Can homomorphic property of a commitment scheme be harmful?

pt flag

Homomorphic properties turn out to be very useful, e.g., for achieving secure multiparty computation.
As a concrete example, homomorphic commitments can be used as a building block for secure election schemes: very roughly, during the voting stage, voters put their votes into homomorphic commitments, and during the tallying stage, the votes are counted in a verifiable manner by taking the product of all commitments.
The Question: Can homomorphic property of a commitment scheme be somehow harmful?

Sacha Servan-Schreiber avatar
sb flag
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "harmful"? Do you mean insecure in some applications/settings? There is work on non-malleable commitments (e.g., + followup) so you might want to look into what attacks/motivations they have for defining non-malleability. For example, I think in some protocols, a homomorphic commitment scheme could be susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks. Again, it's very application dependent...
user1035648 avatar
pt flag
Non-malleable commitment with respect to opening or commitment may relate to harmful effect of homomorphic property of a commitment scheme. About man-in-the-middle attack: such attacks may be stopped by using an authenticated channel between the receiver and the sender. I think the sender may be dishonest.
I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:


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.