attribute based cryptography
play

Attribute-Based Cryptography Lecture 21 And Pairing-Based - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Attribute-Based Cryptography Lecture 21 And Pairing-Based Cryptography Identity-Based Encryption Identity-Based Encryption In PKE, KeyGen produces a random (PK,SK) pair Identity-Based Encryption In PKE, KeyGen produces a random (PK,SK) pair


  1. Identity-Based Encryption Notion of IBE suggested by Shamir in 1984 (but no construction) An “identity-based non-interactive key-distribution” scheme by Sakai-Ohgishi-Kasahara (2000) using bilinear-pairings and a random oracle But no formal proof of security Quadratic Residuosity based scheme by Cocks (2001) But long ciphertexts (Shorter, but slower scheme by Boneh-Gentry-Hamburg (2007) ) Boneh-Franklin IBE (2001): similar to [SOK] ID-NIKD (but with a proof of security in the random oracle model) Pairing-based, without RO: Boneh-Boyen (2004), Waters (2005), ...

  2. Identity-Based Encryption Notion of IBE suggested by Shamir in 1984 (but no construction) An “identity-based non-interactive key-distribution” scheme by Sakai-Ohgishi-Kasahara (2000) using bilinear-pairings and a random oracle But no formal proof of security Quadratic Residuosity based scheme by Cocks (2001) But long ciphertexts (Shorter, but slower scheme by Boneh-Gentry-Hamburg (2007) ) Boneh-Franklin IBE (2001): similar to [SOK] ID-NIKD (but with a proof of security in the random oracle model) Pairing-based, without RO: Boneh-Boyen (2004), Waters (2005), ... Without pairing: Using QR, Lattices, ...

  3. Bilinear Pairing

  4. Bilinear Pairing A relatively new (and less understood) tool in cryptography

  5. Bilinear Pairing A relatively new (and less understood) tool in cryptography Two (or three) groups with an efficient pairing operation, e: G x G → G T that is “bilinear”

  6. Bilinear Pairing A relatively new (and less understood) tool in cryptography Two (or three) groups with an efficient pairing operation, e: G x G → G T that is “bilinear” Typically, prime order (cyclic) groups

  7. Bilinear Pairing A relatively new (and less understood) tool in cryptography Two (or three) groups with an efficient pairing operation, e: G x G → G T that is “bilinear” Typically, prime order (cyclic) groups e(g a ,h b ) = e(g,h) ab

  8. Bilinear Pairing A relatively new (and less understood) tool in cryptography Two (or three) groups with an efficient pairing operation, e: G x G → G T that is “bilinear” Typically, prime order (cyclic) groups e(g a ,h b ) = e(g,h) ab Multiplication (once) in the exponent!

  9. Bilinear Pairing A relatively new (and less understood) tool in cryptography Two (or three) groups with an efficient pairing operation, e: G x G → G T that is “bilinear” Typically, prime order (cyclic) groups e(g a ,h b ) = e(g,h) ab Multiplication (once) in the exponent! e(g a g a’ ,g b ) = e(g a ,g b ) e(g a’ ,g b ) ; e(g a ,g bc ) = e(g ac ,g b ) ; ...

  10. Bilinear Pairing A relatively new (and less understood) tool in cryptography Two (or three) groups with an efficient pairing operation, e: G x G → G T that is “bilinear” Typically, prime order (cyclic) groups e(g a ,h b ) = e(g,h) ab Multiplication (once) in the exponent! e(g a g a’ ,g b ) = e(g a ,g b ) e(g a’ ,g b ) ; e(g a ,g bc ) = e(g ac ,g b ) ; ... Required to be not degenerate: e(g,g) ≠ 1

  11. Decisional Bilinear- Diffie-Hellman Assumption

  12. Decisional Bilinear- Diffie-Hellman Assumption DDH is not hard in G, if there is a bilinear pairing

  13. Decisional Bilinear- Diffie-Hellman Assumption DDH is not hard in G, if there is a bilinear pairing Given (g a ,g b ,g z ) check if e(g a ,g b ) = e(g z ,g)

  14. Decisional Bilinear- Diffie-Hellman Assumption DDH is not hard in G, if there is a bilinear pairing Given (g a ,g b ,g z ) check if e(g a ,g b ) = e(g z ,g) Decisional Bilinear DH assumption: (g a ,g b ,g c ,g abc ) is indistinguishable from (g a ,g b ,g c ,g z ). (a,b,c,z random)

