2016
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-53890-6_28
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Shuffle Argument Secure in the Generic Model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…3) GRNET-Fauzi et al: The Zeus project [18] has implemented a prototype of the Fauzi et al mixnet [19]. 910 Unlike the other mixnets mentioned here, the secure generation of the common reference string for Fauzi et al is non-trivial and multiparty computation is probably required.…”
Section: Group Methods Securitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3) GRNET-Fauzi et al: The Zeus project [18] has implemented a prototype of the Fauzi et al mixnet [19]. 910 Unlike the other mixnets mentioned here, the secure generation of the common reference string for Fauzi et al is non-trivial and multiparty computation is probably required.…”
Section: Group Methods Securitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, when verifiability in the presence of quantum attackers is required, the trade-offs get more complicated. In general, there are two different approaches for making re-encryption mix nets verifiable, namely, by using randomized partial checking (RPC) [17] or by a proof of correct shuffle [1,2,4,8,9,12,13,15,16,25,26,30,31,34]. On the positive side, RPC could potentially be used for making a lattice-based re-encryption mix net verifiable, for instance using one of three recently proposed lattice-based proofs of correct shuffle [8,9,30], although it is unclear whether or not these are practical.…”
Section: Feasibility Of Post-quantum Secure Mixingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They apply to any public-key encryption scheme which allows for re-encryption and for which a sigma protocol for correct re-encryption is known. There are also more efficient proofs of correct shuffle which have since emerged [16][17][18]. These new proofs are roughly three times faster than [4,44,49] and the cost of the verifiable mixing is close to optional, meaning little further improvement is possible.…”
Section: Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fortunately, in this case, there are standards such as the one contained in FIPS 186.4 [19] (A.2.3) which allow the verifiable generation of the CRS without any trust assumptions. Some of the newer, and more efficent, proofs of correct shuffle [16][17][18] use more complicated CRSs which it is unclear how to generate without creating trust assumptions.…”
Section: Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%