On the Pitfalls of Modeling Individual Knowledge
Wojciech Ciszewski, Stefan Dziembowski, Tomasz Lizurej, Marcin Mielniczuk
Abstract
The concept of knowledge has been central in cryptography, especially within cryptographic proof systems. Traditionally, research in this area considers an abstract prover defending a claim that it knows a message M . Recently, a stronger concept-termed "individual" (Dziembowski et al., CRYPTO'23) or "complete" (Kelkar et al., CCS'24) knowledge-has emerged. This notion ensures the prover physically stores M on a machine that it controls. As we argue in the paper, this concept also appears in earlier work on "non-outsourceable puzzles" (Miller et al., CCS'15), which implicitly assumes that performing quickly complex computation on a string M implies storing it on a single machine. In this line of work, the authors typically rely on the algorithms whose computation requires a massive number of queries to a hash function H. This paper highlights a subtle issue in the modeling used in some of these papers, more concretely, the assumption that H can be modeled as an atomic random oracle on long messages. Unfortunately, this does not correspond well to how the hash functions are constructed in practice. For example, the real-world hash functions (e.g., Merkle-Damgård or sponge-based) allow partial evaluation on long inputs, violating this assumption. Another example is the hashing used in Bitcoin mining, which permits similar precomputation. This undermines some protocols relying on individual knowledge. We demonstrate practical attacks against Miller et al.'s and Kelkar et al.'s schemes based on this observation, and discuss secure alternatives. Our alternative constructions, which are modifications of the original ones, avoid reliance on the random oracle behavior of hash functions on long messages. In the full version of this paper, we will provide their formal security analysis in the individual cryptography model of Dziembowski et al. (CRYPTO'23).
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 915405c8-46b2-40cc-85cd-10c827d069b7Builds on7
- How to Prove False Statements: Practical Attacks on Fiat-ShamirDmitry Khovratovich, Ron D. Rothblum, Lev SoukhanovCRYPTO 2025 · 17 citations
- Secret Sharing with SnitchingStefan Dziembowski, Sebastian Faust, Tomasz Lizurej, Marcin MielniczukCCS 2024 · 9 citations
- Individual CryptographyStefan Dziembowski, Sebastian Faust, Tomasz LizurejCRYPTO 2023 · 6 citations
- Strong Secret Sharing with SnitchingJan Bormet, Stefan Dziembowski, Sebastian Faust, Tomasz Lizurej et al.CRYPTO 2025 · 5 citations
- Complete Knowledge: Preventing Encumbrance of Cryptographic SecretsMahimna Kelkar, Kushal Babel, Philip Daian, James Austgen et al.CCS 2024 · 4 citations
Related papers
- On Valiant's Conjecture - Impossibility of Incrementally Verifiable Computation from Random OraclesMathias Hall-Andersen, Jesper Buus NielsenEUROCRYPT 2023 · 5 citations
- On Succinct Non-interactive Arguments in Relativized WorldsMegan Chen, Alessandro Chiesa, Nicholas SpoonerEUROCRYPT 2022 · 14 citations
- Beholder SignaturesStefan Dziembowski, Sebastian Faust, Pawel Kedzior, Marcin Mielniczuk et al.CRYPTO 2026 · 1 citation
- Separate Your Domains: NIST PQC KEMs, Oracle Cloning and Read-Only IndifferentiabilityMihir Bellare, Hannah Davis, Felix GüntherEUROCRYPT 2020 · 35 citations
- Toward Practical Lattice-Based Proof of Knowledge from Hint-MLWEDuhyeong Kim, Dongwon Lee, Jinyeong Seo, Yongsoo SongCRYPTO 2023 · 47 citations
