Revocable Key-Policy Attribute-based Encryption

Revocation is a key problem in cryptography, particularly in the attribute-based setting where many users hold keys for the same functionality (that is, keys which grant access

to the same objects). Revocation mechanisms aim to disable this functionality for certain users, for example, if they are dishonest or if they leave the system. In the attribute-

based setting, revocation can either target specific attributes (to disable certain policies within the system) or specific users (to account for a changing user population). In this thesis, we shall focus on the latter as we wish to prevent misbehaving servers (users) from

participating in the PVC system at all; not just to revoke certain functionality. User revocation itself leads to two different modes [14]:

• Direct revocation allows users to specify a revocation list during the encryption

algorithm which lists all currently revoked users. Hence periodic rekeying is not required, but encryptors must have knowledge of the current revocation list;

• Indirect revocation requires ciphertexts to be associated with a time period (as an

additional attribute) and for a key authority to issue key update material at each

time period. The update material enables non-revoked users to update their key to be functional during the relevant time period. A revoked user will not be able to use

the update material and thus their key will not decrypt ciphertexts associated with the current time period attribute. With indirect revocation, users need only know

the current time attribute during encryption, but increased communication costs are incurred due to the dissemination of the key update material.

In this thesis, we use the indirectly revocable KP-ABE scheme of Attrapadung and Imai [14], itself a more formal definition of a scheme due to Boldyreva et al. [31]. This choice will

enable the revocation of misbehaving servers in a PVC scheme such that they cannot perform further computations. We choose indirect revocation to minimise the workload

(in terms of maintaining synchronised, up-to-date revocation lists) of the weak client devices. Indirectly revocable KP-ABE schemes define the universe of attributes to be U = Uattr∪ Utime∪ UID where:

• Uattr is the normal attribute universe for describing ciphertexts and forming access

• U_time comprises attributes representing time periods;

• U_ID contains attributes encoding user identities.

Definition 3.1. An indirectly revocable key-policy attribute-based encryption scheme comprises the following algorithms:

• (PP, MK) ← ABE.Setup(1$ `_{, U ): takes the security parameter and the universe of} attributes as input and outputs public parameters PP and master secret key MK;

• CT ← ABE.Encrypt(m, A, t, PP): takes a message m, an attribute set A ⊆ U$ attr, the current time period t ∈ Utime and the public parameters, and outputs a ciphertext

that is valid for time t;

• SK_{id,A ← ABE.KeyGen(id, A, MK, PP): takes as input an identity id ∈ U}$ ID for a user, an access structure A encoding a policy, as well as the master secret key and public parameters. It outputs a decryption key for the user id;

• U KR,t

$

← ABE.KeyUpdate(R, t, MK, PP): takes a revocation list R ⊆ UID containing

the identities of currently revoked entities, the current time period t, as well as the

master secret key and public parameters. It outputs updated key material U KR,t;

• P T ← ABE.Decrypt(CT, SK_id,A, U KR,t, PP): takes a ciphertext, a decryption key,

an update key and the public parameters as input. It outputs a plaintext P T which is either m if the attributes associated with CT satisfy A and the value of t in the update key matches that specified during the encryption of CT , or ⊥ otherwise to denote decryption failure.

Correctness of a revocable KP-ABE scheme is defined as follows:

Definition 3.2. An indirectly revocable KP-ABE scheme is correct if for all m ∈ M, all

id /∈ R, then Pr[(PP, MK)← ABE.Setup(1$ `<sub>, U ),</sub> CT ← ABE.Encrypt(m, A, t, PP),$ SK<sub>id,A</sub>← ABE.KeyGen(id, A, MK, PP),$ U KR,t $ ← ABE.KeyUpdate(R, t, MK, PP), m ← ABE.Decrypt(CT, SK<sub>id,A</sub>, U KR,t, PP)] = 1 − negl(`).

The schemes [14, 31] mentioned above use the complete-subtree method to arrange users as the leaves of a binary tree such that the size of the required key-update material can be

reduced from the naive method of O(n − r), where n is the number of users and r is the number of revoked users, to O(r log(n₂)). This approach works as follows for a revocation

list R. For a leaf node l ∈ UID, let P ath(l) be the set of nodes on the path between the root node and l inclusive. Then, for each l ∈ R, mark all nodes in P ath(l). Define Cover(R)

to be the set of all unmarked children of marked nodes, and generate update material for just these nodes.

