SNARGs and FHE: A Match Made in Cryptography?

Table of Contents

Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) represents a significant leap forward in cryptography, allowing computations on encrypted data without needing to decrypt it first. However, while FHE provides a robust solution for maintaining input privacy, it does not inherently guarantee the integrity of computations performed on encrypted data. To address this, researchers have explored combining FHE with Succinct Non-Interactive Arguments of Knowledge (SNARGs) to bolster both efficiency and security. This article delves into how this combination impacts the security model, particularly focusing on the privacy of client inputs and the integrity of computations.

Recent developments in cryptography have seen the integration of FHE with SNARGs to enhance both efficiency and security. While this combination has generally aimed at improving performance, its impact on client-side input privacy has been less clear. Recent research, including work by Manulis and Nguyen (Eurocrypt’24), has shown that this integration does not necessarily achieve IND-CCA1 security. This article investigates whether SNARGs provide meaningful security improvements for input privacy and proposes a new security definition—Semi-Active Security (IND-SA)—to better capture the security characteristics of FHE combined with SNARGs.

I. Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE)

Background on Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE)

Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) is a revolutionary cryptographic technique that allows computations to be performed directly on encrypted data. This means that data can remain encrypted while being processed, and only the final result needs to be decrypted to reveal the output. This feature addresses critical privacy concerns, particularly in scenarios where sensitive information must be handled by untrusted servers. The concept of FHE was first introduced by Craig Gentry in 2009, and it has since evolved through various improvements and optimizations.

FHE schemes enable two types of operations: addition and multiplication, which are sufficient for performing any computation, thanks to the principle of homomorphic properties. The key advantage of FHE is that it enables secure data processing without exposing the underlying plaintext. For example, in a health data analysis application, a hospital can use FHE to perform computations on patient records without ever seeing the sensitive details of those records.

Overview of Succinct Non-Interactive Arguments of Knowledge (SNARGs)

Succinct Non-Interactive Arguments of Knowledge (SNARGs) are cryptographic proofs that allow a party to prove the validity of a statement without requiring interaction with a verifier. They are designed to be both succinct and non-interactive. Succinctness ensures that the proofs are very small in size, which is advantageous for efficiency, while non-interactivity means that the proof generation and verification do not require back-and-forth communication between the prover and verifier.

SNARGs are particularly useful in scenarios where proving the correctness of computations is crucial but where traditional interactive proofs would be impractical due to communication overhead. In the context of FHE, SNARGs can be employed to verify that computations on encrypted data were executed correctly without revealing the underlying plaintext.

Importance of Combining FHE with SNARGs

Combining FHE with SNARGs aims to address two key challenges: ensuring the correctness of encrypted computations and enhancing the security of input privacy. While FHE provides strong guarantees about the confidentiality of data during computation, it does not inherently verify that the computations were performed correctly. This is where SNARGs come into play. By using SNARGs, one can add a layer of proof to confirm that the computations on encrypted data were executed as intended.

This combination helps in scenarios where the server performing computations on encrypted data might be untrusted or potentially malicious. By integrating SNARGs, one can ensure not only that the computations are performed correctly but also that any tampering with the data or computations can be detected. This is particularly important in applications involving sensitive information, such as financial data analysis, medical research, or any domain where integrity and privacy are paramount.

Key Questions and Challenges Addressed in This Work

This article explores several critical questions and challenges associated with combining FHE with SNARGs:

- Does the combination of FHE and SNARGs genuinely enhance input privacy? While FHE provides strong privacy guarantees, the integration with SNARGs aims to further ensure that even if the server is malicious, the privacy of the client's data is maintained.

- What security guarantees does SNARGs provide in the context of FHE? Understanding whether SNARGs add meaningful security benefits or if the combination merely achieves similar privacy levels as FHE alone is crucial.

- What are the practical implications of implementing this combination? The trade-offs between security and efficiency, and the feasibility of achieving desired security levels in practice, are important considerations.

By addressing these questions, this work aims to provide a clearer understanding of the security benefits of integrating SNARGs with FHE and to propose a new security definition that accurately reflects the privacy and integrity guarantees offered by this combination.

If you interested in FHE and SNARGs, recently we have published an article relate to Nova: Efficient and Scalable Zero-Knowledge Proofs Through Folding.

II. Security Concerns in FHE Systems

Input Privacy

Explanation of Input Privacy Issues

Input privacy is a fundamental concern in the context of Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) systems. When using FHE, the primary goal is to protect sensitive data while allowing computations to be performed on it. Input privacy refers to ensuring that the data being processed remains confidential, even if the data is handled by a potentially untrusted server.

