Anamorphic-Resistant Encryption; Or Why the Encryption Debate is Still Alive

Ever since the introduction of encryption, society has been divided over whether the government (or law enforcement agencies) should have the capability to decrypt private messages (with or without a war- rant) of its citizens. From a technical viewpoint, the folklore belief is that semantic security always enables some form of steganography. Thus, adding backdoors to semantically secure schemes is pointless: it only weakens the security of the “good guys”, while “bad guys” can easily circumvent censorship, even if forced to hand over their decryption keys. In this paper we put a dent in this folklore. We formalize three worlds: Dictatoria (“dictator wins”: no convenient steganography, no user co- operation needed), Warrantland (“checks-and-balances”: no convenient steganography, but need user’s cooperation) and Privatopia (“privacy wins”: built-in, high-rate steganography, even if giving away the decryption key). We give strong evidence that all these worlds are possible, thus reopening the encryption debate on a technical level. Our main novelty is the definition and design of special encryption schemes we call anamorphic-resistant (AR). In contrast to so called “anamorphic schemes”, — which were studied in the literature and form the basis of Privatopia, — any attempt to steganographically communicate over an AR-encryption scheme will be either impossible or hugely slow (depending on the definitional details).

saved by

• Janabel Xia