Note that the time parameter in the above algorithms could be a literal clock value where all entities have access to some synchronised, network clock. In this case, rekeying must

occur at every time period regardless of whether a revocation has occurred in the prior period. Alternatively, the time parameter could simply be a counter that is updated when

a revocation takes place and the ABE.KeyUpdate algorithm is run. This would be more akin to a “push” system where entities should be notified by the key authority when

newly updated key material is required. For generality, we assume a time source T from which the current time period t (be that a literal time value, counter or otherwise) may

be efficiently sampled as t ← T.

Attrapadung and Imai [14] defined several notions of security for revocable KP-ABE schemes. The security property we will require in this thesis is indistinguishability against

selective-target with semi-static query attack (IND-sHRSS) [14], presented in Game 3.1 and Oracles 3.1 and 3.2. This is a selective notion where the adversary must declare at

the beginning of the game the set of attributes (t?, A?), including the time attribute t?, to be challenged upon. It is also possible to define a stronger, full notion of security whereby

the adversary may receive the public parameters and make oracle queries before selecting

the challenge attributes (provided no query would lead to a trivial win). As we use the revocable KP-ABE scheme as a black box in our construction, it should be easy to change

to a fully secure scheme if found; to the best of our knowledge, current primitives for indirect revocation in the KP-ABE setting only achieve selective security.

In Game 3.1, after the adversary chooses its challenge attributes (t?, A?), the challenger runs Setup and gives the adversary the resulting public parameters. The adversary must

choose a target revocation set R which is the set of entities that should be revoked at time t?_{. The semi-static restriction requires that this revocation list must be chosen before the}

adversary is given oracle access to the ABE.KeyGen and ABE.KeyUpdate functions. Again, a stronger notion of an adaptive adversary may be defined where the adversary may choose

the revocation list at the time of the challenge instead.

To prevent trivial wins, for a key generation query, the adversary may not query for any key SK_id,A where the target attribute set A? satisfies A and the identity is not revoked at time t?. If this restriction was not enforced, the adversary would hold a secret decryption key and would also receive update material for the challenge time period (as the identity

is not revoked) and could therefore successfully decrypt the challenge ciphertext.

Similarly, for an update key request, the adversary is prevented from learning an update key U KR,t? for the challenge time period t? for a less restrictive revocation list R than

the challenge list R. Otherwise, an update key could be issued which the adversary could combine with a queried secret key to form a functional decryption key for a server that

the adversary claimed would be revoked.

As in a standard IND-CPA notion, the adversary outputs two messages of equal length and the challenger chooses one of them at random to encrypt and passes the resulting ci- phertext to the adversary. The adversary, again given oracle access as before, then guesses

which message was encrypted. The advantage of the adversary is given in Definition 3.3.

Definition 3.3. The advantage of a PPT adversary A in the IND-sHRSS game for an indirectly revocable KP-ABE construction KP-ABE is defined as:

AdvIND-sHRSS A (KP-ABE , 1`, U ) = Pr h 1← Exp$ IND-sHRSS A KP-ABE, 1`, U i −1₂.

Game 3.1 ExpIND-sHRSS A ABE, 1`, U  1: (t?, A?)← A(1$ `_{, U )} 2: (PP, MK)← Setup(1$ `_{, U )} 3: R← A(PP)$ 4: (m0, m1) $

← AOKeyGen_{(·,·,MK,PP),O}KeyUpdate_{(·,·,MK,PP)}

(PP) 5: if (|m0| 6= |m1|) then return 0 6: b← {0, 1}$ 7: CT? $ ← Encrypt(mb, A?, t?, PP) 8: b? $

← AOKeyGen_{(·,·,MK,PP),O}KeyUpdate_{(·,·,MK,PP)}

(CT?_{, PP)}

9: return (b0_{= b)}

Oracle 3.1 OKeyGen(id, A, MK, PP):

1: if ((A?_{∈ A) and (id /∈ R)) then return ⊥}

2: _{return KeyGen(id, A, MK, PP)}

Oracle 3.2 OKeyUpdate(R, t, MK, PP):

1: if ((t = t?_{) and (R 6⊆ R)) then return ⊥}

2: return KeyUpdate(R, t, MK, PP)

An indirectly revocable KP-ABE scheme is secure in the sense of indistinguishability against selective-target with semi-static query attack (IND-sHRSS) if for all PPT adver- saries A,

AdvIND-sHRSS

A (KP-ABE , 1`, U ) 6 negl(`).