In an FHE system, a client encrypts their data and sends it to a server, which performs computations on the encrypted data and returns the encrypted result. While FHE ensures that the computation itself does not reveal the plaintext data, there are potential privacy risks if the server is not fully trusted. For instance, if an attacker can manipulate the encrypted data or intercept the computation process, they might infer information about the original data or disrupt the computation.

Examples of Sensitive Data Applications

Several applications involve sensitive data where input privacy is crucial:

- Healthcare: Patient records and medical histories contain personal and sensitive information that must be protected from unauthorized access.

- Finance: Financial transactions and investment data are highly confidential and require robust privacy measures to prevent exposure or misuse.

- Personal Data: Applications that handle personal identifiers, such as social security numbers or personal preferences, need to ensure that such information remains private.

In these scenarios, maintaining input privacy is essential not only for protecting individual privacy but also for complying with data protection regulations and maintaining user trust.

Integrity of Computation

Challenges in Ensuring Correct Function Execution

Ensuring the integrity of computations in an FHE system involves verifying that the computations performed on encrypted data are correct. This challenge arises because, while FHE provides privacy for the data, it does not inherently guarantee that the computations performed by the server are accurate.

If a server is malicious or faulty, it could potentially manipulate the computations to produce incorrect results. For instance, a compromised server might return incorrect outputs or tamper with the encrypted data, which could lead to incorrect conclusions or decisions based on the processed data.

Ensuring the integrity of computations is critical for applications where the accuracy of the results is essential, such as in financial reporting, scientific research, or legal compliance.

Relation to Input Privacy in Practical FHE Schemes

The integrity of computations is closely related to input privacy in practical FHE schemes. If a server can tamper with the computations, it might also be able to infer information about the encrypted data. For example, an attacker who can manipulate the results of a computation might be able to deduce patterns or relationships in the original data. Therefore, guaranteeing computation integrity not only ensures correct results but also protects the confidentiality of the data.

Practical FHE schemes often assume that servers are honest-but-curious, meaning they follow the protocol but might attempt to learn additional information from the data. However, in real-world scenarios, servers may be actively malicious, which introduces additional risks to both input privacy and computation integrity.

To address these concerns, additional mechanisms, such as proof systems or verification protocols, are needed to ensure that computations are performed correctly and that any tampering or manipulation can be detected. This is where combining FHE with technologies like Succinct Non-Interactive Arguments of Knowledge (SNARGs) becomes relevant, as SNARGs can provide proofs of correct computation, thereby addressing both privacy and integrity concerns.

III. Combining FHE with SNARGs: Models and Definitions

Basic Idea and Previous Approaches

Using SNARGs to Prove Correct Homomorphic Evaluation

The integration of Succinct Non-Interactive Arguments of Knowledge (SNARGs) with Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) aims to enhance the security guarantees of FHE systems by providing a mechanism to prove the correctness of computations performed on encrypted data. The core idea is to leverage SNARGs to create a proof that the computations executed by the server on the encrypted data were performed correctly, without needing to interact with the server during the verification process.

SNARGs are cryptographic proofs that allow a prover to demonstrate the validity of a statement with a small proof size and without requiring back-and-forth communication with the verifier. When combined with FHE, SNARGs can be used to verify that the homomorphic evaluation of a function on encrypted data was done accurately. This provides an additional layer of security by ensuring that even if the server is untrusted, it cannot produce incorrect results without detection.

Overview of Previous Works and Their Contributions

Several research efforts have explored the combination of FHE and SNARGs to improve the security of encrypted computations. Some key contributions include:

- FNP20: Introduced methods for constructing SNARGs that can be used to verify computations performed on encrypted data, providing initial frameworks for integrating SNARGs with FHE

- BCFK21: Improved the efficiency of SNARGs and demonstrated how these improvements could enhance the practicality of combining SNARGs with FHE.

- GNS23: Explored advanced techniques for using SNARGs to address specific challenges in proving the correctness of homomorphic evaluations.

- VKH23: Proposed methods to ensure that the combination of FHE and SNARGs achieves certain security properties, such as IND-CCA1 security, and addressed some of the limitations in earlier approaches.

These works have laid the foundation for understanding how SNARGs can be applied to FHE systems, but they also revealed some limitations and challenges, particularly concerning the exact security guarantees provided by this combination.

Limitations and Gaps in Existing Solutions

Despite the advancements made, existing solutions still face several limitations:

- Security Guarantees: While previous works have aimed to enhance security, it was shown that some combinations of FHE and SNARGs did not achieve the expected security levels, such as IND-CCA1 security, due to issues like ciphertext tampering.

- Efficiency: Integrating SNARGs with FHE can introduce significant computational and overhead costs, which can impact the practicality of deploying such systems in real-world applications.

