Secure Multi-party Communication 1123 words written by Nathan Lilienthal
Abstract: Towards a minimal language for multi-party communication and computations. I (we?) define two new languages: , an untyped and typed language for probabilistic computation, and for multi-party probabilistically obscure communication.
is an extension of , however it doesn’t need to export the idea of a flipping primitive.
Secure Two Party Communication (S2PC)
Here we consider the two party case, between Alice () and Bob ().
The syntax in Rust is a work in progress, but the idea is roughly to allow
Oblivious<T,P> qualified values which are secure to a single
P, where both and are elements
// Explicit authentication party. The value 26 is never stored // after compile time. let a = conceal!(26, @me); // Implicit authentication party, which cannot reveal any values. let b = conceal!(1337); // Oblivious owned types are stored in encrypted form. let password: Oblivious<String> = conceal!("1234".to_owned()); // Oblivious references do not encrypt the underlying data, // and only make it's address and access patterns obscure. let password: Oblivious<&str> = conceal!("1234");
Oblivious<T> values are handled differently to ensure no
information is leaked while computing with them.
let c: Oblivious<bool> = a > b;
Finally you must reveal the value to use it with insecure (traditional)
computations. Here we say that
@me must be authenticated to reveal
// Only @me can read the value of `c`. let d = reveal!(c, @me); // Any party can read the value of `c`. let e = reveal!(c);
Generally, both parties will have an input to a function , here we’ll call ’s input and ’s input . Before either party can pass their inputs to they must create an authentication context with .
We have up to three possible implementations for : , and . This allows for each party to perform arbitrary computations on the oblivious data, or to fix the garbling up front so no one party controls it. For example here the expression was garbled by .
Traditional function notation can be colored to indicate the same notion.
We see that each party, and , have a unique function, and respectively. However it is possible to define = These functions are oblivious to the other party’s data in these computations. We denote this is obliv-rust as follows:
// TODO: The garbler could be the return party? fn f<@1,@2>(x: obliv@1 u64, y: obliv@2 u64) -> obliv@1 bool; // TODO: Who garbled things? Implicitly create a new return party // and reveal the result? fn g<@1,@2,T,U>(obliv@1 x, obliv@2 y) -> (T, U); // Don't care who's who. fn h(obliv x, obliv y) -> bool;
One example pair of and functions is a classic problem of Oblivious Transfer (OT). In this case, wants to access a specific element from ’s database, without him knowing what element was retrieved. For this example, we’ll use a database projection function (oblivious to anything else about the database), which takes an oblivious index .
Or as a solution to Yao’s Millionare Problem:
It’s worth noting that the operator in the figure above is written in black because it’s “baked in” to the protocol.
This notion expands naturally for a third member of the computation, Carrol (). Similar to the S2PC case above, we can define a , which now takes three arguments and tells each member what position in line they are in a group.
the Uncertainty Calculus
Below the order of operations is certain, while the order of is uncertain.
Full expressions can be wrapped and made uncertain.