4.6 Article

A direct construction of continuous leakage-resilient (H)IBE scheme with CCA security from dual system encryption

期刊

COMPUTER STANDARDS & INTERFACES
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.csi.2022.103668

关键词

Continuousleakage-resilience; (Hierarchical)identity-basedencryption; Dualsystemencryption; Chosenciphertextattacks

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a continuous leakage resilient semantically secure Identity-based Encryption (IBE) scheme based on the dual system encryption technique. The scheme achieves security against chosen-ciphertext attacks (CCA) with static assumptions and allows leakage of multiple keys. It also demonstrates better computational performance.
Continuous leakage resilient semantically secure Identity-based Encryption (IBE) schemes created with dual system encryption technique were presented by Lewko et al. at TCC 2011 and Yuen et al. at Eurocrypt 2012, respectively. It has been a research challenge to achieve the security against chosen-ciphertext attacks (CCA). The previous attempts toward the CCA security rely on q-type assumptions, which are referred as non-static assumptions causing loose reduction in security proofs. In this paper, we provide a complete solution to the problem and show how to construct the continuous leakage-resilient IBE with weaker CCA security based on the dual system encryption technique, where the adversary is allowed to make continuous leakage queries. We are able to prove its security with static assumptions in the standard model. As a feature of our scheme, we allow leakage of multiple keys, i.e., leakage of the master secret key and the private key of user. Our scheme also enjoys better computational performance, since the round leakage parameter is independent of the plaintext space and has a constant size. Furthermore, our scheme can be easily extended to give the weaker CCA secure continuous leakage-resilient hierarchical identity-based encryption scheme with a short ciphertext length.

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

4.6
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