- Proof Complexity: Ensuring that SNARGs provide meaningful security improvements without excessive complexity remains a challenge. Some constructions require complex SNARGs that are not yet practical for many applications.

Security Model and Definitions

IND-CPA and IND-CCA Security

In the realm of encryption, security definitions such as IND-CPA (Indistinguishability under Chosen Plaintext Attack) and IND-CCA (Indistinguishability under Chosen Ciphertext Attack) are crucial for understanding the strength of encryption schemes:

- IND-CPA Security: Ensures that an encryption scheme provides indistinguishability of ciphertexts even if an attacker can choose plaintexts and see their corresponding ciphertexts. It guarantees that the ciphertexts do not reveal any information about the plaintexts.

- IND-CCA Security: Provides a stronger security guarantee, ensuring that the encryption scheme remains secure even if the attacker can make chosen ciphertext queries. This means that even with the ability to decrypt chosen ciphertexts, the attacker cannot gain information about the plaintexts.

Challenges in Achieving IND-CCA1 and IND-CCA2 Security

Achieving IND-CCA1 and IND-CCA2 security with FHE combined with SNARGs poses several challenges:

- IND-CCA1 Security: Ensures security against chosen ciphertext attacks with respect to ciphertexts that are not directly influenced by the decryption oracle. It is difficult to achieve because any tampering with the ciphertexts could potentially reveal information about the plaintext.

- IND-CCA2 Security: Extends IND-CCA1 security by including protection against chosen ciphertext attacks where the attacker has access to a decryption oracle. Achieving this level of security requires sophisticated mechanisms to prevent any information leakage through the decryption process.

Introduction of Semi-Active Security (IND-SA)

To address the limitations of existing security models, this work introduces a new security definition known as Semi-Active Security (IND-SA). This definition aims to capture the privacy guarantees provided by combining FHE with SNARGs more precisely.

- Definition and Properties: IND-SA is designed to bridge the gap between IND-CPA and IND-CCA2 security. It takes into account scenarios where the client has full control over the encryption process and can verify the correctness of the computations using the SNARG proofs.

- Comparison with Existing Security Notions: IND-SA is positioned between IND-CPA and IND-CCA2 security in terms of strength. It provides a meaningful security guarantee by ensuring that the client's input privacy is maintained even when the server is actively malicious.

By introducing IND-SA, this work aims to provide a clearer and more practical security model for FHE systems combined with SNARGs, offering insights into the specific privacy and integrity guarantees that can be achieved with this combination.

IV. Practical Implementation and Future Directions

Achieving IND-SA Security

Focus on Symmetric FHE

Achieving Semi-Active Security (IND-SA) involves focusing on symmetric Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) systems. Symmetric FHE differs from public-key FHE in that it uses a shared secret key for both encryption and decryption, allowing for potentially more efficient implementations when the client has control over the keys and the encrypted data.

In symmetric FHE systems, the client encrypts the input data and maintains full control over the encrypted data and the function to be evaluated. This setup allows the client to verify the correctness of the computations by comparing the received encrypted result with expected outcomes. The introduction of IND-SA security leverages this control to ensure that even with the possibility of server manipulation, the client’s input privacy remains intact, and the computation integrity is preserved.

Steps to Achieve IND-SA in Practice

To implement IND-SA security in practice, several key steps need to be taken:

1. Design Efficient SNARGs: Develop efficient SNARG constructions that are compatible with symmetric FHE. The SNARGs must be succinct and non-interactive to minimize overhead while proving the correctness of homomorphic evaluations.

2. Optimize FHE Schemes: Enhance symmetric FHE schemes to ensure they work seamlessly with SNARGs. This may involve optimizing encryption and homomorphic operations to accommodate the additional overhead introduced by SNARGs.

3. Integrate Verification Mechanisms: Implement mechanisms for verifying SNARG proofs and ensuring that the computation was performed correctly. This involves integrating proof generation and verification processes within the FHE system.

4. Evaluate Trade-offs: Assess the trade-offs between the security benefits provided by IND-SA and the computational overhead introduced by SNARGs. Ensure that the overall system remains practical and efficient for real-world applications.

Trade-offs and Considerations

Implementing IND-SA security involves balancing several trade-offs:

- Security vs. Efficiency: While IND-SA provides strong security guarantees, the use of SNARGs and the additional verification processes can introduce significant computational overhead. The challenge is to optimize these processes to minimize performance impact while maintaining security.

- Complexity vs. Usability: The integration of SNARGs adds complexity to the system. Ensuring that this added complexity does not adversely affect the usability and deployability of the FHE system is crucial.

- Cost vs. Benefit: The cost of implementing SNARGs, both in terms of computational resources and development effort, must be weighed against the security benefits. It is essential to evaluate whether the enhanced security justifies the additional costs.

