No fixed-construction reduction from selective to adaptive CP-ABE security

Unconditional · against fixed-construction reductions · folklore

Statement

Selective security of a CP-ABE scheme does not imply its adaptive CP-IND-CPA security when the scheme supports a superpolynomial-size family of policies: any selectively secure can be modified into a scheme that is still selectively secure but not CP-IND-CPA-secure — folklore. The construction ruled out is the identity map (selective security of a scheme implying adaptive security of the same scheme); building a different adaptively secure CP-ABE scheme from a selectively secure one is not ruled out.

Sketch

runs and appends 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, so with probability ; otherwise the game is the selective game of , with sampled by the reduction, so stays selectively secure.

Notes

  • Complexity leveraging recovers adaptive security only by guessing , at a loss of the number of admissible challenge policies, and so needs selective security against correspondingly small advantage — folklore.
  • The KP-ABE analogue puts a uniformly random attribute set in and needs superpolynomial; leveraging there loses — folklore.
  • For HIBE and ABE systems with a checkability property on keys and ciphertexts (any two 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 suffers an exponential degradation of security — LW14.