In secure multi-party computation @math parties jointly evaluate an @math -variate function @math in the presence of an adversary which can corrupt up till @math parties. Almost all the works that have appeared in the literature so far assume the presence of authenticated channels between the parties. This assumption is far from realistic. Two directions of research have been borne from relaxing this (strong) assumption: (a) The adversary is virtually omnipotent and can control all the communication channels in the network, (b) Only a partially connected topology of authenticated channels is guaranteed and adversary controls a subset of the communication channels in the network. This work introduces a new setting for (unconditional) secure multiparty computation problem which is an interesting intermediate model with respect to the above well studied models from the literature (by sharing a salient feature from both the above models). We consider the problem of (unconditional) secure multi-party computation when 'some' of the communication channels connecting the parties can be corrupted passively as well as actively. For this setting, some honest parties may be connected to several other honest parties via corrupted channels and may not be able to authentically communicate with them. Such parties may not be assured the canonical guarantees of correctness or privacy. We present refined definitions of security for this new intermediate model of unconditional multiparty computation. We show how to adapt protocols for (Unconditional) secure multiparty computation to realize the definitions and also argue the tightness of the results achieved by us.
Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or Idistributed for direct commercial advantage, the ACM copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of the Association for Computing Machimery. To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee and or specfic permission. correctly run a given Turing machine hi on these 2;‘s while keeping the maximum possible pniracy about them. That is, they want to compute Y ( l,..., 2,) without revealing more about the Zi’s than it is already contained in the value y itself. For instance, if M computes the sum of the q’s, every single player should not be able to learn more than the sum of the inputs of the other parties. Here A4 ma.y very well be a probabilistic Turing machine. In this case, all playen want to agree on a single string y, selected with the right probability distribution, as M’s output.