2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.jisa.2014.03.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Concepts and languages for privacy-preserving attribute-based authentication

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
2

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A complete description of our framework including the language description as well as the formal semantics is available as a technical report [14].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A complete description of our framework including the language description as well as the formal semantics is available as a technical report [14].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reason is that traditional blockchain technologies rely on certificate-based authentication standards, such as X.509, and the certificate-based schemas are not able to hide nonessential attributes from the certificates. Hence, user privacy is profoundly disrupted [ 40 ]. Furthermore, actors always sign transactions with the same private key, and, even if the identities are secret, all the transactions signed by the same actor are still linkable to each other.…”
Section: Reference Architecturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Individuals conducting transactions might not need to have accounts to exchange value with each other; we surmise that the regulated intermediary would perform the service for a fee. We also suggest that the intermediary would not be required to carry out strong identification of the sort required by the FATF recommendations [28] but might require a less-stringent form of identification, such as an attribute-backed credential indicating that either the sender or the receiver are eligible to transact [98]. Regulated intermediaries could also provide token mixing services for groups of individuals who satisfy AML criteria, without explicitly requiring knowledge of their unitary identities.…”
Section: £ £mentioning
confidence: 99%