## CryptoDB

### Guillermo Pascual-Perez

#### Publications

**Year**

**Venue**

**Title**

2024

TCC

The Cost of Maintaining Keys in Dynamic Groups with Applications to Multicast Encryption and Group Messaging
Abstract

In this work we prove lower bounds on the (communication) cost of maintaining a shared key among a dynamic group of users.
Being ``dynamic'' means one can add and remove users from the group.
This captures important protocols like multicast encryption (ME) and continuous group-key agreement (CGKA), which is the primitive underlying many group messaging applications.
We prove our bounds in a combinatorial setting where the state of the protocol progresses in rounds.
The state of the protocol in each round is captured by a set system, with each of its elements specifying a set of users who share a secret key.
We show this combinatorial model implies bounds in symbolic models for ME and CGKA that capture, as building blocks, PRGs, PRFs, dual PRFs, secret sharing, and symmetric encryption in the setting of ME, and PRGs, PRFs, dual PRFs, secret sharing, public-key encryption, and key-updatable public-key encryption in the setting of CGKA.
The models are related to the ones used by Micciancio and Panjwani (Eurocrypt'04) and Bienstock et al. (TCC'20) to analyze ME and CGKA, respectively.
We prove -- using the Bollobas' Set Pairs Inequality -- that the cost (number of uploaded ciphertexts) for replacing a set of d users in a group of size n is \Omega(d*\ln(n/d)).
Our lower bound is asymptotically tight and both improves on a bound of \Omega(d) by Bienstock et al. (TCC'20), and generalizes a result by Micciancio and Panjwani (Eurocrypt'04), who proved a lower bound of \Omega(\log(n)) for d=1.

2023

TCC

On the Cost of Post-Compromise Security in Concurrent Continuous Group-Key Agreement
Abstract

Continuous Group-Key Agreement (CGKA) allows a group of users to maintain a shared key.
It is the fundamental cryptographic primitive underlying group messaging schemes and related protocols, most notably TreeKEM, the underlying key agreement protocol of the Messaging Layer Security (MLS) protocol, a standard for group messaging by the IETF.
CKGA works in an asynchronous setting where parties only occasionally must come online, and their messages are relayed by an untrusted server.
The most expensive operation provided by CKGA is that which allows for a user to refresh their key material in order to achieve forward secrecy (old messages are secure when a user is compromised) and post-compromise security (users can heal from compromise).
One caveat of early CGKA protocols is that these update operations had to be performed sequentially, with any user wanting to update their key material having had to receive and process all previous updates.
Late versions of TreeKEM do allow for concurrent updates at the cost of a communication overhead per update message that is linear in the number of updating parties.
This was shown to be indeed necessary when achieving PCS in just two rounds of communication by [Bienstock et al. TCC'20].
The recently proposed protocol CoCoA [Alwen et al. Eurocrypt'22], however, shows that this overhead can be reduced if PCS requirements are relaxed, and only a logarithmic number of rounds is required.
The natural question, thus, is whether CoCoA is optimal in this setting.
In this work we answer this question, providing a lower bound on the cost (concretely, the amount of data to be uploaded to the server) for CGKA protocols that heal in an arbitrary k number of rounds, that shows that CoCoA is very close to optimal.
Additionally, we extend CoCoA to heal in an arbitrary number of rounds, and propose a modification of it, with a reduced communication cost for certain k.
We prove our bound in a combinatorial setting where the state of the protocol progresses in rounds, and the state of the protocol in each round is captured by a set system, each set specifying a set of users who share a secret key.
We show this combinatorial model is equivalent to a symbolic model capturing building blocks including PRFs and public-key encryption, related to the one used by Bienstock et al.
Our lower bound is of order k * n^{1+1/(k-1)} / log(k), where 2 < k < log(n) is the number of updates per user the protocol requires to heal.
This generalizes the n^2 bound for k=2 from Bienstock et al.
This bound almost matches the k * n^{1+2/(k-1)} or k^2 * n^{1+1/(k-1)} efficiency we get for the variants of the CoCoA protocol also introduced in this paper.

