Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Provisioning Time-Based Subscription in NDN: A Secure and Efficient Access Control Scheme

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a producer can encrypt NDN content so that the decryption key is recoverable only while the consumer's subscription window covers the publication path, with edge routers blocking invalid interest packets via…

desk verdict The subscription scheme is a reasonable design idea, but as written the signature verification and decryption equations don't close, and the CPA proof is a modified game—so the central claims fail. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15975 v1 pith:JMINQIAI submitted 2025-01-27 cs.CR

Nazatul H. Sultan , Chandan Kumar , Saurab Dulal , Vijay Varadharajan , Seyit Camtepe , Surya Nepal This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords NamedDataNetworkingaccesscontroltime-basedsubscriptionencryptionrevocationanonymousauthenticationdenialofserviceprovablesecurity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that Named Data Networking content can be encrypted so that the ability to decrypt is tied to a time window rather than to an account. A producer chooses a path through a subscription tree that represents the current date, and embeds the decryption key into a polynomial whose roots are node secrets along that path. A consumer holding private keys for any node in that path, meaning the consumer's subscription still covers the current date, can recompute one root and recover the key; when the subscription expires, no node in the new path is in the consumer's cover set, so decryption stops without any revocation step. The paper also claims that edge routers can verify each interest packet with an anonymous, unlinkable signature and drop invalid requests before they enter the network, and it provides a CPA security proof plus implementation and emulation measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the subscription access policy tree together with the sibling intractable function family (SIFF) polynomial. The producer selects the path tau from the current date leaf to the root and gives each node on tau a random exponent-related secret; these secrets are the roots used to construct a polynomial P whose evaluation at any one of them returns the symmetric content key K. A consumer's subscription is a minimum cover set of nodes, and the private key for a node is built so that a pairing computation with the published ciphertext component recovers the node secret exactly when that node is in the consumer's cover set. For authentication, the signature is a four-component pairing value keyed by the node identity, the content name, and a timestamp; the edge router's verification reduces to checking an equality of two pairing expressions using only public parameters, which the paper argues certifies freshness, subscription rights, and content name while keeping the consumer anonymous and unlinkable.

What would settle it

Using the paper's own formulas, compute the router-side verification values for a signature made with a node key from an expired subscription period and a current timestamp; if the equality still holds, as the algebra suggests because all path-specific terms cancel, then the router accepts a request from an expired consumer and the DoS-resistance claim for the authentication layer fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the scheme, the data producer runs a setup that publishes public parameters and builds a hierarchical time tree whose leaves are days. A subscription is represented by a minimum cover set of tree nodes, and the consumer receives private keys for those nodes. When publishing content, the producer takes the path tau from today's leaf to the root, chooses a fresh random value for each node on tau, encrypts the content with a symmetric key K, and hides K as the constant term of a polynomial P constructed so that P evaluates to K at every node secret on tau. A consumer can recover K if and only if one of their cover-set nodes is on tau, which is exactly the condition that their subscription period still contains the publication date. The authentication layer gives each consumer a randomized signature carrying a node identity, a timestamp, and a content name; the edge router recomputes two pairing expressions and accepts only if they match, without learning the consumer's identity. The paper claims this provides CPA security under the Decisional Bilinear Diffie-Hellman assumption, blocks bogus interests at the edge, and costs less communication than the temporal schemes it compares against.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes that when the edge router sees the verification equality hold, that equality proves the consumer's node identity lies on the producer's current publication path and that the subscription period tied to that node is still active, even though the router never checks the subscription tree or any revocation list.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single ciphertext can serve consumers with different subscription lengths such as day, week, month, or year, because each subscriber only needs one node of the current path in their cover set.
  • Expiration is automatic: once the current publication path leaves a consumer's cover set, the SIFF roots no longer match any private key the consumer holds, so no key-update or re-encryption step is needed at expiry.
  • Edge routers can discard invalid interest packets before forwarding, reducing bandwidth waste from bogus requests, and the random signature component makes successive requests from the same consumer unlinkable.
  • If the security proof holds, the scheme is IND-CPA secure under DBDH, meaning ciphertexts reveal nothing about plaintext content to a chosen-plaintext adversary.
  • Measured overhead stays close to the plaintext baseline in network emulation, with only two extra data segments per content object and signing, verification, and decryption each in the low milliseconds.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the encryption layer and the authentication layer stand or fall independently; the time-based decryption property follows from the polynomial and cover-set construction, whereas the DoS-resistance claim rests entirely on the router-side equality check.
  • Editorial inference: if a router cannot verify that the node identity in the signature lies on the producer's current publication path, an expired consumer can still produce a valid signature with an old node key; the paper gives no router-side mechanism for this check, so a testable fix would attach a short-lived signed path token to each interest or have routers cache the current publication pat
  • Editorial inference: the same cover-set and polynomial mechanism could be reused for non-temporal attributes such as geographic regions, content categories, or hierarchical service tiers, since the tree structure only requires a partial order over the attribute space.
  • Editorial inference: because the polynomial shares the same key among all subscribers whose cover set touches the current path, every valid node key on that path decrypts everything published during that time window; this is efficient for broadcast-like NDN distribution but means a single leaked key for one node compromises that window's content.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an encryption-based access control scheme for Named Data Networking (NDN) that embeds time-based subscription policies into ciphertexts. A producer encrypts content with a symmetric key K, shares K via a polynomial whose roots are per-node secrets derived from a subscription access-policy tree, and issues consumers private keys for a minimum cover set of tree nodes. The paper also presents an anonymous signature scheme with which edge routers verify interest packets before forwarding them, and claims IND-CPA security under DBDH, DoS resistance, automatic revocation at subscription expiry, and practical efficiency based on a Charm implementation and Mini-NDN emulation.

