# Decentralized Oracles Tls

*Transcript By: Bryan Bishop*

Tags: Privacy

Category: Conference

DECO: Liberating Web Data Using Decentralized Oracles for TLS

Fan Zhang

https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1230657639740108806

# Introduction

I am Fan from Cornell. I am going to be talking about DECO, a privacy-preserving oracle for TLS. This is joint work with some other people.

# Decentralized identity

What is identity? To use any system, the first thing that the user needs to do is to prove her identity and that she is a user to the system. The identity can be descriptive. You can think of digital identity as a set of descriptions about a user. For example, in some states in order to purchase alochol you need to prove that your age is over 21. This is part of digital identity.

In today, identity are established by divulging personal information. Existing age verification requires sending name, address, date of birth, and even sometimes a picture of a photo ID for a third-party age verification service like agechecker.net. Divulging this information is a privacy concern, and it also makes these services lucrative targets of attack.

The alternative is decentralized identity where users gather and manage their credentials locally and have full control about what to disclose to what parties. Originally, authorities would issue special-purpose credentials. The user can prove cryptographically that they are over age 21 using a zero-knowledge proof without revealing any other information.

Changing how identity works is an ambitious goal and many companies are trying to do it, here’s a partial list of the members of the Decentralized Identity Foundation. W3C, Mozilla and Microsoft all have some.

# Bootstrapping

One of the critical challenges is how do you bootstrap the system? Say you need special-urpose verifiable credential that are not widely available, if not at all. Very few of these authorities do this. It’s going to take a long time for them to change to evolve to the stage where they use these credentials that we want. Therefore, there’s a high adoption cost.

# DECO

This is where DECO comes into play. For each type of credentials, there’s already trustworthy websites with the data that we want. For instance, social security agency websites display date-of-birth after the user logs in. DECO allows the user- which is the prover in DECO- to convince a verifier that she is over age 21 using the webpage as evidence, but without revealing the password she used to access the webpage or even without revealing the exact date of birth.

# Oracles and smart contracts

Another application of DECO are smart contracts. They don’t have internet access, and they can’t get data about the real world directly. Therefore an oracle is an entity that relays data to the smart contract. A challenge of building oracles is that much of the data we’re interested in just private. A user might want to prove to an oracle that she is old enough to engage in something, or that she has enough money to participate in some on-chain financial opportunities or that her flight was delayed so she can collect compensation from flight delay insurance.

All of this data is private, and how can a user grant access to this data without giving away the password? In a privacy-preserving way?

# Strawman TLS protocol

In DECO, the user can make statements about her data to a private party or an oracle. The verifier is now an oracle. So here’s a strawman protocol. We have widely deployed secure protocols on the internet, right. Transport layer security or TLS is widely deployed to protect internet communication and webpages. A strawman protocol would be to directly forward TLS protected data.

TLS has a handshake phase where the user and the session have a session key, the server signs the session key with their private key, and I’m simplifying a little bit here because the signature is a little bit more complex than that… Then the server encrypts the webpage under the session key and sends the ciphertext to the user.

A strawman protocol for a user to prove something to an oracle is to relay the session key, signature and the ciphertext. The idea is that the verifier here can verify the integrity of the ciphertext by making a chain of verifications and the correctness of the ciphertext can be checked against the public key of the server.

# TLS provenance

However, this simple scheme doesn’t work for a simple attack. A malicious prover- since she knows the session key, she can simply forge any ciphertext because the data is not signed. Several solutions to add provenance to TLS have been proposed. There’s been proposals like TLS-N. However, we believe that doing so would incur a high adoption cost because the servers have to deploy TLS-N and changing all of them to use custom TLS will be a high cost.

Another class of solution is to leverage trusted hardware like trusted execution environments. One of my previous papers uses Intel SGX to build oracles. But generally, using trusted hardware introduces extra assumption on the security of trusted hardware and also trusted hardware is not always available.

So can we achieve TLS provenance without changing TLS and without relying on trusted hardware? This brings us to the DECO protocol.

# DECO

DECO facilitates privacy-serving rpoof about TLS data, requires no trusted hardware, requires no server-side changes, and works with various TLS versions. So let’s look into how DECO actually works. In DECO, there are three parties. We have the prover, we start with a TLS server, and then a prover, and a verifier. The goal is for the prover to prove the provenance of TLS ciphertexts. Suppose the prover has a session with a server, the prover’s goal would be to convince the verifier that the ciphertext was evidence that she can use, was indeed from the TLS server.

Once the provenance of the ciphertext can be established, they can prove statements about the plaintext in zero-knowledge. These ciphertexts are not signed, which is the core technical challenge here.

The main idea is to hide the MAC key from the TLS session from the prover, until she commits. This is like a 3-party handshake. We assume CBC-HMAC and later we talk about GCM.

At the end of the three-party handshake, the TLS client and the server share the same encryption key. But the MAC key is sort of secret shared between the prover and the verifier. Now since the prover doesn’t have the full MAC key, they can’t forge ciphertexts and can’t spoof the server as we have seen before.

Here’s an overview of the DECO flow. There’s three phases. Shared keys are generated in a 3-party handshake, and after the handshake the prover queries the server as a TLS client and after receiving the response, the prover commits to the respones by sending it to the verifier. Then the verifier sends back its share of the MAC key. Now with the full MAC key, the prover can prove the integrity of the response and she can either true to decrypt the entire response or make statements about the plaintext in zero-knowledge.

