<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-07-24T01:44:57Z</responseDate>
  <request identifier="6310" metadataPrefix="oai_dc" verb="GetRecord">https://drops.dagstuhl.de/oai</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <record>
      <header>
        <identifier>oai:drops-oai.dagstuhl.de:6310</identifier>
        <datestamp>2024-03-06T10:37:41Z</datestamp>
        <setSpec>ddc:004</setSpec>
        <setSpec>open_access</setSpec>
      </header>
      <metadata>
        <oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
          <dc:title>Block-Wise Non-Malleable Codes</dc:title>
          <dc:creator>Chandran, Nishanth</dc:creator>
          <dc:creator>Goyal, Vipul</dc:creator>
          <dc:creator>Mukherjee, Pratyay</dc:creator>
          <dc:creator>Pandey, Omkant</dc:creator>
          <dc:creator>Upadhyay, Jalaj</dc:creator>
          <dc:subject>Non-malleable codes</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>Non-malleable commitments</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>Block-wise Tampering</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>Complexity-leveraging</dc:subject>
          <dc:description>Non-malleable codes, introduced by Dziembowski, Pietrzak, and Wichs (ICS'10) provide the guarantee that if a codeword c of a message m, is modified by a tampering function f to c', then c' either decodes to m or to "something unrelated" to m. In recent literature, a lot of focus has been on explicitly constructing such codes against a large and natural class of tampering functions such as split-state model in which the tampering function operates on different parts of the codeword independently.&#13;
&#13;
In this work, we consider a stronger adversarial model called block-wise tampering model, in which we allow tampering to depend on more than one block: if a codeword consists of two blocks c = (c1, c2), then the first tampering function f1 could produce a tampered part c'_1 = f1(c1) and the second tampering function f2 could produce c'_2 = f2(c1, c2) depending on both c2 and c1. The notion similarly extends to multiple blocks where tampering of block ci could happen with the knowledge of all cj for j &lt;= i. We argue this is a natural notion where, for example, the blocks are sent one by one and the adversary must send the tampered block before it gets the next block.&#13;
&#13;
A little thought reveals that it is impossible to construct such codes that are non-malleable (in the standard sense) against such a powerful adversary: indeed, upon receiving the last block, an adversary could decode the entire codeword and then can tamper depending on the message. In light of this impossibility, we consider a natural relaxation called non-malleable codes with replacement which requires the adversary to produce not only related but also a valid codeword in order to succeed. Unfortunately, we show that even this relaxed definition is not achievable in the information-theoretic setting (i.e., when the tampering functions can be unbounded) which implies that we must turn our attention towards computationally bounded adversaries.&#13;
&#13;
As our main result, we show how to construct a block-wise non-malleable code (BNMC) from sub-exponentially hard one-way permutations. We provide an interesting connection between BNMC and non-malleable commitments. We show that any BNMC can be converted into a nonmalleable&#13;
(w.r.t. opening) commitment scheme. Our techniques, quite surprisingly, give rise to a non-malleable commitment scheme (secure against so-called synchronizing adversaries), in which only the committer sends messages. We believe this result to be of independent interest. In the other direction, we show that any non-interactive non-malleable (w.r.t. opening) commitment can be used to construct BNMC only with 2 blocks. Unfortunately, such commitment scheme exists only under highly non-standard assumptions (adaptive one-way functions) and hence can not substitute our main construction.</dc:description>
          <dc:publisher>Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik</dc:publisher>
          <dc:contributor>Nishanth Chandran and Vipul Goyal and Pratyay Mukherjee and Omkant Pandey and Jalaj Upadhyay</dc:contributor>
          <dc:date>2016</dc:date>
          <dc:relation>Is Part Of LIPIcs, Volume 55, 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016)</dc:relation>
          <dc:type>InProceedings</dc:type>
          <dc:type>Text</dc:type>
          <dc:type>doc-type:ResearchArticle</dc:type>
          <dc:type>publishedVersion</dc:type>
          <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
          <dc:identifier>doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2016.31</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-63102</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2016.31</dc:identifier>
          <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
          <dc:rights>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode</dc:rights>
        </oai_dc:dc>
      </metadata>
    </record>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
