• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>International security protocols workshop >Affordable Security or Big Guy vs Small Guy Does the Depth of Your Pockets Impact Your Protocols?
【24h】

Affordable Security or Big Guy vs Small Guy Does the Depth of Your Pockets Impact Your Protocols?

机译：经济实惠的安全性或“大佬”还是“小佬”会不会影响您的协议？

获取原文
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

When we design a security protocol we assume that the humans (or organizations) playing Alice and Bob do not make a difference. In particular, their financial capacity seems to be irrelevant. In the latest trend to guarantee that secure multi-party computation protocols are fair and not vulnerable to malicious aborts, a slate of protocols has been proposed based on penalty mechanisms. We look at two well-known penalty mechanisms, and show that the so-called see-saw mechanism (Kumaresan et al., CCS 15), is only fit for people with deep pockets, well beyond the stake in the multi-party computation itself. Depending on the scheme, fairness is not affordable by everyone which has several policy implications on protocol design. To explicitly capture the above issues, we introduce a new property called financial fairness.
机译：在设计安全协议时，我们假设扮演Alice和Bob的人员（或组织）没有任何作用。特别是，它们的财务能力似乎无关紧要。为了保证安全的多方计算协议公平且不易受到恶意中止的最新趋势，已经提出了一种基于惩罚机制的协议。我们研究了两种众所周知的惩罚机制，并表明所谓的跷跷板机制（Kumaresan等人，CCS 15）仅适用于财力雄厚的人，远远超出了多方计算的范围本身。根据方案的不同，每个人都负担不起公平性，这对协议设计有一些政策影响。为了明确解决上述问题，我们引入了一种称为“金融公平”的新属性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号