nach oben

Erschienen in:

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Zero-Knowledge Proofs on Secret-Shared Data via Fully Linear PCPs

verfasst von : Dan Boneh, Elette Boyle, Henry Corrigan-Gibbs, Niv Gilboa, Yuval Ishai

Erschienen in: Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2019

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

We introduce and study the notion of fully linear probabilistically checkable proof systems. In such a proof system, the verifier can make a small number of linear queries that apply jointly to the input and a proof vector.

Our new type of proof system is motivated by applications in which the input statement is not fully available to any single verifier, but can still be efficiently accessed via linear queries. This situation arises in scenarios where the input is partitioned or secret-shared between two or more parties, or alternatively is encoded using an additively homomorphic encryption or commitment scheme. This setting appears in the context of secure messaging platforms, verifiable outsourced computation, PIR writing, private computation of aggregate statistics, and secure multiparty computation (MPC). In all these applications, there is a need for fully linear proof systems with short proofs.

While several efficient constructions of fully linear proof systems are implicit in the interactive proofs literature, many questions about their complexity are open. We present several new constructions of fully linear zero-knowledge proof systems with sublinear proof size for “simple” or “structured” languages. For example, in the non-interactive setting of fully linear PCPs, we show how to prove that an input vector \(x\in {\mathbb {F}}^n\), for a finite field \({\mathbb {F}}\), satisfies a single degree-2 equation with a proof of size \(O(\sqrt{n})\) and \(O(\sqrt{n})\) linear queries, which we show to be optimal. More generally, for languages that can be recognized by systems of constant-degree equations, we can reduce the proof size to \(O(\log n)\) at the cost of \(O(\log n)\) rounds of interaction.

We use our new proof systems to construct new short zero-knowledge proofs on distributed and secret-shared data. These proofs can be used to improve the performance of the example systems mentioned above.

Finally, we observe that zero-knowledge proofs on distributed data provide a general-purpose tool for protecting MPC protocols against malicious parties. Applying our short fully linear PCPs to “natural” MPC protocols in the honest-majority setting, we can achieve unconditional protection against malicious parties with sublinear additive communication cost. We use this to improve the communication complexity of recent honest-majority MPC protocols. For instance, using any pseudorandom generator, we obtain a 3-party protocol for Boolean circuits in which the amortized communication cost is only one bit per AND gate per party (compared to 10 bits in the best previous protocol), matching the best known protocols for semi-honest parties.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel CCA Security and Trapdoor Functions via Key-Dependent-Message Security

Nächstes Kapitel Non-Uniformly Sound Certificates with Applications to Concurrent Zero-Knowledge

This is akin to proofs of proximity [21], which place a more stringent restriction on the verifier’s access to the input. However, unlike proofs of proximity, in fully linear PCPs the verifier is guaranteed that the input is actually in the language rather than being “close” to some input the language. Another related notion is that of a holographic proof [9, 57], where the verifier gets oracle access to an encoding of the input using an arbitrary error-correcting code.

Our compiler can analogously apply to the 3-party semi-honest protocol of Araki et al. [5]. We build on the protocol from [62] since its dealer-party structure offers a slightly simpler description within our framework and the advantage of lower online (input-dependent) cost.

For instantiating the publicly verifiable variant with bilinear groups, the linear PCP needs to have a verification predicate of algebraic degree 2. Such linear PCPs can be obtained either directly or via quadratic span programs or quadratic arithmetic programs [23, 49, 74].

