Overview
- Editors:
-
-
Carl Pomerance
-
Department of Mathematics, The University of Georgia, Athens, USA
Access this book
Other ways to access
Table of contents (43 papers)
-
Public Key Systems
-
- Carlisle M. Adams, Henk Meijer
Pages 224-228
-
Design and Analysis of Cryptographic Systems
-
-
-
- Jean-Jacques Quisquater, Jean-Paul Delescaille
Pages 255-256
-
- George I. Davida, Frank B. Dancs
Pages 257-268
-
-
-
- G. R. Blakley, William Rundell
Pages 306-329
-
- D. R. Stinson, S. A. Vanstone
Pages 330-339
-
-
-
-
Applications
-
-
- Maurice P. Herlihy, J. D. Tygar
Pages 379-391
-
- Michael Luby, Charles Rackoff
Pages 392-397
-
-
- E. F. Brickell, P. J. Lee, Y. Yacobi
Pages 418-426
-
Informal Contributions
-
-
-
- K. C. Zeng, J. H. Yang, Z. T. Dai
Pages 438-444
About this book
Zero-knowledge interactive proofsystems are a new technique which can be used as a cryptographic tool for designing provably secure protocols. Goldwasser, Micali, and Rackoff originally suggested this technique for controlling the knowledge released in an interactive proof of membership in a language, and for classification of languages [19]. In this approach, knowledge is defined in terms of complexity to convey knowledge if it gives a computational advantage to the receiver, theory, and a message is said for example by giving him the result of an intractable computation. The formal model of interacting machines is described in [19, 15, 171. A proof-system (for a language L) is an interactive protocol by which one user, the prover, attempts to convince another user, the verifier, that a given input x is in L. We assume that the verifier is a probabilistic machine which is limited to expected polynomial-time computation, while the prover is an unlimited probabilistic machine. (In cryptographic applications the prover has some trapdoor information, or knows the cleartext of a publicly known ciphertext) A correct proof-system must have the following properties: If XE L, the prover will convince the verifier to accept the pmf with very high probability. If XP L no prover, no matter what program it follows, is able to convince the verifier to accept the proof, except with vanishingly small probability.
Editors and Affiliations
-
Department of Mathematics, The University of Georgia, Athens, USA
Carl Pomerance