Anonymous and Distributed Authentication for Peer-to-Peer Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Well-known authentication mechanisms such as Public-key Infrastructure (PKI) and Identity-based Public-key Certificates (ID-PKC) are not suitable for integration in a Peer-to-Peer (P2P) network environment, the reason being either the lack of or the difficulty in maintaining a centralized authority to manage the certificates. Authentication becomes even harder in anonymous environments. In this study, we present three authentication protocols such that the users can authenticate themselves in an anonymous P2P network, without revealing their identities. The first protocol uses existing ring signature schemes to obtain anonymous authentication, the second is an anonymous authentication protocol utilizing secret sharing schemes, and lastly a zero-knowledge-based anonymous authentication protocol. We provide security justifications for the three aforementioned protocols in terms of anonymity, completeness, soundness, resilience to impersonation attacks, and resilience to replay attacks. We also provide examples of conceptual topologies and how the peers would behave and rearrange in case of failure.</p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it