2022

EUROCRYPT

CoCoA: Concurrent Continuous Group Key Agreement
📺
Abstract

Messaging platforms like Signal are widely deployed and provide strong security in an asynchronous setting. It is a challenging problem to construct a protocol with similar security guarantees that can \emph{efficiently} scale to large groups. A major bottleneck are the frequent key rotations users need to perform to achieve post compromise forward security.
In current proposals -- most notably in TreeKEM (which is part of the IETF's Messaging Layer Security (MLS) protocol draft) -- for users in a group of size $n$ to rotate their keys, they must each craft a message of size $\log(n)$ to be broadcast to the group using an (untrusted) delivery server.
In larger groups, having users sequentially rotate their keys requires too much bandwidth (or takes too long), so variants allowing any $T \leq n$ users to simultaneously rotate their keys in just $2$ communication rounds have been suggested (e.g.\ ``Propose and Commit" by MLS). Unfortunately, $2$-round concurrent updates are either damaging or expensive (or both); i.e.\ they either result in future operations being more costly (e.g.\ via ``blanking'' or ``tainting'') or are costly themselves requiring $\Omega(T)$ communication for each user [Bienstock et al., TCC'20].
In this paper we propose CoCoA; a new scheme that allows for $T$ concurrent updates that are neither damaging nor costly. That is, they add no cost to future operations yet they only require $\Omega(\log^2(n))$ communication per user. To circumvent the [Bienstock et al.] lower bound, CoCoA increases the number of rounds needed to complete all updates from $2$ up to (at most) $\log(n)$; though typically fewer rounds are needed.
The key insight of our protocol is the following: in the (non-concurrent version of) TreeKEM, a delivery server which gets $T$ concurrent update requests will approve one and reject the remaining $T-1$. In contrast, our server attempts to apply all of them. If more than one user requests to rotate the same key during a round, the server arbitrarily picks a winner. Surprisingly, we prove that regardless of how the server chooses the winners, all previously compromised users will recover after at most $\log(n)$ such update rounds.
To keep the communication complexity low, CoCoA is a server-aided CGKA. That is, the delivery server no longer blindly forwards packets, but instead actively computes individualized packets tailored to each user. As the server is untrusted, this change requires us to develop new mechanisms ensuring robustness of the protocol.

2021

TCC

Grafting Key Trees: Efficient Key Management for Overlapping Groups
📺
Abstract

Key trees are often the best solution in terms of transmission cost and storage requirements for managing keys in a setting where a group needs to share a secret key, while being able to efficiently rotate the key material of users (in order to recover from a potential compromise, or to add or remove users). Applications include multicast encryption protocols like LKH (Logical Key Hierarchies) or group messaging like the current IETF proposal TreeKEM.
A key tree is a (typically balanced) binary tree, where each node is identified with a key: leaf nodes hold users’ secret keys while the root is the shared group key. For a group of size N, each user just holds log(N) keys (the keys on the path from its leaf to the root) and its entire key material can be rotated by broadcasting 2log(N) ciphertexts (encrypting each fresh key on the path under the keys of its parents). In this work we consider the natural setting where we have many groups with partially overlapping sets of users, and ask if we can find solutions where the cost of rotating a key is better than in the trivial
one where we have a separate key tree for each group.
We show that in an asymptotic setting (where the number m of groups is fixed while the number N of users grows) there exist more general key graphs whose cost converges to the cost of a single group, thus saving a factor linear in the number of groups over the trivial solution.
As our asymptotic “solution” converges very slowly and performs poorly on concrete examples, we propose an algorithm that uses a natural heuristic to compute a key graph for any given group structure. Our algorithm combines two greedy algorithms, and is thus very efficient: it first converts the group
structure into a “lattice graph”, which then is turned into a key graph by repeatedly applying the algorithm for constructing a Huffman code.
To better understand how far our proposal is from an optimal solution, we prove lower bounds on the update cost of continuous group-key agreement and multicast encryption in a symbolic model admitting (asymmetric) encryption, pseudorandom generators, and secret sharing as building blocks.

2018

PKC

A Practical Cryptanalysis of WalnutDSA$^{\text {TM}}$TM
Abstract

We present a practical cryptanalysis of WalnutDSA, a digital signature algorithm trademarked by SecureRF. WalnutDSA uses techniques from permutation groups, matrix groups and braid groups, and is designed to provide post-quantum security in lightweight IoT device contexts. The attack given in this paper bypasses the E-Multiplication$$^{\text {TM}}$$TM and cloaked conjugacy search problems at the heart of the algorithm and forges signatures for arbitrary messages in approximately two minutes. We also discuss potential countermeasures to the attack.

#### Coauthors

- Joël Alwen (2)
- Michael Anastos (1)
- Benedikt Auerbach (4)
- Mirza Ahad Baig (2)
- Daniel Hart (1)
- DoHoon Kim (1)
- Karen Klein (2)
- Matthew Kwan (1)
- Giacomo Micheli (1)
- Miguel Cueto Noval (4)
- Guillermo Pascual-Perez (5)
- Christophe Petit (1)
- Krzysztof Pietrzak (4)
- Yuxuan Quek (1)
- Michael Walter (2)