4.7 Article

Secret Image Sharing with Dealer-Participatory and Non-Dealer-Participatory Mutual Shadow Authentication Capabilities

期刊

MATHEMATICS
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/math8020234

关键词

secret image sharing; verifiable secret sharing; shadow authentication; lossless recovery

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61602491]
  2. Key Program of the National University of Defense Technology [ZK-17-02-07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A (k,n) threshold secret image sharing (SIS) method is proposed to divide a secret image into n shadows. The beauty of this scheme is that one can only reconstruct a secret image with k or more than k shadows, but one cannot obtain any information about the secret from fewer than k shadows. In the (k,n) threshold SIS, shadow authentication means the detection and location of manipulated shadows. Traditional shadow authentication schemes require additional bits for authentication; need much information to be public; or need to put each shadow into a host image, utilizing the information hiding technique, which makes the generation, recovery and authentication complexity higher. Besides, most existing schemes work when a dealer participates in recovery. Our contribution is that we propose a SIS method for a (k,n) threshold with dealer-participatory and non-dealer-participatory mutual shadow authentication capabilities which integrates polynomial-based SIS and visual secret sharing (VSS) through using the result of VSS to guide the polynomial-based SIS by a screening operation. In our scheme, when an authentication image is public, all involved actors (participants and dealer) can mutually authenticate each other by exchange the lowest level plane instead of the whole shadow. Our scheme is suitable for the case with and without a dealer participate recovery. In addition, the proposed scheme has characteristics of low generation and authentication complexity, no pixel expansion, 100% detection rate and lossless recovery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据