  15. IBE from Pairing

  16. IBE from Pairing MPK: g,h, Y=e(g,h) y , π = (u,u 1 ,...,u n )

  17. IBE from Pairing MPK: g,h, Y=e(g,h) y , π = (u,u 1 ,...,u n ) MSK: h y

  18. IBE from Pairing MPK: g,h, Y=e(g,h) y , π = (u,u 1 ,...,u n ) MSK: h y Enc(m;s) = ( g s , π (ID) s , M.Y s )

  19. IBE from Pairing MPK: g,h, Y=e(g,h) y , π = (u,u 1 ,...,u n ) π (ID) = u Π u i MSK: h y i:ID i =1 Enc(m;s) = ( g s , π (ID) s , M.Y s )

  20. IBE from Pairing MPK: g,h, Y=e(g,h) y , π = (u,u 1 ,...,u n ) π (ID) = u Π u i MSK: h y i:ID i =1 Enc(m;s) = ( g s , π (ID) s , M.Y s ) SK for ID: ( g t , h y . π (ID) t ) = (d 1 , d 2 )

  21. IBE from Pairing MPK: g,h, Y=e(g,h) y , π = (u,u 1 ,...,u n ) π (ID) = u Π u i MSK: h y i:ID i =1 Enc(m;s) = ( g s , π (ID) s , M.Y s ) SK for ID: ( g t , h y . π (ID) t ) = (d 1 , d 2 ) Dec ( a, b, c; d 1 , d 2 ) = c/ [ e(a,d 2 ) / e(b,d 1 ) ]

  22. IBE from Pairing MPK: g,h, Y=e(g,h) y , π = (u,u 1 ,...,u n ) π (ID) = u Π u i MSK: h y i:ID i =1 Enc(m;s) = ( g s , π (ID) s , M.Y s ) SK for ID: ( g t , h y . π (ID) t ) = (d 1 , d 2 ) Dec ( a, b, c; d 1 , d 2 ) = c/ [ e(a,d 2 ) / e(b,d 1 ) ] CPA security based on Decisional-BDH

  23. Attribute-Based Encryption

  24. Attribute-Based Encryption Which users can decrypt a ciphertext will be decided by the attributes and policies associated with the message and the user

  25. Attribute-Based Encryption Which users can decrypt a ciphertext will be decided by the attributes and policies associated with the message and the user A central authority will create secret keys for the users (like in IBE) based on attributes/policies for each user

  26. Attribute-Based Encryption Which users can decrypt a ciphertext will be decided by the attributes and policies associated with the message and the user A central authority will create secret keys for the users (like in IBE) based on attributes/policies for each user Ciphertexts can be created (by anyone) by incorporating attributes/policies

  27. Ciphertext-Policy ABE

  28. Ciphertext-Policy ABE Users in the system have attributes; receives a key (or “key bundle”) from an authority for its set of attributes

  29. Ciphertext-Policy ABE Users in the system have attributes; receives a key (or “key bundle”) from an authority for its set of attributes Ciphertext contains a policy (a boolean predicate over the attribute space)

  30. Ciphertext-Policy ABE Users in the system have attributes; receives a key (or “key bundle”) from an authority for its set of attributes Ciphertext contains a policy (a boolean predicate over the attribute space) If a user’ s attribute set satisfies the policy, can use its key bundle to decrypt the ciphertext

  31. Ciphertext-Policy ABE Users in the system have attributes; receives a key (or “key bundle”) from an authority for its set of attributes Ciphertext contains a policy (a boolean predicate over the attribute space) If a user’ s attribute set satisfies the policy, can use its key bundle to decrypt the ciphertext Multiple users cannot pool their attributes together

  32. Ciphertext-Policy ABE Users in the system have attributes; receives a key (or “key bundle”) from an authority for its set of attributes Ciphertext contains a policy (a boolean predicate over the attribute space) If a user’ s attribute set satisfies the policy, can use its key bundle to decrypt the ciphertext Multiple users cannot pool their attributes together Application: End-to-End privacy in Attribute-Based Messaging

  33. Key-Policy ABE

  34. Key-Policy ABE Attributes will be assigned to a ciphertext (when creating the ciphertext)

  35. Key-Policy ABE Attributes will be assigned to a ciphertext (when creating the ciphertext) Policies will be assigned to users/keys by an authority (who creates the keys)

  36. Key-Policy ABE Attributes will be assigned to a ciphertext (when creating the ciphertext) Policies will be assigned to users/keys by an authority (who creates the keys) A key can decrypt only those ciphertexts whose attributes satisfy the policy

  37. Key-Policy ABE Attributes will be assigned to a ciphertext (when creating the ciphertext) Policies will be assigned to users/keys by an authority (who creates the keys) A key can decrypt only those ciphertexts whose attributes satisfy the policy E.g. Applications

