No fixed-construction reduction from IND-sHIBE-CPA Security (Selective) to IND-HIBE-CPA Security

Unconditional · against fixed-construction reductions · folklore

Statement

When the identity-vector space is superpolynomial, selective IND-sHIBE-CPA security of a HIBE scheme does not imply its adaptive IND-HIBE-CPA security, so the identity map is no reduction from selective to adaptive security: any selectively secure can be modified to output plaintexts in the clear for one identity vector drawn into its own , which a selective adversary, committing before runs, cannot anticipate — folklore.

Sketch

Given a selectively secure , let run and append a uniform to ; outputs in the clear when and is unchanged otherwise. An adaptive adversary reads from , makes no key queries, and challenges on , winning with advantage . A selective adversary commits to before is drawn and hits it with probability at most ; otherwise its game is the selective game of with sampled by the reduction, so stays selectively secure.

Notes

  • Complexity leveraging recovers adaptive security only by guessing the challenge identity vector, at a loss of , so its hypothesis is sub-exponential selective security, strictly stronger than selective security — folklore.
  • For HIBE and ABE systems with a checkability property on keys and ciphertexts (any two different private keys that are both supposed to decrypt a ciphertext decrypt it to the same message), any simple black-box reduction to a non-interactive assumption loses a factor exponential in the hierarchy depth — LW14.
  • An adaptively secure HIBE can be built from any selectively secure IBE, hence from the depth-1 restriction of any selectively secure HIBE — GKR25.