Aaronson, S., Wigderson, A.: Algebrization: a new barrier in complexity theory. ACM Trans. Comput. Theory (TOCT) 1(1), 2 (2009)MATH

Ames, S., Hazay, C., Ishai, Y., Venkitasubramaniam, M.: Ligero: lightweight sublinear arguments without a trusted setup. In: CCS (2017)

Andrew, C.C.Y.: Some complexity questions related to distributed computing. In: STOC (1979)

Araki, T., et al.: Optimized honest-majority MPC for malicious adversaries - breaking the 1 billion-gate per second barrier. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2017)

Araki, T., Furukawa, J., Lindell, Y., Nof, A., Ohara, K.: High-throughput semi-honest secure three-party computation with an honest majority. In: ACM CCS (2016)

Arora, S., Lund, C., Motwani, R., Sudan, M., Szegedy, M.: Proof verification and the hardness of approximation problems. J. ACM 45(3), 501–555 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRef

Arora, S., Safra, S.: Probabilistic checking of proofs: a new characterization of NP. J. ACM 45(1), 70–122 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRef

Babai, L.: Trading group theory for randomness. In: STOC (1985)

Babai, L., Fortnow, L., Levin, L.A., Szegedy, M.: Checking computations in polylogarithmic time. In: STOC (1991)

10.

Babai, L., Moran, S.: Arthur-Merlin games: a randomized proof system, and a hierarchy of complexity classes. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 36(2), 254–276 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRef

11.

Backes, M., Barbosa, M., Fiore, D., Reischuk, R.M.: ADSNARK: nearly practical and privacy-preserving proofs on authenticated data. In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2015, San Jose, CA, USA, 17–21 May 2015 (2015)

12.

Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Random oracles are practical: a paradigm for designing efficient protocols. In: CCS (1993)

13.

Ben-Or, M., et al.: Everything provable is provable in zero-knowledge. In: Goldwasser, S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1988. LNCS, vol. 403, pp. 37–56. Springer, New York (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-34799-2_4CrossRef

14.

Ben-Or, M., Goldwasser, S., Kilian, J., Wigderson, A.: Multi-prover interactive proofs: how to remove intractability assumptions. In: STOC (1988)

15.

Ben-Sasson, E., Bentov, I., Horesh, Y., Riabzev, M.: Scalable, transparent, and post-quantum secure computational integrity. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/046 (2018)

16.

Ben-Sasson, E., Chiesa, A., Forbes, M.A., Gabizon, A., Riabzev, M., Spooner, N.: On probabilistic checking in perfect zero knowledge. In: Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), no. 156 (2016)

17.

Ben-Sasson, E., Chiesa, A., Gabizon, A., Riabzev, M., Spooner, N.: Interactive oracle proofs with constant rate and query complexity. In: ICALP (2017)

18.

Ben-Sasson, E., Chiesa, A., Genkin, D., Tromer, E., Virza, M.: SNARKs for C: verifying program executions succinctly and in zero knowledge. In: Canetti, R., Garay, J.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2013. LNCS, vol. 8043, pp. 90–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40084-1_6CrossRefMATH

19.

Ben-Sasson, E., Chiesa, A., Riabzev, M., Spooner, N., Virza, M., Ward, N.P.: Aurora: transparent succinct arguments for R1CS. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/828 (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/828

20.

Ben-Sasson, E., Chiesa, A., Spooner, N.: Interactive oracle proofs. In: Hirt, M., Smith, A. (eds.) TCC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9986, pp. 31–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53644-5_2CrossRef

21.

Ben-Sasson, E., Goldreich, O., Harsha, P., Sudan, M., Vadhan, S.: Robust PCPs of proximity, shorter PCPs, and applications to coding. SIAM J. Comput. 36(4), 889–974 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRef

22.

Bitansky, N., Canetti, R., Chiesa, A., Tromer, E.: From extractable collision resistance to succinct non-interactive arguments of knowledge, and back again. In: Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science 2012, Cambridge, MA, USA, 8–10 January 2012 (2012)

23.

Bitansky, N., Chiesa, A., Ishai, Y., Paneth, O., Ostrovsky, R.: Succinct non-interactive arguments via linear interactive proofs. In: Sahai, A. (ed.) TCC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7785, pp. 315–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36594-2_18CrossRef

24.

Blum, M., Feldman, P., Micali, S.: Non-interactive zero-knowledge and its applications (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 2–4 May 1988 (1988)

25.

