Plausible Deniability for Anonymous Communication

C. Kuhn, Maximilian Noppel, Christian Wressnegger, T. Strufe
{"title":"Plausible Deniability for Anonymous Communication","authors":"C. Kuhn, Maximilian Noppel, Christian Wressnegger, T. Strufe","doi":"10.1145/3463676.3485605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The rigorous analysis of anonymous communication protocols and formal privacy goals have proven to be difficult to get right. Formal privacy notions as in the current state of the art based on indistinguishability games simplify analysis. Achieving them, however can incur prohibitively high overhead in terms of latency. Definitions based on function views, albeit less investigated, might imply less overhead but aren't directly comparable to state of the art notions, due to differences in the model. In this paper, we bridge the worlds of indistinguishability game and function view based notions by introducing a new game: the \"Exists INDistinguishability\" (E-IND), a weak notion that corresponds to what is informally sometimes termed Plausible Deniability. By intuition, for every action in a system achieving plausible deniability there exists an equally plausible, alternative that results in observations that an adversary cannot tell apart. We show how this definition connects the early formalizations of privacy based on function views[13] to recent game-based definitions. This enables us to link, analyze, and compare existing efforts in the field.","PeriodicalId":205601,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3463676.3485605","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The rigorous analysis of anonymous communication protocols and formal privacy goals have proven to be difficult to get right. Formal privacy notions as in the current state of the art based on indistinguishability games simplify analysis. Achieving them, however can incur prohibitively high overhead in terms of latency. Definitions based on function views, albeit less investigated, might imply less overhead but aren't directly comparable to state of the art notions, due to differences in the model. In this paper, we bridge the worlds of indistinguishability game and function view based notions by introducing a new game: the "Exists INDistinguishability" (E-IND), a weak notion that corresponds to what is informally sometimes termed Plausible Deniability. By intuition, for every action in a system achieving plausible deniability there exists an equally plausible, alternative that results in observations that an adversary cannot tell apart. We show how this definition connects the early formalizations of privacy based on function views[13] to recent game-based definitions. This enables us to link, analyze, and compare existing efforts in the field.
匿名通信的合理推诿
对匿名通信协议和正式隐私目标的严格分析已被证明很难正确。目前基于不可区分性游戏的正式隐私概念简化了分析。然而,实现它们可能会在延迟方面产生过高的开销。基于函数视图的定义,尽管研究较少,但可能意味着更少的开销,但由于模型的差异,不能直接与最先进的概念进行比较。在本文中,我们通过引入一种新的游戏:“存在不可区分性”(E-IND),将不可区分性游戏和基于功能视图的概念连接起来,这是一种弱概念,与有时被非正式地称为似是而非的概念相对应。根据直觉,对于系统中实现合理否认的每一个动作,都存在一个同样合理的替代方案,从而导致对手无法区分的观察结果。我们将展示这个定义是如何将早期基于功能视图的隐私形式化[13]与最近基于游戏的定义联系起来的。这使我们能够联系、分析和比较该领域的现有工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信