ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
On the composition of authenticated Byzantine Agreement
Full text PdfPdf (416 KB)
Source
Journal of the ACM (JACM) archive
Volume 53 ,  Issue 6  (November 2006) table of contents
Pages: 881 - 917  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISSN:0004-5411
Authors
Yehuda Lindell  Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
Anna Lysyanskaya  Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
Tal Rabin  IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, New York
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 7,   Downloads (12 Months): 84,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1217856.1217857
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

A fundamental problem of distributed computing is that of simulating a secure broadcast channel, within the setting of a point-to-point network. This problem is known as Byzantine Agreement (or Generals) and has been the focus of much research. Lamport et al. [1982] showed that in order to achieve Byzantine Agreement in the plain model, more than two thirds of the participating parties must be honest. They further showed that by augmenting the network with a public-key infrastructure for digital signatures, it is possible to obtain protocols that are secure for any number of corrupted parties. The problem in this augmented model is called “authenticated Byzantine Agreement”.In this article, we consider the question of concurrent, parallel and sequential composition of authenticated Byzantine Agreement protocols with a single common setup. We present surprising impossibility results showing that:(1) Authenticated Byzantine Agreement protocols that remain secure under parallel or concurrent composition (even for just two executions) and tolerate a third or more corrupted parties, do not exist.(2) Deterministic authenticated Byzantine Agreement protocols that run for r rounds and tolerate a third or more corrupted parties, can remain secure for at most 2r − 1 sequential executions.In contrast, we present randomized protocols for authenticated Byzantine Agreement that remain secure under sequential composition, for any polynomial number of executions. We exhibit two such protocols. In the first protocol, an honest majority is required. In the second protocol, any number of parties may be corrupted; however, the complexity of the protocol is in the order of 2n · n! for n parties. In order to have this polynomial in the security parameter k (used for the signature scheme in the protocol), this requires the overall number of parties to be limited to O(log k/log log k). The above results are achieved due to a new protocol for authenticated Byzantine Generals for three parties that can tolerate any number of faulty parties and composes sequentially.Finally, we show that when the model is further augmented so that in each session, all the participating parties receive a common session identifier that is unique to that session, then any polynomial number of authenticated Byzantine agreement protocols can be concurrently executed, while tolerating any number of corrupted parties.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
Barak, B., Lindell, Y., and Rabin, T. 2004. A note on secure protocol initialization and setup in concurrent settings. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2004/006.
 
3
Beaver, D. 1991. Secure multi-party protocols and zero-knowledge proof systems tolerating a faulty minority. J. Crypt. 4, 2, 75--122.
4
 
5
Canetti, R. 2000. Security and composition of multiparty cryptographic protocols. J. Crypt. 13, 1, 143--202.
 
6
7
 
8
Canetti, R. and Rabin, T. 2003. Universal composition with joint state. In Proceedings of CRYPTO 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2729. Springer Verlag, New York, pp. 265--281.
9
 
10
Considine, J., Fitzi, M., Franklin, M., Levin, L. A., Maurer, U., and Metcalf, D. 2005. Byzantine agreement given partial broadcast. J. Crypt. 18, 3, 191--217.
 
11
12
 
13
Dolev, D., and Strong, H. R. 1983. Authenticated algorithms for byzantine agreement. SIAM J. Comput. 12, 4, 656--665.
 
14
 
15
16
17
 
18
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
23
 
24
Goldwasser, S., and Lindell, Y. 2005. Secure computation without agreement. J. Crypt. 18, 3, 247--287.
 
25
 
26
Gong, L., Lincoln, P., and Rushby, J. 1995. Byzantine agreement with authentication: Observations and applications in tolerating hybrid and link faults. In Dependable Computing for Critical Applications, pp. 139--157.
27
 
28
29
 
30
Pfitzmann, B., and Waidner, M. 1996. Information-theoretic pseudosignatures and Byzantine agreement for t ≥ n/3. Tech. Rep. RZ 2882 (#90830). IBM Research.
 
31
Richardson, R., and Kilian, J. 1999. On the concurrent composition of zero-knowledge proofs. In Proceedings of EUROCRYPT'99. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1592. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 415--431.
32

Collaborative Colleagues:
Yehuda Lindell: colleagues
Anna Lysyanskaya: colleagues
Tal Rabin: colleagues