Significance. The application-level idea is relevant and the experimental sections provide useful measurements of runtime and communication overhead; the use of the sibling intractable function family to embed multiple subscription periods into one ciphertext is a sensible design direction. If the construction and proofs were correct, the scheme would be a practical contribution to NDN access control. However, the two central cryptographic pillars—the edge-router signature verification and the CPA security proof—are not valid as written, and the authentication mechanism does not actually enforce that a consumer's node lies on the current publication path or that the subscription is still active. The strengths are the clear system model and the concrete performance comparison, but the load-bearing security claims fail.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.2 (Content Request and Consumer Authentication)] The verification equation V3=V4 fails algebraically even for an honest consumer. With S1 = ((UK + H1(ts||CN))/H1(ti))·v and S2 = (TK2_i)^v, one obtains V2 = (Y1)^{S1} = e(g,g)^{k·UK·v/H1(ti)} · e(g,g)^{k·H1(ts||CN)·v/H1(ti)}, whereas V1 = e(S2, g^{1/H1(ti)}) = e(g,g)^{k·UK·v} · e(g,g)^{kbar·H1(IDu||ti)·v/H1(ti)}. Consequently V3=V1/V2 contains an extra factor e(g,g)^{k·UK·v·(1 - 1/H1(ti))} that is not present in V4. Since UK, k, and v are nonzero and H1(ti)=1 only with negligible probability, V3 != V4 for every legitimate request, so the DoS-resistance and interest-authentication claims collapse at the algebraic level.
  2. [5.2 (Consumer Authentication) and 4.1 (System Model)] The edge router has no input that ties the node ti to the current publication path tau or to an active subscription period. The verification uses only ti, the timestamp ts, the content name CN, and the public values Y1,Y2; it does not check that ti lies on the path tau of the requested content or that the subscription period containing ti has not expired. Thus, even if the signature algebra were repaired, an expired consumer holding an old node key TK2_i could still pass V3=V4, and the claimed automatic revocation and DoS resistance for the authentication layer do not follow from the construction. The statement that the router verifies the access right 'by using the public information associated with the subscribed time period' is not backed by any such public information in the scheme.
  3. [Appendix B and Theorem 1 (Section 6.1)] The CPA proof is not a valid DBDH reduction for the scheme in Section 5.2. It explicitly modifies the security game: the simulator sends the polynomial P*(x)=x-x*_t instead of the actual polynomial P(x), and the challenge ciphertext omits Enc_K(M), so an adversary winning in the modified game is not an adversary against the real scheme. In addition, the simulator's C1 depends on the challenged node t* through phi_{t*} and skid_u, whereas in the real scheme C1 = e(g,g)^{sigma·r} is independent of the node and uses the global master secret sigma, so the simulated ciphertext is not distributed like a real ciphertext. The IND-CPA game in Appendix A also does not forbid the adversary from querying the challenged time period in Phase 1 or Phase 2, and the final advantage calculation is asserted rather than derived from a correct simulation of hash queries and key queries. Therefore Theorem 1 does not establish CPA security.
minor comments (5)
  1. [5.2] The master secrets kappa and kappa-bar (with overline) are typeset identically in several equations (e.g., Y1, Y2, S2, S4), which makes the algebra difficult to follow; please distinguish the two values consistently throughout.
  2. [Table 2 and Section 7.1] The comparison sets |tau|=|tau''|=|S|=CS=t=4, but CS is a set of tree nodes and |CS| is not a tree-height parameter; please clarify what the value 4 represents for the consumer key size calculation.
  3. [Figure 5] The eight subplots repeat the same y-axis labels and use legends 'w/ height', 'w/o height', and 'w height rev' that are not explained in the caption; describe each scenario explicitly in the caption.
  4. [Appendix A] The IND-CPA game should state that the challenged time period t* was not queried in Phase 1 or Phase 2, and should specify whether the adversary may obtain private keys for nodes on the challenged publication path.
