Honest programming language for malicious adversaries in MPC protocols

randoracle

1/2/24, 9:10 AM

One method to create a secure MPC protocol against malicious adversaries is to create a secure protocol against semi-honest adversaries and then add some zero-knowledge proofs to ensure that the latter protocol runs honestly.

What if we create an honest programming language in which every line of code can be proven to run correctly?

Can you tell me what the problem is with this approach?

Maybe it is inefficient or unattainable?

1 + 0

multiparty-computation

protocol-design

zero-knowledge-proofs

Score:2

Crypto

lamba

1/2/24, 9:23 AM

It's not clear what an honest programming language is exactly. For example, maybe the compiler will not output any malicious code in the executable, but that does not prevent an attacker from tweaking the executable. Maybe the executable always runs correctly, according to specification, but that requires trusted hardware or other techniques.

If you had an honest program, then you can send your private input to this honest program encrypted by a public key generated by the honest program. Then the honest program decrypts the private input and performs the computation and outputs the result. Because the program is honest, it will not reveal the secret key, private input or intermediate results. In summary, if it's possible to prove that the code is running correctly on a particular party, then you don't need MPC.

+ 0

Elon Musk

I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:

EN: Honest programming language for malicious adversaries in MPC protocols

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.