2012
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-30057-8_26
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficiently Shuffling in Public

Abstract: We revisit shuffling in public [AW07a], a scheme which allows a shuffle to be precomputed. We show how to obfuscate a Paillier shuffle with O(N log 3.5 N) exponentiations, leading to a very robust and efficient mixnet: when distributed over O(N) nodes the mixnet achieves mixing in polylogarithmic time, independent of the level of privacy or verifiability required. Our construction involves the use of layered Paillier applied to permutation networks. With an appropriate network the shuffle may be confined to a … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
(34 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Unfortunately, mix networks cannot be used in the described scenario to ensure unlinkability between players and their inputs due to several drawbacks. Most importantly, mixes need to be provided by different, independent parties [29]. This cannot be guaranteed in scenarios with a single, central service provider.…”
Section: A Approaches With Additional (Neutral) Instancesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, mix networks cannot be used in the described scenario to ensure unlinkability between players and their inputs due to several drawbacks. Most importantly, mixes need to be provided by different, independent parties [29]. This cannot be guaranteed in scenarios with a single, central service provider.…”
Section: A Approaches With Additional (Neutral) Instancesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another protocol for shuffling in public was proposed by Parampalli et al [38]. The protocol computes an obfuscated re-encryption shuffle based on the Damgård-Jurik cryptosystem [17].…”
Section: Shuffling In Publicmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, shufflebased systems defend against passive traffic analysis attacks by messing up the order of user messages to hide corresponding message senders. In practice, either statistical shuffles [18] or cryptographic shuffles [19], [20] is used. To guarantee that messages are shuffled sufficiently (i.e., integrity), statistical shuffle assumes that the majority of machines for message shuffles are trustworthy [7], [21], and cryptographic shuffle requires users to verify the integrity cryptographically [16], [22].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%