1. There does not exist a two-round zero-knowledge *proof* system with perfect completeness for an NP-complete language. The previous impossibility result for two-round zero knowledge, by Goldreich and Oren (J. Cryptology, 1994) was only for the case of *auxiliary-input* zero-knowledge proofs and arguments.
2. There does not exist a constant-round zero-knowledge *strong* proof or argument of knowledge (as defined by Goldreich (2001)) for a nontrivial language.
3. There does not exist a constant-round public-coin *proof* system for a nontrivial language that is *resettable zero knowledge*. This result also extends to "bounded-resettable" zero knowledge, in which the number of resets is a priori bounded by a polynomial in the input length and prover-to-verifier communication. In contrast, we show that under reasonable assumptions, there does exist such a (computationally sound) *argument* system that is bounded-resettable zero knowledge.
The complexity assumptions we use are not commonly used in cryptography. However, in all cases, we show that assumptions similar to ours are necessary for the above results.
Most previously known lower bounds, such as those of Goldreich and Krawczyk (SIAM J. Computing, 1996), were only for *black-box* zero knowledge. However, a result of Barak (FOCS 2001) shows that many (or even most) of these black-box lower bounds do *not* extend to the case of general zero knowledge.Category / Keywords: foundations / zero knowledge, complexity theory, interactive proof systems, argument systems, non-black-box simulation, pseudo-randomness, randomness extractors Publication Info: Extended abstract in FOCS `03 Date: received 8 Sep 2004 Contact author: salil at eecs harvard edu Available format(s): Postscript (PS) | Compressed Postscript (PS.GZ) | PDF | BibTeX Citation Version: 20040909:033813 (All versions of this report) Short URL: ia.cr/2004/226 Discussion forum: Show discussion | Start new discussion