Open Problems and Future Work

Public Key FHE Systems

Expanding the security definitions and practical implementations of SNARGs to public key FHE systems represents a significant challenge. Public key systems, where the encryption and decryption keys are distinct, involve different security considerations compared to symmetric key systems. Future work should focus on adapting IND-SA to public key FHE settings and developing methods for proving the correctness of computations while maintaining key security.

Integration with Security Definitions for Approximate Schemes

Another area for future exploration is the integration of IND-SA with security definitions for approximate FHE schemes. Approximate FHE schemes, which allow for certain tolerances in computation accuracy, introduce additional complexities. Developing security models that account for both exact and approximate computations and their implications for input privacy and computation integrity will be crucial.

V. Related Work

Summary of Findings

Recap of Key Points and Contributions

The integration of Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) with Succinct Non-Interactive Arguments of Knowledge (SNARGs) has been explored to enhance the security of encrypted computations. This approach aims to address two primary concerns: input privacy and computation integrity. By combining FHE with SNARGs, researchers have sought to provide additional security guarantees while maintaining the ability to perform computations on encrypted data.

Key contributions in this area include:

- FNP20: Pioneered the use of SNARGs to verify homomorphic evaluations, establishing foundational frameworks for combining these cryptographic techniques.

- BCFK21: Improved the efficiency of SNARGs, making their integration with FHE more practical and addressing initial performance concerns.

- GNS23: Advanced the understanding of SNARGs in the context of homomorphic encryption, proposing techniques for better proof generation and verification.

- VKH23: Addressed the security properties of FHE combined with SNARGs and highlighted some limitations in achieving expected security levels like IND-CCA1.

These works have made significant strides in understanding and applying SNARGs in the context of FHE, but also uncovered challenges and limitations that prompted further investigation into more precise security models like Semi-Active Security (IND-SA).

Potential Impact on Future Work in FHE and SNARGs

The research into combining FHE with SNARGs has broad implications for the future of secure computation. Key areas of impact include:

- Enhanced Security Models: The introduction of IND-SA provides a more nuanced understanding of the security guarantees offered by combining FHE and SNARGs. This model can serve as a benchmark for evaluating future advancements and developments in this area.

- Practical Implementations: Improved efficiency and practical integration of SNARGs with FHE systems could lead to wider adoption and deployment of secure encrypted computation solutions in real-world applications.

- New Cryptographic Techniques: The ongoing research may inspire new cryptographic techniques and protocols that build upon the principles of SNARGs and FHE, leading to more robust and efficient security solutions.

Comparative Analysis and Related Work

Summary of Relevant Works in the Field

Several notable works have addressed similar challenges and contributed to the broader understanding of FHE and SNARGs:

- ACGSV23: Investigated alternative approaches to integrating SNARGs with FHE, focusing on different security properties and efficiency trade-offs.

- ABPS24: Proposed methods for enhancing the security and efficiency of SNARGs in the context of FHE, offering new insights into practical implementations.

- TTW24: Explored advanced SNARG constructions and their applications in secure computation, providing additional context for evaluating their integration with FHE.

These studies offer valuable perspectives on the integration of SNARGs with FHE and contribute to the ongoing dialogue about improving security and efficiency in encrypted computations.

Comparison of Different Approaches and Their Implications

When comparing different approaches to combining FHE with SNARGs, several factors need to be considered:

- Security Guarantees: Different works offer varying levels of security, from IND-CPA to more advanced models like IND-CCA1 and IND-SA. Understanding these distinctions helps in choosing the appropriate approach based on specific security requirements.

- Efficiency: The efficiency of SNARGs and their integration with FHE can vary significantly across different constructions. Comparing the performance impacts of different methods is crucial for practical deployment.

- Complexity: The complexity of SNARG constructions and their integration with FHE can affect the usability and implementation of these systems. Balancing complexity with security and efficiency is a key consideration.

Conclusion

The combination of FHE with SNARGs holds promise for enhancing both efficiency and security in encrypted computations. However, achieving meaningful security improvements, particularly in input privacy, requires a nuanced understanding of security definitions. This article introduces IND-SA as a valuable addition to the security model for FHE combined with SNARGs, paving the way for future advancements in this area.

About Orochi Network

Orochi Network is a cutting-edge zkOS (An operating system based on zero-knowledge proof) designed to tackle the challenges of computation limitation, data correctness, and data availability in the Web3 industry. With the well-rounded solutions for Web3 Applications, Orochi Network omits the current performance-related barriers and makes ways for more comprehensive dApps hence, becoming the backbone of Web3's infrastructure landscape.

Blog