Boneh, D., Ishai, Y., Sahai, A., Wu, D.J.: Lattice-based SNARGs and their application to more efficient obfuscation. In: Coron, J.-S., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10212, pp. 247–277. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56617-7_9CrossRef

26.

Boneh, D., Ishai, Y., Sahai, A., Wu, D.J.: Quasi-optimal SNARGs via linear multi-prover interactive proofs. In: Nielsen, J.B., Rijmen, V. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2018. LNCS, vol. 10822, pp. 222–255. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78372-7_8CrossRef

27.

Bootle, J., Cerulli, A., Chaidos, P., Groth, J., Petit, C.: Efficient zero-knowledge arguments for arithmetic circuits in the discrete log setting. In: Fischlin, M., Coron, J.-S. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9666, pp. 327–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49896-5_12CrossRefMATH

28.

Bootle, J., Cerulli, A., Ghadafi, E., Groth, J., Hajiabadi, M., Jakobsen, S.K.: Linear-time zero-knowledge proofs for arithmetic circuit satisfiability. In: Takagi, T., Peyrin, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10626, pp. 336–365. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70700-6_12CrossRef

29.

Bootle, J., Groth, J.: Efficient batch zero-knowledge arguments for low degree polynomials. In: Abdalla, M., Dahab, R. (eds.) PKC 2018. LNCS, vol. 10770, pp. 561–588. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76581-5_19CrossRef

30.

Boyle, E., Gilboa, N., Ishai, Y.: Function secret sharing: improvements and extensions. In: CCS (2016)

31.

Bünz, B., Bootle, J., Boneh, D., Poelstra, A., Wuille, P., Maxwell, G.: Bulletproofs: efficient range proofs for confidential transactions. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/1066 (2017)

32.

Catalano, D., Fiore, D.: Vector commitments and their applications. In: Kurosawa, K., Hanaoka, G. (eds.) PKC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7778, pp. 55–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36362-7_5CrossRef

33.

Chakrabarti, A., Cormode, G., McGregor, A., Thaler, J.: Annotations in data streams. ACM Trans. Algorithms 11(1), 7 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRef

34.

Chida, K., et al.: Fast large-scale honest-majority MPC for malicious adversaries. In: Shacham, H., Boldyreva, A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2018. LNCS, vol. 10993, pp. 34–64. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96878-0_2CrossRef

35.

Cormode, G., Mitzenmacher, M., Thaler, J.: Practical verified computation with streaming interactive proofs. In: ITCS (2012)

36.

Cormode, G., Thaler, J., Yi, K.: Verifying computations with streaming interactive proofs. Proc. VLDB Endow. 5(1), 25–36 (2011)CrossRef

37.

Corrigan-Gibbs, H., Boneh, D.: Prio: private, robust, and scalable computation of aggregate statistics. In: NSDI (2017)

38.

Corrigan-Gibbs, H., Boneh, D., Mazières, D.: Riposte: an anonymous messaging system handling millions of users. In: Symposium on Security and Privacy (2015)

39.

Costello, C., et al.: Geppetto: versatile verifiable computation. In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2015, San Jose, CA, USA, 17–21 May 2015 (2015)

40.

Couteau, G.: A note on the communication complexity of multiparty computation in the correlated randomness model. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2018, 465 (2018)

41.

Damgård, I., Luo, J., Oechsner, S., Scholl, P., Simkin, M.: Compact zero-knowledge proofs of small hamming weight. In: Abdalla, M., Dahab, R. (eds.) PKC 2018. LNCS, vol. 10770, pp. 530–560. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76581-5_18CrossRef

42.

Damgård, I., Nielsen, J.B.: Scalable and unconditionally secure multiparty computation. In: Menezes, A. (ed.) CRYPTO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4622, pp. 572–590. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74143-5_32CrossRef

43.

