MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964276265 · doi:10.1504/ijact.2012.045587

Attribute-based encryption without key cloning

2012· article· en· W1964276265 on OpenAlexaff
M. Jason Hinek, Shaoquan Jiang, Reihaneh Safavi Naini, Siamak F. Shahandashti

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Cryptography · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEncryptionComputer scienceAttribute-based encryptionSecurity tokenProbabilistic encryptionComputer securityScheme (mathematics)40-bit encryptionOn-the-fly encryptionFunctional encryptionConstruct (python library)Theoretical computer scienceCiphertextPublic-key cryptographyComputer networkMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we consider the problem of key cloning in attribute-based encryption schemes. We introduce a new type of attribute-based encryption scheme, called token-based attribute-based encryption (tk-ABE) that provides strong deterrence for key cloning, in the sense that delegation of keys reveals some personal information about the user. It also has the feature that a misbehaving user can be easily revoked. We formalise the security requirements for such a scheme in terms of indistinguishability of the ciphertexts and two new security requirements which we call uncloneability and privacy-preserving. We construct a privacy-preserving uncloneable token-based attribute-based encryption scheme based on Cheung and Newport’s ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption scheme and prove the scheme satisfies the above three security requirements. We also introduce the notion of non-interactive uncloneable attribute-based encryption in order to remove the online token server in the tk-ABE. We then construct such a new scheme with provable security. It should be pointed out that, although our non-interactive scheme is token-free, the scheme does not have the capability to easily revoke users from the scheme. Hence, both types of schemes have their own merits of existence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.012
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Applied CryptographySame topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207