  38. Key-Policy ABE Attributes will be assigned to a ciphertext (when creating the ciphertext) Policies will be assigned to users/keys by an authority (who creates the keys) A key can decrypt only those ciphertexts whose attributes satisfy the policy E.g. Applications Fuzzy IBE: use a policy that allows receiver’ s ID to be slightly different from an ID specified in the policy

  39. Key-Policy ABE Attributes will be assigned to a ciphertext (when creating the ciphertext) Policies will be assigned to users/keys by an authority (who creates the keys) A key can decrypt only those ciphertexts whose attributes satisfy the policy E.g. Applications Fuzzy IBE: use a policy that allows receiver’ s ID to be slightly different from an ID specified in the policy Audit log inspection: grant auditor authority to read only messages with certain attributes

  40. A KP-ABE Scheme

  41. A KP-ABE Scheme A construction that supports “linear policies”

  42. A KP-ABE Scheme A construction that supports “linear policies” Policy corresponds to a (monotonic) access structure (sets of attributes that when pooled satisfy the policy)

  43. A KP-ABE Scheme A construction that supports “linear policies” Policy corresponds to a (monotonic) access structure (sets of attributes that when pooled satisfy the policy) Linear: Matrix L with each row labeled by an attribute, such that a set of attributes S satisfies the policy iff

  44. A KP-ABE Scheme A construction that supports “linear policies” Policy corresponds to a (monotonic) access structure (sets of attributes that when pooled satisfy the policy) Linear: Matrix L with each row labeled by an attribute, such that a set of attributes S satisfies the policy iff there is a vector v such that v.L=[1 1 ... 1]

  45. A KP-ABE Scheme A construction that supports “linear policies” Policy corresponds to a (monotonic) access structure (sets of attributes that when pooled satisfy the policy) Linear: Matrix L with each row labeled by an attribute, such that a set of attributes S satisfies the policy iff there is a vector v such that v.L=[1 1 ... 1] and, labels corresponding to non-zero entries of v are all contained in S

  46. A KP-ABE Scheme A construction that supports “linear policies” Policy corresponds to a (monotonic) access structure (sets of attributes that when pooled satisfy the policy) Linear: Matrix L with each row labeled by an attribute, such that a set of attributes S satisfies the policy iff there is a vector v such that v.L=[1 1 ... 1] and, labels corresponding to non-zero entries of v are all contained in S Linear algebra over some finite field (e.g. GF(p) )

  47. A KP-ABE Scheme A construction that supports “linear policies” Policy corresponds to a (monotonic) access structure (sets of attributes that when pooled satisfy the policy) Linear: Matrix L with each row labeled by an attribute, such that a set of attributes S satisfies the policy iff there is a vector v such that v.L=[1 1 ... 1] and, labels corresponding to non-zero entries of v are all contained in S Linear algebra over some finite field (e.g. GF(p) ) For efficiency need a small matrix

  48. Example of a “Linear Policy”

  49. Example of a “Linear Policy” Consider this policy, over 7 attributes

  50. Example of a “Linear Policy” Consider this policy, over 7 attributes OR AND AND AND OR

  51. Example of a “Linear Policy” Consider this policy, over 7 attributes OR L: AND AND AND OR

  52. Example of a “Linear Policy” Consider this policy, over 7 attributes OR L: 0 1 1 1 AND AND 1 0 0 0 AND 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 OR 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

  53. Example of a “Linear Policy” Consider this policy, over 7 attributes OR L: 0 1 1 1 AND AND 1 0 0 0 AND 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 OR 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Can allow threshold gates too

  54. A KP-ABE Scheme

  55. A KP-ABE Scheme MPK: g, Y=e(g,g) y , T = (g t1 ,..., g tn ) (n attributes)

  56. A KP-ABE Scheme MPK: g, Y=e(g,g) y , T = (g t1 ,..., g tn ) (n attributes) MSK: y and t a for each attribute a

  57. A KP-ABE Scheme MPK: g, Y=e(g,g) y , T = (g t1 ,..., g tn ) (n attributes) MSK: y and t a for each attribute a Enc(m,A;s) = ( A, { T as } a ∈ A , M.Y s )

  58. A KP-ABE Scheme MPK: g, Y=e(g,g) y , T = (g t1 ,..., g tn ) (n attributes) MSK: y and t a for each attribute a Enc(m,A;s) = ( A, { T as } a ∈ A , M.Y s ) SK for policy L (with d rows): Let u=(u 1 ... u d ) s.t. Σ i u i = y. For each row i, let x i = <L i ,u>/t label(i) . Let Key X = { g x i } i=1 to d