  5. [7.2] The statement that 'each consumer transmitted a 340-byte signature to the producer for verification' appears to conflict with Section 5.2, where the edge router verifies the signature; please clarify which entity performs the verification in the emulation setup.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scheme's security is argued against the external DBDH assumption and compared with external baselines [10], [15]; self-citations [12], [13] are provenance only and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. The encryption and decryption construction is an explicit algebraic scheme built on bilinear groups and the external SIFF primitive, and the CPA claim is argued by reduction to the DBDH problem rather than by invoking the paper's own security conclusion. The authentication layer in Section 5.2 is an explicit signature-verification equation; regardless of whether that equation is algebraically correct, it is not circular, because the verification check is not defined as 'passes iff our scheme is secure' and no fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction. The self-citations [12] and [13] appear in the Figure 1 caption and in extension remarks, but the paper does not rely on them as the proof of its central access-control or DoS-resistance claims. Comparisons are made against external schemes [10] and [15], and the experiments use external tooling (Charm, Mini-NDN). The Appendix B proof states that the security game was 'slightly modified,' and Appendix B/C may contain proof-soundness or algebraic gaps, but those are correctness defects rather than circular derivations. There is no fitted input called a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation that is itself the target claim. Therefore the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The scheme introduces no free parameters fitted to data; the listed hand-chosen parameters affect the comparison and replay window. The central claims rest on standard cryptographic assumptions plus an unstated static-tree/time-node assumption. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Comparison tree height |tau| = 4
    Set to 4 in Tables 1 and 2 so that ciphertext, key, and signature sizes can be compared with [10] and [15]; this choice favors the scheme's communication overhead and is not derived from a requirement.
  • Replay threshold Delta_t = unspecified
    Mentioned as a predefined value in Section 5.2 Consumer Authentication; the actual value is left open, and replay protection depends on it.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math DBDH assumption holds in the chosen bilinear group
    Section 3.3; the CPA proof in Appendix B reduces to this assumption.
  • standard math SIFF polynomial sharing hides the roots from unauthorized parties
    Section 3.1; the scheme's key sharing relies on the properties of SIFF from [41].
  • domain assumption H1 and H2 are collision-resistant hash functions
    Section 5.2 Producer Setup; used to bind identities, timestamps, and content names.
  • domain assumption AES-256 and the symmetric encryption scheme are semantically secure
    Section 5.2 and Section 7.2; the outer encryption Enc_K(M) is assumed secure.
  • standard math Bilinear groups with computable non-degenerate pairings exist
    Section 3.2; all constructions use such groups.
  • domain assumption The adversarial model in Section 4.2 is complete (producer trusted, ISP honest-but-curious, routers may be compromised)
    Security and functionality claims hold only within this model; malicious producers are out of scope.
  • domain assumption A single static access policy tree T can represent all subscription periods and current publication dates
    Section 5.1 and 5.2; the scheme does not specify how the tree grows or rolls over across years, and if node identities repeat across periods old keys may remain valid.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Provisioning Time-Based Subscription in NDN: A Secure and Efficient Access Control Scheme." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JMINQIAI

@misc{pith2026250115975,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Provisioning Time-Based Subscription in NDN: A Secure and Efficient Access Control Scheme},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JMINQIAI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15975}
}
read the original abstract

This paper proposes a novel encryption-based access control mechanism for Named Data Networking (NDN). The scheme allows data producers to share their content in encrypted form before transmitting it to consumers. The encryption mechanism incorporates time-based subscription access policies directly into the encrypted content, enabling only consumers with valid subscriptions to decrypt it. This makes the scheme well-suited for real-world, subscription-based applications like Netflix. Additionally, the scheme introduces an anonymous and unlinkable signature-based authentication mechanism that empowers edge routers to block bogus content requests at the network's entry point, thereby mitigating Denial of Service (DoS) attacks. A formal security proof demonstrates the scheme's resistance to Chosen Plaintext Attacks (CPA). Performance analysis, using Mini-NDN-based emulation and a Charm library implementation, further confirms the practicality of the scheme. Moreover, it outperforms closely related works in terms of functionality, security, and communication overhead.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15975 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our Proposed NDN Architecture [12], [13] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Subscription Access Policy Tree 4.1 System Model Our system consists of three main entities: Data Producers, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and Consumers. A typical architecture of the proposed scheme is illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Data publication time for varied height of subscription access tree [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Consumer key update time with varied revoked nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average total File Transfer Time and Average Goodput with an increasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average Interest and Data count per consumer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average Goodput and Standard Deviation per consumer node [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: NDN Testbed [42] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zhang et al

    L. Zhang et al. Named Data Networking. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 44:66–73, Jul. 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Jacobson

    V. Jacobson. A New Way to look at Networking. Google Tech Talk, August 2006

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Djama et al

    A. Djama et al. Information-Centric Networking solutions for the Internet of Things: A systematic mapping review. Comp. Comm., 159:37–59, 2020. Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 21

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Tourani et al

    R. Tourani et al. Security, Privacy, and Access Control in Information-Centric Networking: A Survey. Comm. Survey Tutorials, 20(1):566–600, Firstquarter 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Li et al

    Q. Li et al. LIVE: Lightweight Integrity Verification and Content Access Control for Named Data Networking. IEEE Tran. on Info. Foren. and Sec., 10(2):308–320, Feb 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Fotiou and G

    N. Fotiou and G. C. Polyzos. Securing content sharing over icn. In Proc. of the 3rd ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking, page 176–185, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Suksomboon et al

    K. Suksomboon et al. In-Device Proxy Re-encryption Service for Information- Centric Networking Access Control. In Proc. of LCN, pages 303–306, Oct 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Bilal and S

    M. Bilal and S. Pack. Secure Distribution of Protected Content in Information- Centric Networking. IEEE Sys. Journal, pages 1–12, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Misra et al

    S. Misra et al. AccConF: An Access Control Framework for Leveraging In-Network Cached Data in the ICN-Enabled Wireless Edge. IEEE Tran. on Dep. and Sec. Comp., 16(1):5–17, Jan 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Xia et al

    Q. Xia et al. TSLS: Time Sensitive, Lightweight and Secure Access Control for Information Centric Networking. In Proc. of GLOBECOM, pages 1–6, Dec 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Xue et al

    K. Xue et al. A Secure, Efficient, and Accountable Edge-Based Access Con- trol Framework for Information Centric Networks. IEEE/ACM Tran. on Netw., 27(3):1220–1233, June 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    N. H. Sultan et al.An Accountable Access Control Scheme for Hierarchical Content in Named Data Networks with Revocation. In Proc. of ESORICS 2020, pages 569– 590, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    N. H. Sultan et al.A Secure Access and Accountability Framework for Provisioning Services in Named Data Networks. In Proc. of SRDS 2021, Sept. 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    He et al

    P. He et al. F ASE: Fine-grained Accountable and Space-Efficient Access Control for Multimedia Content with In-network Caching. IEEE Trans. on Network and Service Management, pages 1–1, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Zhu et al

    L. Zhu et al. T-CAM: Time-based content access control mechanism for ICN subscription systems. Future Generation Computer Systems, 106:607–621, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    D. C. d. Vimercati et al. Enforcing Subscription-Based Authorization Policies in Cloud Scenarios. In Proc. of DBSec’12, pages 314–329, 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    He et al

    P. He et al. LASA: Lightweight, Auditable and Secure Access Control in ICN with Limitation of Access Times. In Proc. of ICC’28, pages 1–6, May 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Tourani, R

    R. Tourani, R. Stubbs, and S. Misra. TACTIC: Tag-Based Access ConTrol Frame- work for the Information-Centric Wireless Edge Networks. In Proc. of ICDCS’18, pages 456–466, July 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    I. O. Nunes and G. Tsudik. KRB-CCN: Lightweight Authentication and Access Control for Private Content-Centric Networks. In Proc. of ACNS’18, pages 598– 615, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Zhijun et al. Wu. Chtds: A cp-abe access control scheme based on hash table and data segmentation in ndn. In Proc. of TrustCom’19, pages 843–848, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Yang et al

    H. Yang et al. Securing content-centric networks with content-based encryption. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 128:21–32, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Tseng et al

    Y. Tseng et al. FGAC-NDN: Fine-Grained Access Control for Named Data Net- works. IEEE Tran. on Net. and Ser. Manag., 16(1):143–152, March 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    M. J. Atallah, M. Blanton, and K. B. Frikken. Incorporating temporal capabilities in existing key management schemes. In ESORICS 2007, pages 515–530, 2007

    2007

  16. [24]

    Crampton

    J. Crampton. Practical and efficient cryptographic enforcement of interval-based access control policies. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 14(1), June 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Alderman, N

    J. Alderman, N. Farley, and J. Crampton. Tree-based cryptographic access control. In Proc. of the ESORICS’17, pages 47–64, 2017. 22 Authors Suppressed Due to Excessive Length

    2017

  18. [26]

    A. L. Ferrara, F. Paci, and C. Ricciardi. Verifiable hierarchical key assignment schemes. In Proc. of DBSec’21, pages 357–376, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    L. Zhou, V. Varadharajan, and M. Hitchens. Achieving Secure Role-Based Ac- cess Control on Encrypted Data in Cloud Storage. IEEE Trans. on Information Forensics and Security, 8(12):1947–1960, 2013

    1947

  20. [28]

    Di Crescenzo, R

    G. Di Crescenzo, R. Ostrovsky, and S. Rajagopalan. Conditional oblivious transfer and timed-release encryption. In EUROCRYPT ’99, pages 74–89, 1999

    1999

  21. [29]

    A.C. F. Chan and I.F. Blake. Scalable, server-passive, user-anonymous timed release cryptography. In Proc. of ICDCS’05, pages 504–513, 2005

    2005

  22. [30]

    J. H. Cheon et al. Timed-release and key-insulated public key encryption. In Proc. of FC’06, pages 191–205, 2006

    2006

  23. [31]

    Choi and S

    G. Choi and S. Vaudenay. Timed-release encryption with master time bound key. In Proc. of the Information Security Applications, pages 167–179, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    K. G. Paterson and E. A. Quaglia. Time-specific encryption. In Proc. of SCN’10, pages 1–16, 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Kasamatsu et al

    K. Kasamatsu et al. Time-specific encryption from forward-secure encryption. In Proc. of SCN’12, pages 184–204, 2012

    2012

  26. [34]

    Ishizaka and S

    M. Ishizaka and S. Kiyomoto. Time-specific encryption with constant-size secret- keys secure under standard assumption. 2020. https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/ 595

    2020

  27. [35]

    Sahai and B

    A. Sahai and B. Waters. Fuzzy identity-based encryption. In Advances in Cryp- tology – EUROCRYPT 2005, pages 457–473, 2005

    2005

  28. [36]

    Yang et al

    K. Yang et al. Time-domain attribute-based access control for cloud-based video content sharing: A cryptographic approach. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 18(5):940–950, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Zhu et al

    Y. Zhu et al. Towards temporal access control in cloud computing. In Proc. of the IEEE INFOCOM, pages 2576–2580, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Q. Liu, G. Wang, and J. Wu. Time-based proxy re-encryption scheme for secure data sharing in a cloud environment. Information Sciences, 258:355–370, 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Balani and S

    N. Balani and S. Ruj. Temporal access control with user revocation for cloud data. In Proc. of the TrustCom’14, pages 336–343, 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    J. K. Liu et al. Time-based direct revocable ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption with short revocation list. In Proc. of ACNS’18, pages 516–534, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Zheng, T

    Y. Zheng, T. Hardjono, and J. Pieprzyk. The sibling intractable function family (SIFF): notion, construction and applications. IEICE Tran. on Fund. of Elect., Commu. and Comp. Sci., 76(1):4–13, 1993

    1993

  34. [42]

    DBDH” in the game (i.e. outputs l = 0); otherwise S answers “random

    J. DeHart. NDN Testbed Snapshot. http://ndndemo.arl.wustl.edu/, Accessed: 02- June- 2024. Appendix A Security Model Our scheme consists of five phases, namely Producer Setup, Consumer Regis- tration, Data Publication , Content Request and Consumer Authentication , and Decrypti...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.