20
talks
4
posters
16
committee roles
4
leadership roles
2013–2026
years active
Contributions
QIP QCrypt TQC presenter award · △program ◇steering ○organising □local · filled = chair
Talks
| Title | Conference | Type | Co-authors |
|---|---|---|---|
|
The Sponge is Quantum Indifferentiable ↗
|
QIP 2026 | regular | Joseph Carolan, Christian Majenz, Saliha Tokat |
The sponge is a cryptographic construction that turns a public permutation into a
hash function. When instantiated with the Keccak permutation, the sponge forms the
NIST SHA-3 standard. SHA-3 is a core component of most post-quantum public-key
cryptography schemes slated for worldwide adoption.
While one can consider many security properties for the sponge, the ultimate one
is indifferentiability from a random oracle, or simply indifferentiability. The sponge was
proved indifferentiable against classical adversaries by Bertoni et al. in 2008. Despite
significant efforts in the years since, little is known about sponge security against
quantum adversaries, even for simple properties like preimage or collision resistance
beyond a single round. This is primarily due to the lack of a satisfactory quantum
analog of the lazy sampling technique for permutations.
In this work, we develop a specialized technique that overcomes this barrier in the
case of the sponge. We prove that the sponge is in fact indifferentiable from a random
oracle against quantum adversaries. Our result establishes that the domain extension
technique behind SHA-3 is secure in the post-quantum setting. Our indifferentiability
bound for the sponge is a loose O(poly(q)2^(−min(r,c)/4)), but we also give bounds on
preimage and collision resistance that are tighter. |
|||
| Post-Quantum Security of the Even-Mansour Cipher | QIP 2022 | regular | ▸Chen Bai, Jonanthan Katz, Christian Majenz |
| Non-interactive Zero-knowledge Protocols for QMA | QIP 2021 | regular | Andrew Childs, Andrea Coladangelo, Alex Bredariol Grilo, Shih-Han Hung, Thomas Vidick, Tina Zhang |
Abstract A non-interactive zero-knowledge (NIZK) proof system for a language L in NP allows a prover (who is provided with an instance x and a witness w) to compute a classical certificate for the claim that x is in L, with the following properties: 1) the protocol can be verified efficiently, and 2) the protocol does not reveal any information about w, besides the fact that it exists (i.e., that x is in L). While NIZKs are known to be impossible in the plain model (i.e., with no additional trusted resource), they are well studied in alternative models and have seen widespread application in classical cryptography. Given the importance of NIZKs, and more generally zero-knowledge protocols, in classical cryptography, there has been a recent effort to achieve such protocols for QMA, a natural quantum analog of NP. However, all previous results only achieved interactive protocols, limiting their cryptographic use. Moreover, they all rely on quantum communication between the prover and the verifier, which may be difficult to achieve. In this submission, we present two NIZK protocols for QMA in the Common Reference String (CRS) model, with additional offline setup. Both protocols are achieved through the homomorphic computation of classical NIZKs for NP, and rely on the hardness of the Learning With Errors problem. However, each of them then combines this core idea with different (seemingly incomparable) techniques: 1) our first protocol makes use of quantum teleportation and quantum communication in an offline setup phase, with a classical online phase; our second protocol leverages techniques for classical verification of quantum computations, and is the only known NIZK for QMA to be completely classical, as well as reusable, meaning that a single setup allows to prove many theorems. Security of the latter is in the Quantum Random Oracle model. |
|||
| Secure Software Leasing and Implications to Quantum Copy-Protection and Obfuscation | QIP 2021 | regular | Prabhanjan Ananth, Zvika Brakerski, Yfke Dulek, Rolando La Placa, Christian Schaffner |
Abstract In quantum copy-protection, an adversary who is given a quantum state computing a function f cannot produce two (possibly entangled) quantum states that each individually compute f. No constructions for copy-protection are known in the plain model. We consider a weaker notion, secure software leasing (SSL), where it is only impossible to produce two copies that can both compute f using the honest evaluation algorithm. We show the following: (1) SSL is possible for a subclass of evasive functions, assuming the existence of post-quantum indistinguishability obfuscators and hardness of LWE; (2) SSL is impossible in general, assuming hardness of LWE. The second statement has important implications for existing quantum-cryptographic notions: in particular, it implies the impossibility of quantum copy-protection for arbitrary unlearnable functions, and impossibility of quantum virtual-black-box obfuscation of classical circuits. |
|||
| Impossibility of Quantum Virtual Black-Box Obfuscation of Classical Circuits | QCRYPT 2020 | regular | Zvika Brakerski, Yfke Dulek, Christian Schaffner |
| Non-interactive classical verification of quantum computation | QCRYPT 2020 | regular | Andrew Childs, Alex Grilo, Shih-Han Hung |
| Efficient simulation of random states and random unitaries | QCRYPT 2020 | regular | Christian Majenz, Alexander Russell |