Damgård, I., Nielsen, J.B., Nielsen, M., Ranellucci, S.: The tinytable protocol for 2-party secure computation, or: gate-scrambling revisited. In: Katz, J., Shacham, H. (eds.) CRYPTO 2017. LNCS, vol. 10401, pp. 167–187. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63688-7_6CrossRef

44.

Eerikson, H., Orlandi, C., Pullonen, P., Puura, J., Simkin, M.: Use your brain! Arithmetic 3PC for any modulus with active security. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2019, 164 (2019)

45.

Feige, U., Goldwasser, S., Lovász, L., Safra, S., Szegedy, M.: Approximating clique is almost NP-complete. In: FOCS (1991)

46.

Fortnow, L., Rompel, J., Sipser, M.: On the power of multi-prover interactive protocols. Theor. Comput. Sci. 134(2), 545–557 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRef

47.

Fortnow, L., Santhanam, R.: Infeasibility of instance compression and succinct PCPs for NP. In: STOC (2008)

48.

Furukawa, J., Lindell, Y., Nof, A., Weinstein, O.: High-throughput secure three-party computation for malicious adversaries and an honest majority. In: Coron, J.-S., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10211, pp. 225–255. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56614-6_8CrossRef

49.

Gennaro, R., Gentry, C., Parno, B., Raykova, M.: Quadratic span programs and succinct NIZKs without PCPs. In: Johansson, T., Nguyen, P.Q. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7881, pp. 626–645. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38348-9_37CrossRef

50.

Goldreich, O., Micali, S., Wigderson, A.: How to play any mental game or a completeness theorem for protocols with honest majority. In: STOC (1987)

51.

Goldwasser, S., Kalai, Y.T., Rothblum, G.N.: Delegating computation: interactive proofs for muggles. In: STOC (2008)

52.

Goldwasser, S., Kalai, Y.T., Rothblum, G.N.: Delegating computation: interactive proofs for muggles. J. ACM 62(4), 27 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRef

53.

Goldwasser, S., Micali, S., Rackoff, C.: The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems. SIAM J. Comput. 18(1), 186–208 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRef

54.

Gordon, S.D., Ranellucci, S., Wang, X.: Secure computation with low communication from cross-checking. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2018, 216 (2018)

55.

Groth, J.: Short pairing-based non-interactive zero-knowledge arguments. In: Abe, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6477, pp. 321–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17373-8_19CrossRef

56.

Groth, J.: On the size of pairing-based non-interactive arguments. In: Fischlin, M., Coron, J.-S. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9666, pp. 305–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49896-5_11CrossRef

57.

Gur, T., Rothblum, R.D.: A hierarchy theorem for interactive proofs of proximity. In: 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS 2017, Berkeley, CA, USA, 9–11 January 2017 (2017)

58.

Ishai, Y., Kushilevitz, E., Ostrovsky, R.: Efficient arguments without short PCPs. In: Conference on Computational Complexity (2007)

59.

Kalai, Y.T., Raz, R.: Interactive PCP. In: Aceto, L., Damgård, I., Goldberg, L.A., Halldórsson, M.M., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Walukiewicz, I. (eds.) ICALP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5126, pp. 536–547. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70583-3_44CrossRef

60.

Kalai, Y.T., Rothblum, R.D.: Arguments of proximity. In: Gennaro, R., Robshaw, M. (eds.) CRYPTO 2015. LNCS, vol. 9216, pp. 422–442. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48000-7_21CrossRef

61.

Kate, A., Zaverucha, G.M., Goldberg, I.: Constant-size commitments to polynomials and their applications. In: Abe, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6477, pp. 177–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17373-8_11CrossRef

62.

Katz, J., Kolesnikov, V., Wang, X.: Improved non-interactive zero knowledge with applications to post-quantum signatures. Technical report, Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/475 (2018)

63.

Kilian, J.: A note on efficient zero-knowledge proofs and arguments. In: STOC (1992)

64.

Klauck, H.: Rectangle size bounds and threshold covers in communication complexity. In: Conference on Computational Complexity (2003)

65.

