2014
DOI: 10.1109/cc.2014.7004528
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Certificateless public key encryption with keyword search

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
42
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 85 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our scheme: KW‐CT = 3| G 1 |, while trapdoor = | G 1 |. With regard to communication, our scheme has the highest communication cost than Yanguo et al and comparatively similar to References and on KW‐CT. However, communication for the trapdoor generated is same as that of Ma et al…”
Section: Performance Analysismentioning
confidence: 80%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Our scheme: KW‐CT = 3| G 1 |, while trapdoor = | G 1 |. With regard to communication, our scheme has the highest communication cost than Yanguo et al and comparatively similar to References and on KW‐CT. However, communication for the trapdoor generated is same as that of Ma et al…”
Section: Performance Analysismentioning
confidence: 80%
“…Table shows time taken for a single operation. Computation cost : Cost of generating KW‐CT and trapdoors in milliseconds (ms) is analyzed across various studies, as follows Ma et al: KW‐CT cost = 3 T HP + 4 T SM + 3 P = 41.42, while trapdoor cost = 1 T SM + 1 T HP = 7.658. Yanguo et al: KW‐CT cost = 3 T HP + 5 T SM + 3 P = 43.585, while trapdoor cost = 3 T SM + 1 T HP = 11.988. He et al: KW‐CT cost = 1 T HP + 5 T SM = 16.318, while trapdoor cost = 3 T SM + 1 T HP + 1 P = 17.415. Our scheme: 1 T EX + 3 T SM = 6.83, while trapdoor T SM = 2.165. …”
Section: Performance Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations