Secure Set Union and Bag Union Computation for Guaranteeing Anonymity of Distrustful Participants

The computation of the union operator for different distributed datasets involves two challenges when participants are curious and can even act malicious: guaranteeing anonymity and guaranteeing security. Anonymity means that the owner of a certain data item cannot be identified provided that more than two participants act. Security means that no participant can underhandedly prevent data items of other participants from being included in the union. We present a protocol for computing both, the set union and the bag union of data sets of different participants that guarantees both properties: anonymity and security even if participants act malicious, i.e.modify messages or change or stop the protocol. We prove the correctness of the protocol and give experimental results that show the applicability of our protocol in a common environment.

[1]  Stefan Böttcher,et al.  Secure Computation of Common Data among Malicious Partners , 2007, SECRYPT.

[2]  Benny Pinkas,et al.  Efficient Private Matching and Set Intersection , 2004, EUROCRYPT.

[3]  Josh Benaloh,et al.  Receipt-free secret-ballot elections (extended abstract) , 1994, STOC '94.

[4]  Sean W. Smith,et al.  Practical server privacy with secure coprocessors , 2001, IBM Syst. J..

[5]  Masayuki Abe,et al.  Mix-Networks on Permutation Networks , 1999, ASIACRYPT.

[6]  Divyakant Agrawal,et al.  Privacy Preserving Query Processing Using Third Parties , 2006, 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE'06).

[7]  Murat Kantarcioglu,et al.  Sovereign Joins , 2006, 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE'06).

[8]  Michael J. Fischer,et al.  A robust and verifiable cryptographically secure election scheme , 1985, 26th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1985).

[9]  Kazue Sako,et al.  Efficient Receipt-Free Voting Based on Homomorphic Encryption , 2000, EUROCRYPT.

[10]  Hugh C Williams,et al.  Lecture notes in computer sciences; 218 on Advances in cryptology---CRYPTO 85 , 1986 .

[11]  Stefan Böttcher,et al.  Secure Anonymous Union Computation Among Malicious Partners , 2007, The Second International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES'07).

[12]  Yvo Desmedt,et al.  How to Break a Practical MIX and Design a New One , 2000, EUROCRYPT.

[13]  Stefan Böttcher,et al.  Sovereign Information Sharing Among Malicious Partners , 2006, Secure Data Management.

[14]  Chris J. Mitchell,et al.  A Proposed Architecture for Trusted Third Party Services , 1995, Cryptography: Policy and Algorithms.

[15]  Jens Groth,et al.  Efficient Maximal Privacy in Boardroom Voting and Anonymous Broadcast , 2004, Financial Cryptography.

[16]  Victor S. Miller,et al.  Use of Elliptic Curves in Cryptography , 1985, CRYPTO.

[17]  Chris Clifton,et al.  Tools for privacy preserving distributed data mining , 2002, SKDD.

[18]  Aggelos Kiayias,et al.  Self-tallying Elections and Perfect Ballot Secrecy , 2002, Public Key Cryptography.

[19]  Alexandre V. Evfimievski,et al.  Information sharing across private databases , 2003, SIGMOD '03.

[20]  Evimaria Terzi,et al.  On Honesty in Sovereign Information Sharing , 2006, EDBT.

[21]  N. Asokan,et al.  Optimistic protocols for fair exchange , 1997, CCS '97.

[22]  Dawn Xiaodong Song,et al.  Privacy-Preserving Set Operations , 2005, CRYPTO.

[23]  Michael K. Reiter,et al.  Fair Exchange with a Semi-Trusted Third Party (extended abstract) , 1997, CCS.

[24]  R. Morris,et al.  A Trusted Third-Party Computation Service , 2001 .

[25]  Tad Hogg,et al.  Enhancing privacy and trust in electronic communities , 1999, EC '99.