  59. A KP-ABE Scheme MPK: g, Y=e(g,g) y , T = (g t1 ,..., g tn ) (n attributes) MSK: y and t a for each attribute a Enc(m,A;s) = ( A, { T as } a ∈ A , M.Y s ) SK for policy L (with d rows): Let u=(u 1 ... u d ) s.t. Σ i u i = y. For each row i, let x i = <L i ,u>/t label(i) . Let Key X = { g x i } i=1 to d Dec ( (A, {Z a } a ∈ A ,c); {X i } row i ) : Get Y s = Π i:label(i) ∈ A e(Z label(i) ,X i ) V i where v = [v 1 ... v d ] s.t. v i =0 if label(i) ∉ A, and vL=[1...1]

  60. A KP-ABE Scheme MPK: g, Y=e(g,g) y , T = (g t1 ,..., g tn ) (n attributes) MSK: y and t a for each attribute a Enc(m,A;s) = ( A, { T as } a ∈ A , M.Y s ) SK for policy L (with d rows): Let u=(u 1 ... u d ) s.t. Σ i u i = y. For each row i, let x i = <L i ,u>/t label(i) . Let Key X = { g x i } i=1 to d Dec ( (A, {Z a } a ∈ A ,c); {X i } row i ) : Get Y s = Π i:label(i) ∈ A e(Z label(i) ,X i ) V i where v = [v 1 ... v d ] s.t. v i =0 if label(i) ∉ A, and vL=[1...1] CPA security based on Decisional-BDH

  61. A KP-ABE Scheme MPK: g, Y=e(g,g) y , T = (g t1 ,..., g tn ) (n attributes) MSK: y and t a for each attribute a Enc(m,A;s) = ( A, { T as } a ∈ A , M.Y s ) SK for policy L (with d rows): Let u=(u 1 ... u d ) s.t. Σ i u i = y. For each row i, let x i = <L i ,u>/t label(i) . Let Key X = { g x i } i=1 to d Dec ( (A, {Z a } a ∈ A ,c); {X i } row i ) : Get Y s = Π i:label(i) ∈ A e(Z label(i) ,X i ) V i where v = [v 1 ... v d ] s.t. v i =0 if label(i) ∉ A, and vL=[1...1] CPA security based on Decisional-BDH Choosing a random vector u for each key helps in preventing collusion

  62. Predicate Encryption

  63. Predicate Encryption Similar to ABE, but the ciphertext hides the attributes/policy

  64. Predicate Encryption Similar to ABE, but the ciphertext hides the attributes/policy Decryption reveals only whether a condition is satisfied by the ciphertext, and if it is, reveals the message too

  65. Predicate Encryption Similar to ABE, but the ciphertext hides the attributes/policy Decryption reveals only whether a condition is satisfied by the ciphertext, and if it is, reveals the message too e.g.: ciphertext contains a vector c, and key a vector d. Predicate: whether <c,d> = 0 or not

  66. Predicate Encryption Similar to ABE, but the ciphertext hides the attributes/policy Decryption reveals only whether a condition is satisfied by the ciphertext, and if it is, reveals the message too e.g.: ciphertext contains a vector c, and key a vector d. Predicate: whether <c,d> = 0 or not A building block for other predicates

  67. Predicate Encryption Similar to ABE, but the ciphertext hides the attributes/policy Decryption reveals only whether a condition is satisfied by the ciphertext, and if it is, reveals the message too e.g.: ciphertext contains a vector c, and key a vector d. Predicate: whether <c,d> = 0 or not A building block for other predicates Constructions based on the Decision Linear assumption

  68. Predicate Encryption Similar to ABE, but the ciphertext hides the attributes/policy Decryption reveals only whether a condition is satisfied by the ciphertext, and if it is, reveals the message too e.g.: ciphertext contains a vector c, and key a vector d. Predicate: whether <c,d> = 0 or not A building block for other predicates Constructions based on the Decision Linear assumption (f,g,h,f x ,g y ,h x+y ) and (f,g,h,f x ,g y ,h z ) indistinguishable for random f, g, h, x, y, z.

  69. Attribute-Based Signatures

  70. Attribute-Based Signatures “Claim-and-endorse”: Claim to have attributes satisfying a certain policy, and sign a message

  71. Attribute-Based Signatures “Claim-and-endorse”: Claim to have attributes satisfying a certain policy, and sign a message Soundness: can’ t forge, even by colluding

  72. Attribute-Based Signatures “Claim-and-endorse”: Claim to have attributes satisfying a certain policy, and sign a message Soundness: can’ t forge, even by colluding Hiding: Doesn’ t reveal how the policy was satisfied (beyond what is implied by the fact that it was)

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend