing anything about the input sets apart from their intersection.

In this paper, we present a new approach to compute the intersection between sets based on a primitive called Oblivious Linear Function Evaluation (OLE). On an abstract level, we use this primitive to efficiently add two polynomials in a randomized way while preserving the roots of the added polynomials. Setting the roots of the input polynomials to be the elements of the input sets, this directly yields an intersection protocol with optimal asymptotic communication complexity \(O(m\kappa )\). We highlight that the protocol is information-theoretically secure against a malicious adversary assuming OLE.

We also present a natural generalization of the 2-party protocol for the fully malicious multi-party case. Our protocol does away with expensive (homomorphic) threshold encryption and zero-knowledge proofs. Instead, we use simple combinatorial techniques to ensure the security. As a result we get a UC-secure protocol with asymptotically optimal communication complexity \(O((n^2+nm)\kappa )\), where n is the number of parties, m is the set size and \(\kappa \) is the security parameter. Apart from yielding an asymptotic improvement over previous works, our protocols are also conceptually simple and require only simple field arithmetic. Along the way we develop techniques that might be of independent interest.

S. Ghosh—Supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement #669255 (MPCPRO), the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement #731583 (SODA) and the Independent Research Fund Denmark project BETHE.

T. Nilges—Part of the research leading to these results was done while the author was at Aarhus University. Supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement #669255 (MPCPRO).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Please see the full version of the paper [15].

  2. 2.

    Here we mean an OPE is used for each element of the receiver’s input set. This can be circumvented by clever hashing strategies, e.g.  [13, 19].

  3. 3.

    Since this check leaks some information about the inputs, we have to perform the check in a secure manner.

  4. 4.

    Our multi-party PSI functionality uses similar idea as augmented semi-honest multi-party PSI as in previous works [27].

  5. 5.

    The commitment we implicitly use has been used previously in [11], as has the check sub-protocol.

  6. 6.

    In order to achieve our claimed efficiency we actually use UC commitments, but non-malleable commitments are sufficient for the security of the protocol.

  7. 7.

    For ease of notation, here we assume that the commitments are completely sent before \(\mathcal {A} \) commits himself. The very same argument also holds if \(\mathcal {A} \) only received synchronized messages of \(\mathsf {com}_j\) and has to start committing concurrently.

  8. 8.

    For reference see Figure 8 of [36].

References

  1. Applebaum, B., Damgård, I., Ishai, Y., Nielsen, M., Zichron, L.: Secure arithmetic computation with constant computational overhead. In: Katz, J., Shacham, H. (eds.) CRYPTO 2017. LNCS, vol. 10401, pp. 223–254. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63688-7_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Ben-Sasson, E., Fehr, S., Ostrovsky, R.: Near-linear unconditionally-secure multiparty computation with a dishonest minority. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7417, pp. 663–680. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32009-5_39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Borodin, A., Moenck, R.: Fast modular transforms. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 8(3), 366–386 (1974). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0000(74)80029-2

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Canetti, R.: Universally composable security: a new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In: 42nd FOCS, pp. 136–145. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 2001

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cheon, J.H., Jarecki, S., Seo, J.H.: Multi-party privacy-preserving set intersection with quasi-linear complexity. IEICE Trans. 95–A(8), 1366–1378 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cramer, R., Damgård, I., Ishai, Y.: Share conversion, pseudorandom secret-sharing and applications to secure computation. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) TCC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3378, pp. 342–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30576-7_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Dachman-Soled, D., Malkin, T., Raykova, M., Yung, M.: Efficient robust private set intersection. In: Abdalla, M., Pointcheval, D., Fouque, P.-A., Vergnaud, D. (eds.) ACNS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5536, pp. 125–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01957-9_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. De Cristofaro, E., Kim, J., Tsudik, G.: Linear-complexity private set intersection protocols secure in malicious model. In: Abe, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6477, pp. 213–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17373-8_13

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. De Cristofaro, E., Tsudik, G.: Practical private set intersection protocols with linear complexity. In: Sion, R. (ed.) FC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6052, pp. 143–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14577-3_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Dong, C., Chen, L., Wen, Z.: When private set intersection meets big data: an efficient and scalable protocol. In: Sadeghi, A.R., Gligor, V.D., Yung, M. (eds.) ACM CCS 2013, pp. 789–800. ACM Press, November 2013

    Google Scholar 

  11. Döttling, N., Ghosh, S., Nielsen, J.B., Nilges, T., Trifiletti, R.: TinyOLE: efficient actively secure two-party computation from oblivious linear function evaluation. In: Thuraisingham, B.M., Evans, D., Malkin, T., Xu, D. (eds.) ACM CCS 2017, pp. 2263–2276. ACM Press, October/November 2017

    Google Scholar 

  12. Freedman, M.J., Hazay, C., Nissim, K., Pinkas, B.: Efficient set intersection with simulation-based security. J. Cryptol. 29(1), 115–155 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Freedman, M.J., Nissim, K., Pinkas, B.: Efficient private matching and set intersection. In: Cachin, C., Camenisch, J.L. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3027, pp. 1–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24676-3_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Ghosh, S., Nielsen, J.B., Nilges, T.: Maliciously secure oblivious linear function evaluation with constant overhead. In: Takagi, T., Peyrin, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10624, pp. 629–659. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70694-8_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Ghosh, S., Nilges, T.: An algebraic approach to maliciously secure private set intersection. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/1064 (2017). https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1064

