Christina Brzuska

Learn More
Sanitizable signature schemes, as defined by Ateniese et al. (ESORICS 2005), allow a signer to partly delegate signing rights to another party, called the sanitizer. That is, the sanitizer is able to modify a predetermined part of the original message such that the integrity and authenticity of the unchanged part is still verifiable. Ateniese et al.(More)
Recently, there have been numerous works about hardware-assisted cryptographic protocols, either improving previous constructions in terms of efficiency, or in terms of security. In particular, many suggestions use Canetti’s universal composition (UC) framework to model hardware tokens and to derive schemes with strong security guarantees in the UC(More)
Kundu and Bertino (VLDB 2008) recently introduced the idea of structural signatures for trees which support public redaction of subtrees (by third-party distributors) while pertaining the integrity of the remaining parts. An example is given by signed XML documents of which parts should be sanitized before being published by a distributor not holding the(More)
Sanitizable signatures allow a designated party, called the sanitizer, to modify parts of signed data such that the immutable parts can still be verified with respect to the original signer. Ateniese et al. (ESORICS 2005) discuss five security properties for such signature schemes: unforgeability, immutability, privacy, transparency and accountability.(More)
We provide the first standard model construction for a powerful class of Universal Computational Extractors (UCEs; Bellare et al. Crypto 2013) based on indistinguishability obfuscation. Our construction suffices to instantiate q-query correlation-secure hash functions and to extract polynomially many hardcore bits from any one-way function. For many(More)
Although they do not suffer from clear attacks, various key agreement protocols (for example that used within the TLS protocol) are deemed as insecure by existing security models for key exchange. The reason is that the derived keys are used within the key exchange step, violating the usual key-indistinguishability requirement. In this paper, we propose a(More)
Random oracles are powerful cryptographic objects. They facilitate the security proofs of an impressive number of practical cryptosystems ranging from KDM-secure and deterministic encryption to point-function obfuscation and many more. However, due to an uninstantiability result of Canetti, Goldreich, and Halevi (STOC 1998) random oracles have become(More)
Sanitizable signatures have been introduced by Ateniese et al. (ESORICS 2005) and allow an authorized party, the sanitizer, to modify a predetermined part of a signed message without invalidating the signature. Brzuska et al. (PKC 2009) gave the first comprehensive formal treatment of the five security properties for such schemes. These are unforgeability,(More)
In a recent celebrated breakthrough, Garg et al. (FOCS 2013) gave the first candidate for so-called indistinguishability obfuscation (iO) thereby reviving the interest in obfuscation for a general purpose. Since then, iO has been used to advance numerous sub-areas of cryptography. While indistinguishability obfuscation is a general purpose obfuscation(More)
Goldwasser and Rothblum (TCC ’07) prove that statistical indistinguishability obfuscation (iO) cannot exist if the obfuscator must maintain perfect correctness (under a widely believed complexity theoretic assumption: NP 6⊆ SZK ⊆ AM∩ coAM). However, for many applications of iO, such as constructing public-key encryption from one-way functions (one of the(More)