| Can you sign a quantum state? Abstract | QCRYPT 2019 | invited ▸ presenter | — |
| Unforgeable Authentication and Signing of Quantum States | TQC 2019 | regular | Tommaso Gagliardoni, Christian Majenz |
| On Quantum Chosen-Ciphertext Attacks and Learning with Errors | TQC 2019 | regular | Stacey Jeffery, Maris Ozols, Alexander Poremba |
| Quantum-secure message authentication via blind-unforgeability | QCRYPT 2018 | regular | ▸Christian Majenz, Alexander Russell, Fang Song |
| Unforgeable Quantum Encryption | QCRYPT 2018 | regular | Tommaso Gagliardoni, ▸Christian Majenz |
| On the power of non-adaptive quantum chosen-ciphertext attacks | QCRYPT 2018 | regular | Stacey Jeffery, Maris Ozols, ▸Alexander Poremba |
| Quantum Fully Homomorphic Encryption With Verification | QIP 2018 | regular | Yfke Dulek, ▸Florian Speelman, Christian Schaffner |
| Quantum non-malleability and authentication | QCRYPT 2017 | regular | Christian Majenz |
| Quantum Fully Homomorphic Encryption With Verification | QCRYPT 2017 | regular | Yfke Dulek, Christian Schaffner, Florian Speelman |
| Quantum-Secure Symmetric-Key Cryptography Based on Hidden Shifts | TQC 2017 | regular | Alexander Russell |
| Implementing a quantum algorithm for spectrum estimation with alkaline earth atoms | QIP 2016 | regular | ▸Michael Beverland, Jeongwan Haah, Gretchen Campbell, Ana Maria Rey, Alexey Gorshkov |
| Classical Simulation of Yang-Baxter Gates | TQC 2014 | regular | Aniruddha Bapat, Stephen Jordan |
| Circuit Obfuscation Using Braids | TQC 2014 | regular | Stacey Jeffery, Stephen Jordan |
Posters
| Title | Conference | Co-authors |
|---|---|---|
| Differentially private quantum sensor networks | QCRYPT 2025 | Daniel J. Spencer, Kaiyan Shi, Emil T. Khabiboulline, Alexey Gorshkov |
Quantum sensing is a promising technology capable of demonstrating clear advantage over comparable classical techniques for precise measurement. One application of quantum sensing is in function estimation, which can be done using a network of entangled quantum sensors, allowing for measurements with greater optimal sensitivity than unentangled sensing protocols. Since quantum sensor networks will likely be used to measure data that should remain private (e.g., biomedical data), it is imperative that these protocols include a cryptographic mechanism to hide sensitive information. In this work, we show that entangled sensor networks are vulnerable to differential attacks. To mitigate these attacks, we introduce secure sensing protocols based on differential privacy. We reconcile Heisenberg-limited scaling and differential privacy and introduce several protocols achieving varying balances between the two. We show that our protocols are resilient to attacks by quantum adversaries and we find advantages in the privacy-utility trade-off when using quantum resources. |
||
| Quantum Black-Box Separations: Succinct Non-Interactive Arguments from Falsifiable Assumptions | QIP 2025 | Dana Dachman-Soled, Manasi Shingane, Patrick Struck |
| Differentially private quantum sensor networks | QIP 2025 | Daniel J. Spencer, Kaiyan Shi, Emil T. Khabiboulline, Alexey Gorshkov |
| On the Two-sided Permutation Inversion Problem | QCRYPT 2023 | Chen Bai, Alexander Poremba, Kaiyan Shi |
In the permutation inversion problem, the task is to find the preimage of some challenge value,
given oracle access to the permutation. This is a fundamental problem in query complexity, and
appears in many contexts, particularly cryptography. In this work, we examine the setting in
which the oracle allows for quantum queries to both the forward and the inverse direction of
the permutation—except that the challenge value cannot be submitted to the latter. Within
that setting, we consider two options for the inversion algorithm: whether it can get quantum
advice about the permutation, and whether it must produce the entire preimage (search) or
only the first bit (decision). We prove several theorems connecting the hardness of the resulting
variations of the inversion problem, and establish lower bounds for them. Our results indicate
that, perhaps surprisingly, the inversion problem does not become significantly easier when the
adversary is granted oracle access to the inverse, provided it cannot query the challenge itself. |
||
Committee service
| Conference | Committee | Position | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| QIP 2025 | PC | member | — |
| QCRYPT 2024 | SC | member | — |
| QCRYPT 2023 | SC | member | — |
| QCRYPT 2023 | Local | chair | General Chair |
| TQC 2023 | SC | member | — |
| QCRYPT 2022 | SC | chair | — |
| QIP 2022 | PC | member | — |
| TQC 2022 | SC | member | — |
| QCRYPT 2021 | SC | co_chair | — |
| TQC 2021 | SC | member | — |
| QCRYPT 2020 | SC | member | — |
| TQC 2020 | SC | member | — |
| TQC 2019 | Local | chair | Chair |
| QCRYPT 2017 | PC | member | — |
| TQC 2016 | PC | member | — |
| TQC 2013 | PC | member | — |
Collaborators
| Co-author | Joint talks |
|---|---|
| Christian Majenz | 7 |
| Christian Schaffner | 4 |
| Yfke Dulek | 4 |
| Alexander Poremba | 3 |
| Alexander Russell | 3 |
| Alexey Gorshkov | 3 |
| Kaiyan Shi | 3 |
| Stacey Jeffery | 3 |
| Andrew Childs | 2 |
| Chen Bai | 2 |
| Daniel J. Spencer | 2 |
| Emil T. Khabiboulline | 2 |
| Florian Speelman | 2 |
| Maris Ozols | 2 |
| Shih-Han Hung | 2 |
| Stephen Jordan | 2 |
| Tommaso Gagliardoni | 2 |
| Zvika Brakerski | 2 |
| Alex Bredariol Grilo | 1 |
| Alex Grilo | 1 |