  16. Hallgren, P.A., Orlandi, C., Sabelfeld, A.: Privatepool: privacy-preserving ridesharing. In: 30th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium, CSF 2017, 21–25 August 2017, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, pp. 276–291 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hazay, C.: Oblivious polynomial evaluation and secure set-intersection from algebraic PRFs. In: Dodis, Y., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) TCC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9015, pp. 90–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46497-7_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Hazay, C., Nissim, K.: Efficient set operations in the presence of malicious adversaries. J. Cryptol. 25(3), 383–433 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Hazay, C., Venkitasubramaniam, M.: Scalable multi-party private set-intersection. In: Fehr, S. (ed.) PKC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10174, pp. 175–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54365-8_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Huang, Y., Evans, D., Katz, J.: Private set intersection: are garbled circuits better than custom protocols? In: NDSS 2012. The Internet Society, February 2012

    Google Scholar 

  21. Huberman, B.A., Franklin, M., Hogg, T.: Enhancing privacy and trust in electronic communities. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, EC 1999, pp. 78–86 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ishai, Y., Prabhakaran, M., Sahai, A.: Secure arithmetic computation with no honest majority. In: Reingold, O. (ed.) TCC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5444, pp. 294–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00457-5_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Jarecki, S., Liu, X.: Fast secure computation of set intersection. In: Garay, J.A., De Prisco, R. (eds.) SCN 2010. LNCS, vol. 6280, pp. 418–435. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15317-4_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Kamara, S., Mohassel, P., Raykova, M., Sadeghian, S.: Scaling private set intersection to billion-element sets. In: Christin, N., Safavi-Naini, R. (eds.) FC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8437, pp. 195–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45472-5_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Kissner, L., Song, D.: Privacy-preserving set operations. In: Shoup, V. (ed.) CRYPTO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3621, pp. 241–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11535218_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Kolesnikov, V., Kumaresan, R., Rosulek, M., Trieu, N.: Efficient batched oblivious PRF with applications to private set intersection. In: Weippl, E.R., Katzenbeisser, S., Kruegel, C., Myers, A.C., Halevi, S. (eds.) ACM CCS 2016, pp. 818–829. ACM Press, October 2016

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kolesnikov, V., Matania, N., Pinkas, B., Rosulek, M., Trieu, N.: Practical multi-party private set intersection from symmetric-key techniques. In: Thuraisingham, B.M., Evans, D., Malkin, T., Xu, D. (eds.) ACM CCS 2017, pp. 1257–1272. ACM Press, October/November 2017

    Google Scholar 

  28. Meadows, C., Mutchler, D.: Matching secrets in the absence of a continuously available trusted authority. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-13(2), 289–292 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Naor, M., Pinkas, B., Sumner, R.: Privacy preserving auctions and mechanism design. In: EC, pp. 129–139 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Narayanan, A., Thiagarajan, N., Lakhani, M., Hamburg, M., Boneh, D.: Location privacy via private proximity testing. In: NDSS 2011. The Internet Society, February 2011

    Google Scholar 

  31. Orrù, M., Orsini, E., Scholl, P.: Actively secure 1-out-of-N OT extension with application to private set intersection. In: Handschuh, H. (ed.) CT-RSA 2017. LNCS, vol. 10159, pp. 381–396. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52153-4_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Pinkas, B., Schneider, T., Segev, G., Zohner, M.: Phasing: private set intersection using permutation-based hashing. In: 24th USENIX Security Symposium, USENIX Security 2015, 12–14 August 2015, Washington, D.C., USA, pp. 515–530 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pinkas, B., Schneider, T., Zohner, M.: Faster private set intersection based on OT extension. In: Proceedings of the 23rd USENIX Security Symposium, 20–22 August 2014, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 797–812 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pinkas, B., Schneider, T., Zohner, M.: Scalable private set intersection based on OT extension. ACM Trans. Priv. Secur. 21(2), 7:1–7:35 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rindal, P., Rosulek, M.: Improved private set intersection against malicious adversaries. In: Coron, J.-S., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10210, pp. 235–259. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56620-7_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Rindal, P., Rosulek, M.: Malicious-secure private set intersection via dual execution. In: Thuraisingham, B.M., Evans, D., Malkin, T., Xu, D. (eds.) ACM CCS 2017, pp. 1229–1242. ACM Press, October/November 2017

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sang, Y., Shen, H.: Privacy preserving set intersection based on bilinear groups. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First Australasian Conference on Computer Science, ACSC 2008, vol. 74. pp. 47–54 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Shamir, A.: On the power of commutativity in cryptography. In: de Bakker, J., van Leeuwen, J. (eds.) ICALP 1980. LNCS, vol. 85, pp. 582–595. Springer, Heidelberg (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-10003-2_100

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Satrajit Ghosh

  2. ITK Engineering GmbH, Rülzheim, Germany

    Tobias Nilges

Authors
  1. Satrajit Ghosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tobias Nilges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satrajit Ghosh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Technion, Haifa, Israel

    Yuval Ishai

  2. COSIC Group, KU Leuven, Heverlee, Belgium

    Vincent Rijmen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 International Association for Cryptologic Research

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ghosh, S., Nilges, T. (2019). An Algebraic Approach to Maliciously Secure Private Set Intersection. In: Ishai, Y., Rijmen, V. (eds) Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2019. EUROCRYPT 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11478. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17659-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17659-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17658-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17659-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation