In 2006, Miranda et al. proposed an anonymity scheme to achieve peers' anonymity in Peer-to-Peer (P2P) reputation systems. In this paper, we show that this scheme can not achieve peers' anonymity in two cases. We also propose an improvement which solves the problem and improves the degree of anonymity.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In ubiquitous networks, the multiple devices carried by an user may unintentionally expose information about her habits or preferences. This information leakage can compromise the users' right to privacy. A common approach to increase privacy is to hide the user real identity under a pseudonym. Unfortunately, pseudonyms may interfere with the reputation systems that are often used to assert the reliability of the information provided by the participants in the network. This paper presents a framework for combining anonymity with reputation and shows that it can be configured to provide a desired degree of balance between these two conflicting goals. The proposed solution leverages on well-known cryptographic techniques, such as public key infrastructure and blind signatures
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In this paper we introduce a system called Crowds for protecting users' anonymity on the world-wide-web. Crowds, named for the notion of “blending into a crowd,” operates by grouping users into a large and geographically diverse group (crowd) that collectively issues requests on behalf of its members. Web servers are unable to learn the true source of a request because it is equally likely to have originated from any member of the crowd, and even collaborating crowd members cannot distinguish the originator of a request from a member who is merely forwarding the request on behalf of another. We describe the design, implementation, security, performance, and scalability of our system. Our security analysis introduces degrees of anonymity as an important tool for describing and proving anonymity properties.
ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 01/1997; 1(1):66-92. DOI:10.1145/290163.290168 · 0.69 Impact Factor
Note: Although carefully collected, accuracy of this list of references cannot be guaranteed.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.