Kol, G., Oshman, R., Saxena, R.R.: Interactive distributed proofs. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 2018, Egham, United Kingdom, 23–27 July 2018 (2018)

66.

Kushilevitz, E.: Communication complexity. Adv. Comput. 44, 331–360 (1997)CrossRef

67.

Lindell, Y., Nof, A.: A framework for constructing fast MPC over arithmetic circuits with malicious adversaries and an honest-majority. In: ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS (2017)

68.

Lipmaa, H.: Progression-free sets and sublinear pairing-based non-interactive zero-knowledge arguments. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) TCC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7194, pp. 169–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28914-9_10CrossRef

69.

Micali, S.: CS proofs. In: FOCS (1994)

70.

Mohassel, P., Rosulek, M., Zhang, Y.: Fast and secure three-party computation: the garbled circuit approach. In: ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS (2015)

71.

Naor, M., Parter, M., Yogev, E.: The power of distributed verifiers in interactive proofs. http://arxiv.org/abs/1812.10917 (2018)

72.

Nordholt, P.S., Veeningen, M.: Minimising communication in honest-majority MPC by batchwise multiplication verification. In: Preneel, B., Vercauteren, F. (eds.) ACNS 2018. LNCS, vol. 10892, pp. 321–339. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93387-0_17CrossRef

73.

Paillier, P.: Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residuosity classes. In: Stern, J. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1592, pp. 223–238. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48910-X_16CrossRef

74.

Parno, B., Howell, J., Gentry, C., Raykova, M.: Pinocchio: nearly practical verifiable computation. In: Symposium on Security and Privacy (2013)

75.

Parno, B., Howell, J., Gentry, C., Raykova, M.: Pinocchio: nearly practical verifiable computation. Commun. ACM 59(2), 103–112 (2016)CrossRef

76.

Reingold, O., Rothblum, G.N., Rothblum, R.D.: Constant-round interactive proofs for delegating computation. In: Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (2016)

77.

Rothblum, G.N., Vadhan, S.P.: Are PCPs inherent in efficient arguments? Comput. Complex. 19(2), 265–304 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRef

78.

Sasson, E.B., et al.: Zerocash: decentralized anonymous payments from bitcoin. In: Symposium on Security and Privacy (2014)

79.

Setty, S., Braun, B., Vu, V., Blumberg, A.J., Parno, B., Walfish, M.: Resolving the conflict between generality and plausibility in verified computation. In: EuroSys (2013)

80.

Setty, S.T., McPherson, R., Blumberg, A.J., Walfish, M.: Making argument systems for outsourced computation practical (sometimes). In: NDSS (2012)

81.

Shamir, A.: IP = PSPACE. J. ACM 39(4), 869–877 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRef

82.

Sudan, M.: Probabilistically checkable proofs. Commun. ACM 52(3), 76–84 (2009)CrossRef

83.

Wahby, R.S., Tzialla, I., Shelat, A., Thaler, J., Walfish, M.: Doubly-efficient zkSNARKs without trusted setup (2018)

84.

Williams, R.: Strong ETH breaks with Merlin and Arthur: short non-interactive proofs of batch evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.04743 (2016)

85.

Zhang, Y., Genkin, D., Katz, J., Papadopoulos, D., Papamanthou, C.: vSQL: verifying arbitrary SQL queries over dynamic outsourced databases. In: Symposium on Security and Privacy (2017)

86.

Zhang, Y., Genkin, D., Katz, J., Papadopoulos, D., Papamanthou, C.: A zero-knowledge version of vSQL. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/1146 (2017)

Titel: Zero-Knowledge Proofs on Secret-Shared Data via Fully Linear PCPs
verfasst von: Dan Boneh
Elette Boyle
Henry Corrigan-Gibbs
Niv Gilboa
Yuval Ishai
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2019
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26953-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-26954-8

Copyright-Jahr: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26954-8_3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"