More Like this

1. Private and Resource-Bounded Locally Decodable Codes for Insertions and Deletions

   https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIT45174.2021.9518249  

   Block, Alexander R.; Blocki, Jeremiah (July 2021, Relaxed Locally Correctable Codes in Computationally Bounded Channels)

   null (Ed.)

   We construct locally decodable codes (LDCs) to correct insertion-deletion errors in the setting where the sender and receiver share a secret key or where the channel is resource-bounded. Our constructions rely on a so-called ``Hamming-to-InsDel'' compiler (Ostrovsky and Paskin-Cherniavsky, ITS '15 \& Block et al., FSTTCS '20), which compiles any locally decodable Hamming code into a locally decodable code resilient to insertion-deletion (InsDel) errors. While the compilers were designed for the classical coding setting, we show that the compilers still work in a secret key or resource-bounded setting. Applying our results to the private key Hamming LDC of Ostrovsky, Pandey, and Sahai (ICALP '07), we obtain a private key InsDel LDC with constant rate and polylogarithmic locality. Applying our results to the construction of Blocki, Kulkarni, and Zhou (ITC '20), we obtain similar results for resource-bounded channels; i.e., a channel where computation is constrained by resources such as space or time. 

   more » « less
2. Memory-Hard Puzzles in the Standard Model with Applications to Memory-Hard Functions and Resource-Bounded Locally Decodable Codes

   Ameri, Mohammad Hassan; Block, Alex; Blocki, Jeremiah (January 2022, Security and Cryptography for Networks)

   We formally introduce, define, and construct {\em memory-hard puzzles}. Intuitively, for a difficulty parameter $$t$$, a cryptographic puzzle is memory-hard if any parallel random access machine (PRAM) algorithm with ``small'' cumulative memory complexity ($$\ll t^2$$) cannot solve the puzzle; moreover, such puzzles should be both ``easy'' to generate and be solvable by a sequential RAM algorithm running in time $$t$$. Our definitions and constructions of memory-hard puzzles are in the standard model, assuming the existence of indistinguishability obfuscation (\iO) and one-way functions (OWFs), and additionally assuming the existence of a {\em memory-hard language}. Intuitively, a language is memory-hard if it is undecidable by any PRAM algorithm with ``small'' cumulative memory complexity, while a sequential RAM algorithm running in time $$t$$ can decide the language. Our definitions and constructions of memory-hard objects are the first such definitions and constructions in the standard model without relying on idealized assumptions (such as random oracles). We give two applications which highlight the utility of memory-hard puzzles. For our first application, we give a construction of a (one-time) {\em memory-hard function} (MHF) in the standard model, using memory-hard puzzles and additionally assuming \iO and OWFs. For our second application, we show any cryptographic puzzle (\eg, memory-hard, time-lock) can be used to construct {\em resource-bounded locally decodable codes} (LDCs) in the standard model, answering an open question of Blocki, Kulkarni, and Zhou (ITC 2020). Resource-bounded LDCs achieve better rate and locality than their classical counterparts under the assumption that the adversarial channel is resource bounded (e.g., a low-depth circuit). Prior constructions of MHFs and resource-bounded LDCs required idealized primitives like random oracles. 

   more » « less
3. On Locally Decodable Codes in Resource Bounded Channels

   https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITC.2020.16  

   Blocki, J; Kulkarni, S; Zhou, S. (January 2020, Leibniz international proceedings in informatics)

   Yael Tauman Kalai and Adam D. Smith and Daniel Wichs (Ed.)

   Constructions of locally decodable codes (LDCs) have one of two undesirable properties: low rate or high locality (polynomial in the length of the message). In settings where the encoder/decoder have already exchanged cryptographic keys and the channel is a probabilistic polynomial time (PPT) algorithm, it is possible to circumvent these barriers and design LDCs with constant rate and small locality. However, the assumption that the encoder/decoder have exchanged cryptographic keys is often prohibitive. We thus consider the problem of designing explicit and efficient LDCs in settings where the channel is slightly more constrained than the encoder/decoder with respect to some resource e.g., space or (sequential) time. Given an explicit function f that the channel cannot compute, we show how the encoder can transmit a random secret key to the local decoder using f(⋅) and a random oracle 𝖧(⋅). We then bootstrap the private key LDC construction of Ostrovsky, Pandey and Sahai (ICALP, 2007), thereby answering an open question posed by Guruswami and Smith (FOCS 2010) of whether such bootstrapping techniques are applicable to LDCs in channel models weaker than just PPT algorithms. Specifically, in the random oracle model we show how to construct explicit constant rate LDCs with locality of polylog in the security parameter against various resource constrained channels. 

   more » « less
4. Computationally Relaxed Locally Decodable Codes, Revisited

   https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIT54713.2023.10206655  

   Block, Alexander R.; Blocki, Jeremiah (June 2023, 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT))

   We revisit computationally relaxed locally decodable codes (crLDCs) (Blocki et al., Trans. Inf. Theory ’21) and give two new constructions. Our first construction is a Hamming crLDC that is conceptually simpler than prior constructions, leveraging digital signature schemes and an appropriately chosen Hamming code. Our second construction is an extension of our Hamming crLDC to handle insertion-deletion (InsDel) errors, yielding an InsDel crLDC. This extension crucially relies on the noisy binary search techniques of Block et al. (FSTTCS ’20) to handle InsDel errors. Both crLDC constructions have binary codeword alphabets, are resilient to a constant fraction of Hamming and InsDel errors, respectively, and under suitable parameter choices have poly-logarithmic locality and encoding length linear in the message length and polynomial in the security parameter. These parameters compare favorably to prior constructions in the poly-logarithmic locality regime. 

   more » « less
5. Locally Decodable/Correctable Codes for Insertions and Deletions

   https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.FSTTCS.2020.16  

   Block, A; Blocki, J; Grigorescu, E; Kulkarni, S; Zhu, M. (January 2020, 40th IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science)

   Recent efforts in coding theory have focused on building codes for insertions and deletions, called insdel codes, with optimal trade-offs between their redundancy and their error-correction capabilities, as well as {\em efficient} encoding and decoding algorithms. In many applications, polynomial running time may still be prohibitively expensive, which has motivated the study of codes with {\em super-efficient} decoding algorithms. These have led to the well-studied notions of Locally Decodable Codes (LDCs) and Locally Correctable Codes (LCCs). Inspired by these notions, Ostrovsky and Paskin-Cherniavsky (Information Theoretic Security, 2015) generalized Hamming LDCs to insertions and deletions. To the best of our knowledge, these are the only known results that study the analogues of Hamming LDCs in channels performing insertions and deletions. Here we continue the study of insdel codes that admit local algorithms. Specifically, we reprove the results of Ostrovsky and Paskin-Cherniavsky for insdel LDCs using a different set of techniques. We also observe that the techniques extend to constructions of LCCs. Specifically, we obtain insdel LDCs and LCCs from their Hamming LDCs and LCCs analogues, respectively. The rate and error-correction capability blow up only by a constant factor, while the query complexity blows up by a poly log factor in the block length. Since insdel locally decodable/correctble codes are scarcely studied in the literature, we believe our results and techniques may lead to further research. In particular, we conjecture that constant-query insdel LDCs/LCCs do not exist. 

   more » « less