ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
advertisementadvertisement
Theoretical Computer Science
Volume 367, Issues 1-2, 24 November 2006, Pages 123-138
Automated Reasoning for Security Protocol Analysis, Automated Reasoning for Security Protocol Analysis
 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected
Purchase PDF (302 K)

 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
View Record in Scopus
 
doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2006.08.033    How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)
Copyright © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Probable innocence revisitedstar, open

Konstantinos Chatzikokolakisa, E-mail The Corresponding Author and Catuscia PalamidessiCorresponding Author Contact Information, a, E-mail The Corresponding Author

aINRIA Futurs and LIX, École Polytechnique, France

Available online 5 September 2006.

Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Abstract

In this paper we propose a formalization of probable innocence, a notion of probabilistic anonymity that is associated to “realistic” protocols such as Crowds. We analyze critically two different definitions of probable innocence from the literature. The first one, corresponding to the property that Reiter and Rubin have proved for Crowds, aims at limiting the probability of detection. The second one, by Halpern and O’Neill, aims at constraining the attacker's confidence. Our proposal combines the spirit of both these definitions while generalizing them. In particular, our definition does not need symmetry assumptions, and it does not depend on the probabilities of the users to perform the action of interest. We show that, in case of a symmetric system, our definition corresponds exactly to the one of Reiter and Rubin. Furthermore, in the case of users with uniform probabilities, it amounts to a property similar to that of Halpern and O’Neill.

Another contribution of our paper is the study of probable innocence in the case of protocol composition, namely when multiple runs of the same protocol can be linked, as in the case of Crowds.

Keywords: Anonymity; Probable innocence; Nondeterminism; Probability; Crowds


Theoretical Computer Science
Volume 367, Issues 1-2, 24 November 2006, Pages 123-138
Automated Reasoning for Security Protocol Analysis, Automated Reasoning for Security Protocol Analysis
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.