# 3-party handshake

The 3-party handshake is based on the standard TLS 2-party handshake. It has two steps. The challenge here is to shoehorn in this third party in a way that is completely transparent to the server. In other words, from the server’s point of view, this handshake should appear just the same as a standard two-party handshake.

We leverage the homomorphic properties from the first step, and we do secure two party computation in the second step. We establish a shared key with the TLS server. In a three-party handshake, you can think of the prover and verifier as two clients with independent diffie-hellman public keys. The prover combines these two keys into a single one, and uses the combined key to finish the diffie-hellman exchange with the server. All the parties compute their diffie-hellman values as before, but now you can prove that the prover and the verifier end up with shares of the same secret shared with the server. The prover ends up with the p, and the verifier ends up with v, and their product is the secret z had by the server which is exactly the form of secret sharing that we want.

The second step is to derive a bunch of session keys. We don’t want to change the server, so we want to replicate the same outcome on the verifier and prover side. They need to compute p in the desired format, but they can’t give each other their shares of z. The natural option to compute a private input is 2-party computation. You can think of it as a magic box from the sky that takes in private inputs, computes on private inputs, and spits out some results.

There are generally two ways to realize this magic box of general 2-party computation but they are either optimized for arithmetic or binary circuits but not both. Here, we have both kinds of computation. We have arithmetic circuits in the first step, and in the second one we have an HMAC-based PRF which is a binary operation in the second step.

The session keys are derived from the x coordinate of Zp + Zy which are two points on the elliptic curve and session keys are derived from the x coordinate of their sum. This would be a very expensive operation in binary since it works in a large finite field.

We estimated that computing x directly in a binary circuit would need 900 AND gates which is the main complexity for NPC. So the more and gates you need, then the more computation you need to perform in this 2-person computation.

We need to optimize a way essentially, otherwise our computation will be very slow.

# Minimize the 2PC circut

We removed the arithmetic computation out of the circuit. This lets us work with a single binary circuit which can be efficiently evaluated using garbled circuit approaches. Under the hood, a share conversion protocol occurs which takes in two shares on elliptic curves and the output shares or additive shares of the x-coordinate of z. Doing so, the benefit of doing this is adding up two elliptic curve points in binary circuits takes 900 gates, but adding up two numbers in a finite field only take a few hundred AND gates. This is how we achieve a great performance boost in the 3-party handshake protocol.

The construction of it is based on additively homomorphic encrypion systems, like Pi-e.

# Performance

The outcome of all of this optimization is a very performant three-party handshake. It takes about 0.4 seconds to perform this three-party handshake in a LAN setting, and about 2.85 seconds in a WAN setting.

This is indeed up to 20x slower than using trusted hardware since it relies on heavyweight cryptographic protocols, but DECO achieves cryptographic assurance without requiring trusted hardware which is the main improvement.

So far we have been using a popular cipher suite in TLS, but DECO also supports GCM as well. By supporting GCM, DECO supports both TLS v1.2 and TLS v1.3.

# DECO overview

Going back to the general big picture, DECO has three phases. What we just looked at was the first phase. The second phase is more or less just the normal TLS session so I will skip that. I will then briefly talk about the third phase, which is proof generation.

# DECO proof generation

After the three-party handshake, the prover can essentially prove the provenance of TLS ciphertext. Once that is done, the ciphertext can essentially be treated as cryptographic commitments. The prover then has multiple choices as to what to do with the commitment. The first option is to simply open the entire commitment by revealing the decryption key, and doing so proves the provenance of the plaintext but it’s bad for privacy. This could be useful for some applications. Alternatively, the prover can prove things about the plaintext in zero-knowledge without revealing the decryption key.

# Selective opening

Proving stuff in zero-knowledge for large ciphertext is impractical but there are some operations that we can do efficiently. For example, in the paper we proposed this scheme called “selective opening” which allows the prover to decrypt a part of the ciphertext. DECO supports block-level selective opening.

We can also combine selective opening with other methods like proving a statement about the partially-opened plaintext. Here, the point is even if the plaintext is large, selective opening allows us to prove zero-knowlede proof statements on only part of it which gives us efficient proofs. The prover can prove a threshold for instance.

# Proof generation performance

The performance is application-specific. For age proof, it takes about 4 seconds to generate the proof, which is for proving to a party that our age is over 18 years according to some university registrar data about myself.

# Applications

DECO has many applications. Decentralized identity is one area. It has some applications in decentralized finance. It also has non-blockchain applications as well, like age verification is useful for online age verification. You can also think of other applications. In general, DECO allows users to export their private data with integrity guarantees even without the server’s awareness or help.

# Takeaways

DECO is a privacy-preserving oracle protocol that allows users to prove statements about TLS-protected data in a privacy-preserving manner. It requires no trusted hardware, and it requires no server side modification.

*Sponsorship*: These transcripts are sponsored by Blockchain Commons.

*Disclaimer*: These are unpaid transcriptions, performed in real-time and in-person during the actual source presentation. Due to personal time constraints they are usually not reviewed against the source material once published. Errors are possible. If the original author/speaker or anyone else finds errors of substance, please email me at kanzure@gmail.com for corrections or contribute online via github/git. I sometimes add annotations to the transcription text. These will always be denoted by a standard editor’s note in parenthesis brackets ((like this)), or in a numbered footnote. I welcome feedback and discussion of these as well.

Tweet: Transcript: “DECO: Liberating Web Data Using Decentralized Oracles for TLS” https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/stanford-blockchain-conference/2020/decentralized-oracles-tls/ @0xFanZhang @CBRStanford #SBC20