The dining cryptographers problem: Unconditional sender and recipient untraceability

By David Chaum. 1988

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Privacy & Security

Citations in the corpus

Practical Secure Aggregation for Federated Learning on User-Held Data (2016, background): “4 Related work The restricted case of secure aggregation in which all users but one have an input 0 can be expressed as a dining cryptographers network (DC-net), which provide anonymity by using pairwise blinding of inputs [3, 9], allowing to untraceably learn each user’s input.”
Federated Learning: Challenges, Methods, and Future Directions (2019, background): “The resulting protocols can enable multiple parties to collaboratively compute an agreed-upon function without leaking input information from any party except for what can be inferred from the output [e.g., 23, 43, 95].”
Proactively Accountable Anonymous Messaging in Verdict (2012, methodology): “Chaum recognized the risk of anonymous disruption attacks in his original formulation of DC-nets [13], and proposed a probabilistic tracing approach based on traps, upon which Waidner and Pfitzmann expanded [50].”
Riposte: An Anonymous Messaging System Handling Millions of Users (2015, methodology): “First, we defeat traffic-analysis attacks and protect against malicious servers by using a protocol, inspired by client/server DC-nets [14], [77], in which every participating client sends a fixed-length secret-shared message to the system’s servers in every time epoch.”
Anonymity-preserving data collection (2005, background): “General-purpose ways to build anonymous channels include mix networks [3, 24, 29, 20, 18], dining cryptographer networks (DC-nets) [4, 36, 17] and k -anonymous message transmission [35], all of which are still under active study.”
Tarzan: a peer-to-peer anonymizing network layer (2002, background): “Existing provably-secure anonymous communication algorithms assume synchrony [3, 4], but a practical system must operate asynchronously.”
Protection of Location Privacy using Dummies for Location-based Services (2005, background): “M. Gruteser and D. Grunwald proposed anonymous usage of a location-based service [4], in which a user sends position data whose precision has beed reduced to the service providers shown in Figure 4 (a).”
An anonymous communication technique using dummies for location-based services (2005, background): “In [5], he also proposed untraceability between sender and recipient and the origin of Anonymity Set .”
DP5: A Private Presence Service (2015, background): “Dissent [43] and Riposte [17] are anonymous broadcast messaging systems that are also immune from traffic analysis; Dissent is based on DC-nets [13], while Riposte uses a PIR-like mechanism to allow clients to write to a private location in a per-epoch database.”
Dining Cryptographers Revisited (2004, methodology): “Toward this aim, Chaum devised two seminal techniques: mixnets [10] and “dining-cryptographers” nets [11], also known as DC-nets.”
Security and Cooperation in Wireless Networks (2007, background): “Chaum pioneered techniques to protect privacy by proposing various mechanisms including DC (Dining Cryptographers) networks [99] for anonymous communications and MIX networks [98] for unlinkability of message senders and receivers.”
BotGrep: Finding P2P Bots with Structured Graph Analysis (2010, methodology): “The sum can be computed by a standard privacy-preserving protocol, which is an extension of Chaum’s dining cryptographer’s protocol [13].”
Privacy-Preserving Solutions for Blockchain: Review and Challenges (2019, methodology): “protocol called DiceMix, which builds on the original DC-net protocol [237] to improve the performance of previous mixing protocols.”
Dissent: accountable anonymous group messaging (2010, background): “Online protocols providing stronger anonymity, such as mix-networks [9, 21] and DC-nets [10,22,32,40], further weaken accountability and yield forums in which no content may be considered trustworthy”
Privacy-Friendly Aggregation for the Smart-Grid (2011, methodology): “Our second scheme is based on the standard Diffie-Hellman key exchange protocol, combined with a modified variant of the Dining Cryptographer’s anonymity protocol [10, 11].”