Download Anonymity

Probabilistic Anonymity
Vijay Yadav
Brijlal Biyani Science College
Amravati
Plan of the talk
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The concept of anonymity
Anonymity and nondeterminism
Example: the Dining Cryptographers
Conditional probability
Anonymity and randomization
The randomized Dining Cryptographers
Analysis and verification in probabilistic πcalculus
• Generalized D.C.
• Conclusion
Probabilistic Anonymity
2
The concept of anonymity
• Goal:
– To ensure that a certain part of an information becomes
public while another part of it remains secret.
– Typically, what we want to maintain secret is the identity of
the agent involved
• Examples:
– Electronic elections
– Delation
• We will consider the case of in which the information
to make public is whether or not a certain event has
taken place, and the information to hide is the
identity of the agent performing that event
Probabilistic Anonymity
3
Anonymity and nondeterminism (1/2)
• Work by Schneider and Sidiropoulos, ESORICS 1996
• Events are modeled as consisting of two components: the event
itself, x, and the identity of the agent performing the event, a
ax
• AnonyAgs: the agents who want to remain secret
•
Given x, define
A = {ax | a  AnonyAgs }
• A protocol described as a process P provides anonymity if an
arbitrary permutation ρA of the events in A, applied to the
observables of P, does not change the observables
ρA(Obs(P)) = Obs(P)
Probabilistic Anonymity
4
Anonymity and nondeterminism (2/2)
• In general, given P, consider the sets:
– A = { ax | a  AnonyAgs } : the actions that we want to know only partially
(we want to know x but not a)
– B : the actions that we want to observe
– C = Actions – (B U A) : The actions we want to hide
A
The observables to consider for the
Anonymity analysis must abstract wrt the
events in C.

B
C
Definition: The system is anonymous if an
arbitrary permutation ρA of the events in
A, applied to the observables of P, does
not change the observables
ρA(Obs(P)) = Obs(P)
Probabilistic Anonymity
5
The dining cryptographers (1/6)
• Problem and solution formulated originally by David Chaum, J.
Cryptology, 1988
• The Problem:
–
–
–
Three cryptographers share a meal
The meal is paid either by the organization (master) or by one of
them. The master decides who pays
Each of the cryptographers is informed by the master whether or
not he is has to pay
• GOAL:
–
The cryptographers would like to know whether the meal is being
paid by the master or by one of them, but without knowing who
among them, if any, is paying. They cannot involve the master
Probabilistic Anonymity
6
The dining cryptographers (2/6)
Crypt(0)
notpays0
pays0
Master
Crypt(1)
Crypt(2)
Probabilistic Anonymity
7
The dining cryptographers (3/6)
A solution
• Each cryptographer tosses a nondeterministic
coin. Each coin is in between two
cryptographers.
• The result of each coin-tossing is visible to
the adjacent cryptographers, and only to
them.
• Each cryptographer examines the two
adjacent coins
– If he is paying, he announces “agree” if the results
are the same, and “disagree” otherwise.
– If he is not paying, he says the opposite
Probabilistic Anonymity
8
The dining cryptographers (4/6):
A solution
Crypt(0)
notpays0
pays0
Coin(0)
Coin(1)
Master
Crypt(2)
Crypt(1)
agree1 /
disagree1
look20
Coin(2)
Probabilistic Anonymity
9
The dining cryptographers (5/6)
Properties of the solution
Proposition 1 (Public information): if the
number of “disagree” is even, then the
master is paying. Otherwise, one of them is
paying.
Proposition 2 (Anonymity): In the latter case,
if the coin is fair then the non paying
cryptographers and the external observers
will not be able to deduce whom exactly is
paying
LIX, 25 January 2005
Probabilistic Anonymity
10
The dining cryptographers (6/6)
Automatic verification
• Schneider and Sidiropoulos verified the anonymity of
the solution to the dining cryptographers by using CSP.
– The protocol : system P of parallel CSP processes (master,
cryptographers, coins)
– A (anonymous events): pays0, notpays0, …, notpays2
– B (observable events): agree0, disagree0, …, disagree2
– C (hidden events): results of coins
– Observables : all traces of P with events from C removed
• For every permutation ρ on A, we have
ρ(Obs(P)) = Obs(P)
Probabilistic Anonymity
11
Limitations of the
nondeterministic approach
• The nondeterministic components must be produced by random
devices
–
nondeterministic coin  random coin
• An observer may deduce info about the system from the
probability distribution of the devices.
This possibility is not captured by the nondeterministic
formulation: The nondeterministic definition is “too coarse”
– For example, if we know that two adjacent coins are biased, we can
deduce when the corresponding cryptographer is likely to be lying
• The probability distribution of the devices may be guessed by
testing the system
– For example in if the cryptographers are more than 3, we can deduce
that two coins are biased by looking at the results several times
Probabilistic Anonymity
12
Conditional probability (1/3)
• We propose a notion of anonymity based on
conditional probability
• A brief recall of the notion of conditional probability
• Puzzle:
– A king offers to a guest to pick one of three closed boxes.
One contains a diamond, the other two are empty
– After the guest has picked a box, the king opens one of the
other two boxes and shows that it is empty
– Then the king offers to the guest to exchange the box he
picked with the other (closed) one
– Question: should the guest exchange?
Probabilistic Anonymity
13
Conditional probability (2/3)
• Answer: it depends on whether the king opens
intentionally an empty box, or not.
• In the first case, the guest should better
change his choice since the other box has now
probability 2/3 to contain the ring
• In the second case, it does not matter. Both
the remaining closed boxes have now
probability ½ to contain the ring
Probabilistic Anonymity
14
Conditional probability (3/3)
•
pb(X|Y)
= conditional probability of X given Y
= pb(X and Y) / pb(Y)
Let us consider again the puzzle in Case 2
•
•
•
Bi = Box i contains the ring
Initially: pb(B1) = pb(B2) = pb(B3) = 1/3
After opening one box, say Box 1, if it turns out to be empty, we have:
pb(B2) = pb(B2 | not B1)
= pb(B2 and not B1) / pb(not B1)
= pb(B2)/pb(not B1)
= (1/3) / (2/3)
=1/2
Probabilistic Anonymity
15
Anonymity and randomization (1/2)
• Remember that, given P, we consider the sets:
– A = { ax | a  AnonyAgs } : the actions that we want to know only partially
(we want to know x but not a)
– B : the actions that we want to observe (it may include x but not a)
– C = Actions – (B U A) : The actions we want to hide
A

B
C
Probabilistic Anonymity
16
Anonymity and randomization (2/2)
•
The observables must abstract wrt C
•
Definition: The system is anonymous if for every nonderministic choice, for every
observations O1,O2 in which x happens, and for every action ax  A, we have
pb(ax | O1) = pb(ax | O2)
i.e. the observables do not allow to deduce anything about the identity of the agent
•
Equivalently: for every O, a and b, we have
pb(O | ax) = pb(O | bx)
namely, the probability of an observable does not depend on the identity of the agent
•
Note that the second formulation can be regarded as the probabilistic version of the
definition of Schneider/ Sidiropoulos
•
Note that in general pb(ax | O) =/= pb(bx | O), hence the latter cannot be a good definition
of probabilistic anonymity
Probabilistic Anonymity
17
The randomized dining cryptographers
• Each cryptographer tosses a
probabilistic coin
• All the rest is the same as before. In
particular, the master is
nondeterministic
Probabilistic Anonymity
18
Verification in probabilistic p-calculus
•
•
We have verified the anonymity of the randomized solution to the dining
cryptographers by using the probabilistic p-calculus.
–
The protocol : system P of parallel processes:
–
A (anonymous events): pays0, notpays0, …, notpays2
–
C (hidden events): results of coins
–
B (observable events): agree0, disagree0, …, disagree2
–
Observables : all traces of P with events from C removed
•
•
•
•
•
•
Master: probabilistic (blind)
Coins: probabilistic (blind)
Cryptographers: deterministic
combination chosen nondeterministically
chosen probabilistically
Determined by the choice of the master and of the coins
For every i,k, and for every combination O of agree/disagree, we have
ρb(O | paysi) = pb(O | paysk)
Probabilistic Anonymity
19
The generalized dining philosophers
• In general, given an arbitrary
graph, where the nodes represent
the cryptographers, and the arcs
the coins, we can extend the
protocol as follows:
– bi = 0 if cryptographer i does not pay,
bi = 1 otherwise
– coink = 0 if coin k gives head,
coink = 1 otherwise
– crypti = output of cryptographer i,
calculated as follows:
Crypti
Coink
crypti = Sk adjacent i coink + bi
where the sums are binary
Probabilistic Anonymity
20
The protocol in the general case
• Proposition: there is a payer iff
Si
crypti = 0
Proof: just observe that in this sum each coink is counted twice.
Furthermore there is at most one k s.t. bk = 1. Hence the result
is 0 iff there is no k s.t. bk = 1.
• Proposition: If all the coins are fair, and the graph is connected,
then
– the system is anonymous for every external observer
– the system is anonymous for any node j such that, if we
remove j and all its adjacent arcs, the rest of the graph is
still connected
Probabilistic Anonymity
21
Conclusion
• Notion of probabilistic anonymity
– Extending the classic one of SchneiderSidiropoulos
• Application to the example of the generalized
dining cryptographers
• Verification using the p-calculus
• In retrospect, we should have verified the
protocol using a probabilistic master
Probabilistic Anonymity
22
Thank You
Probabilistic Anonymity
23