Cryptography Reference
In-Depth Information
Proof. (c) Note that an execution E
is completely determined by the random-
ness and messages selected by all the parties. Then for each E
E
E
,wehave p E =
2 −r S −r R −r A /
,where r S , r R and r A denote the length of the randomness of C S ,
C R and C A respectively. Similarly, we have p E =2 −r S −r R −r A /
| M |
| M |
.
,wehave r A = r M A + r A 0 + r A 1 ,where r M A , r A 0 , r A 1 denote the
length of C M A , C A 0 , C A 1 respectively. Similarly, we have r A = r M A + r A 0 + r A 1
Since C A 2 =
.
Note that r A 0 = r A 0 =1and r M A = r M A = log | M |
. From the definition of
W 2 ,wehavethat r R = r R , r S = r A 1
and r A 1 = r S . Hence we have r S + r R + r A =
r S + r R + r A ,and p E = p E holds.
(d) Let S 2 = E \ S 2 denote the set of failed executions. Since
E
S 2 holds for any
S 2 , and the one-to-one correspondence of E and E , we get that
| S 2 |≤| S 2 |
E
.The
probability that Π fails when M A
= M S
can be computed as
Pr[ M R
= M S
|
M S
= M A ]
p E =
E∈ S 2
S 2 ]
=Pr[ E
p E =Pr[ M R = M S
|
M S
= M A ] .
E∈ S 2
Let us proceed the proof of Theorem 3. From Lemma 5, we must have Pr[ M R
= M S
|
= M S ] 2
M A
. Hence
1
2 (1
1
| M | ) .
Pr[ M R
= M S ] Pr[ M R
= M S
|
M S
= M A ]Pr[ M S
= M A ]
On the other hand, since Π is a δ -reliable protocol, we have Pr[ M R
= M S ]
δ .It
follows that δ
(1 1 /
| M | ) / 2, which contradicts the assumption on Π .
Theorem 2 says that any number of invocations of unidirectional public channel is not
helpful. On the other hand, Theorem 3 does not mention the privacy of SMT-PD proto-
cols. Thus, there seems to be room to be improved. In the next section, we will see that
Theorem 3 achieves almost optimal in a weak sense.
5
Upper Bound
In this section, we give an upper-bounding SMT-PD protocol where only
invokes the
public channel. Since the protocol uses universal hash functions, we give the definition
and see some property.
R
m
Definition 2. Suppose that m> . A function family
H = {
h : { 0 , 1 }
→{ 0 , 1 }
}
m
is called strongly universal 2 hash function family if for any distinct a 1 ,a 2 ∈{ 0 , 1 }
, it holds that Pr h∈ H [ h ( a 1 )= b 1
h ( a 2 )= b 2 ] 2 2 .
and any b 1 ,b 2 ∈{ 0 , 1 }
m
Proposition 1. Let
H = {
h
: { 0 , 1 }
→{ 0 , 1 }
}
be a strongly universal 2
hash
m
, it holds that
function family. Then, for any ( a 1 ,c 1 ) =( a 2 ,c 2 ) ∈{ 0 , 1 }
×{ 0 , 1 }
h ( a 2 )] 2 .
Pr h∈ H [ c 1
h ( a 1 )= c 2
We can use “almost” strongly universal 2 hash functions instead of strongly universal 2
hash functions to reduce the communication complexity. But, in this paper, we do not
optimize the communication complexity.
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search