skip to main content
10.1145/1533057.1533096acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesasia-ccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Confidentiality-preserving distributed proofs of conjunctive queries

Published:10 March 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

Distributed proof construction protocols have been shown to be valuable for reasoning about authorization decisions in open distributed environments such as pervasive computing spaces. Unfortunately, existing distributed proof protocols offer only limited support for protecting the confidentiality of sensitive facts, which limits their utility in many practical scenarios. In this paper, we propose a distributed proof construction protocol in which the release of a fact's truth value can be made contingent upon facts managed by other principals in the system. We formally prove that our protocol can safely prove conjunctions of facts without leaking the truth values of individual facts, even in the face of colluding adversaries and fact release policies with cyclical dependencies. This facilitates the definition of context-sensitive release policies that enable the conditional use of sensitive facts in distributed proofs.

References

  1. A. W. Appel and E. W. Felten. Proof-carrying authentication. In Proceedings of the Sixth ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Nov. 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. L. Bauer, S. Garriss, and M. K. Reiter. Distributed proving in access-control systems. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 81--95, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. E. Bertino, E. Ferrari, and A. C. Squicciarini. Trust-X: A peer-to-peer framework for trust establishment. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 16(7):827--842, July 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. P. Bonatti and P. Samarati. Regulating service access and information release on the web. In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 134--143, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. D. Boneh and M. Franklin. Identity based encryption from the Weil pairing. SIAM Journal of Computing, 32(3):586--615, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. A. Brands. Rethinking Public Key Infrastructure and Digital Certificates. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J. DeTreville. Binder, a logic-based security language. In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, page 105, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. D. Dolev, C. Dwork, and M. Naor. Non-malleable cryptography. In STOC '91: Proceedings of the twenty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 542--552, New York, NY, USA, 1991. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C. Dwork, F. McSherry, K. Nissim, and A. Smith. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In Proceedings of the Third Theory of Cryptography Conference, pages 265--284, Mar. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. T. Elgamal. A public key cryptosystem and a signature scheme based on discrete logarithms. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 31(4):469--472, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. O. Goldreich, S. Micali, and A. Wigderson. How to play any mental game. In Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM Conference on Theory of Computing, pages 218--229, New York, NY, USA, 1987. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. Ivan and Y. Dodis. Proxy cryptography revisited. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS 2003), Feb. 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. T. Kohno, A. Broido, and K. Claffy. Remote physical device fingerprinting. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 2(2):93--108, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. A. J. Lee, K. Minami, and N. Borisov. Confidentiality-preserving distributed proofs of conjunctive queries (extended version). Department of Computer Science Technical Report TR-08-161, University of Pittsburgh, Dec. 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. A. J. Lee, K. Minami, and M. Winslett. Lightweight consistency enforcement schemes for distributed proofs with hidden subtrees. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, pages 101--110, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. A. J. Lee and M. Winslett. Enforcing safety and consistency constraints in policy-based authorization systems. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, to appear. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. K. LeFevre, D. J. DeWitt, and R. Ramakrishnan. Mondrian multidimensional k-anonymity. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), Apr. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. J. Li and N. Li. A construction for general and efficient oblivious commitment based envelope protocols. In Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Information and Communications Security (ICICS), pages 122--138, Dec. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Li and N. Li. OACerts: oblivious attribute certificates. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing (TDSC), 3(4):340--352, Oct. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. J. Li, N. Li, and W. H. Winsborough. Automated trust negotiation using cryptographic credentials. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, to appear. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Machanavajjhala, J. Gehrke, D. Kifer, and M. Venkitasubramaniam. l-diversity: Privacy beyond k-anonymity. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), Apr. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. K. Minami and D. Kotz. Secure context-sensitive authorization. Journal of Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 1(1):123--156, Mar. 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Narayanan and V. Shmatikov. Robust de-anonymization of large sparse datasets (how to break anonymity of the Netflix prize dataset). In Proceedings of 29th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. P. Paillier. Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residuosity classes. In Proceedings of EUROCRYPT---Advances in Cryptology, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. Prabhakaran and M. Rosulek. Cryptographic complexity of multi-party computation problems: Classifications and separations. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), 15(50), 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. L. Sweeney. k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. International Journal on Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Kowledge-based Systems, 10(5):557--570, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. W. H. Winsborough and N. Li. Towards practical automated trust negotiation. In Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, pages 92--103, June 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. W. H. Winsborough, K. E. Seamons, and V. E. Jones. Automated trust negotiation. In Proceedings of the DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, pages 88--102, Jan. 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. M. Winslett, C. C. Zhang, and P. A. Bonatti. PeerAccess: a logic for distributed authorization. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 168--179, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. X. Xiao and Y. Tao. m-invariance: Towards privacy preserving re-publication of dynamic datasets. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), pages 689--700, June 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. T. Yu, M. Winslett, and K. E. Seamons. Supporting structured credentials and sensitive policies through interoperable strategies for automated trust negotiation. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 6(1):1--42, Feb. 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Confidentiality-preserving distributed proofs of conjunctive queries

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Conferences
                ASIACCS '09: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Information, Computer, and Communications Security
                March 2009
                408 pages
                ISBN:9781605583945
                DOI:10.1145/1533057

                Copyright © 2009 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 10 March 2009

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article

                Acceptance Rates

                Overall Acceptance Rate418of2,322submissions,18%

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader