Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2101.08132

The (in)security of some recently proposed lightweight key distribution schemes

Chris J. Mitchell

Published Jan 20, 2021• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Two recently published papers propose some very simple key distribution schemes designed to enable two or more parties to establish a shared secret key with the aid of a third party. Unfortunately, as we show, most of the schemes are inherently insecure and all are incompletely specified - moreover, claims that the schemes are inherently lightweight are shown to be highly misleading. We also briefly critique a somewhat related very recent paper by the same authors that uses similar techniques to achieve what are claimed to be secure multiparty computations.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2101.08132

Related papers

Lightweight group key distribution schemes based on pre‐shared pairwise keys

Lein Harn, Ching-Fang Hsu, Zhe Xia

In a secure communication, a one‐time session key is needed to be shared among all participants. Most well‐known key distribution schemes, such as Diffie–Hellman public‐key key distribution scheme invented in 1976 and quantum key distribution scheme invented in 1984 (also called the BB84 scheme), can only allow two users to share a key in conventional one‐to‐one communications. There are many research papers in the literature to propose group key distribution schemes for multiple participants in modern group communications. In this study, the authors propose lightweight group key distributions using pre‐shared pairwise keys. The authors first propose a three‐party group key distribution scheme. They then extend the basic three‐party scheme to establish a group key for a large size of group communications. The proposed generalised schemes can be based to any type of pairwise key distribution schemes, e.g. either quantum or non‐quantum. Moreover, both generalised multi‐party group key distribution schemes are lightweight. The main operations in the proposed schemes are key comparison between two or more than two keys (i.e. logic XOR operation) and the computation of key derivation functions.

IET Communications•May 15, 2020•12 citations

Secure multi-party computation made simple

MaurerUeli

Known secure multi-party computation protocols are quite complex, involving non-trivial mathematical structures and sub-protocols. The purpose of this paper is to present a very simple approach to ...

Discrete Applied Mathematics•Feb 1, 2006•5 citations

A novel approach for secure multi-party secret sharing scheme via Quantum cryptography

Noor ul Ain

Classical secret sharing proposed by Shamir used classical computational power in classical cryptography to achieve secret key sharing, but with the advent of quantum systems, computational power can be overruled. To ensure a secure secret sharing scheme independent of computational power, a scheme independent of computational complexity is needed to achieve security. This paper will provide a protocol dependent on inherent secure nature of quantum cryptography (quantum no cloning theorem and quantum measurement rule). A secure multiparty quantum secret sharing scheme has been proposed to ensure that no one can eavesdrop or extract any share of the secret message via inherent security provided by quantum entanglement swapping and quantum teleportation. Entanglement swapping is a process that allows two non-interacting quantum systems to be entangled. Whereas, Quantum teleportation allows a party to send a qubit to another entangled party without sending the qubit over the channel. Moreover, in order to ensure security against possible active attacks, sender himself will generate and distribute EPR pairs to be used in the scheme. Result will be a secure multiparty QSS scheme which will be secure against internal and external eavesdropping, masquerading and brute-force attacks.

International Conference on Communication, Computing and Digital Systems (C-CODE)•Mar 1, 2017•11 citations

General Cryptographic Protocols: The Very Basics

Oded Goldreich

We survey basic definitions and results concerning secure multi-party computations, where the two-party case is an important special case. In a nutshell, these results assert that, under a variety of reasonable settings and/or assumptions, it is possible to construct protocols for securely computing any desirable multi-party functionality. Confining ourselves to the very basics of this vast area of study, we focus on the stand-alone setting, while leaving the survey of the study of the security of concurrent executions to other surveys.

IOS Press eBooks•Jan 1, 2013•5 citations

ON THE (IN)SECURITY OF GROUP KEY TRANSFER PROTOCOLS BASED ON SECRET SHARING

Ruxandra F. Olimid

Group Key Transfer (GKT) protocols allow multiple parties to share a common secret key: a trusted Key Generation Center (KGC) selects a uniformly random value that has never been used before and securely distributes it to the legitimate principals. The paper restricts to GKT based on secret sharing; it briefly reviews the security goals and the existing formal security models. We motivate our work by the lack of GKT protocols based on secret sharing that are proved secure in a formal security model. Most of the recent proposals only provide informal and incomplete arguments to claim security, which makes them susceptible to known vulnerabilities. We support our affirmation by exemplifying with three different types of attacks (replay attack, insider attack and known key attack) mounted against protocols published within the last three years. We emphasize that none of these attacks would have been possible against a GKT protocol proved secure in a usual formal security model.

•Jan 1, 2013•0 citations

On Possible Problem with Current Security Proofs of Quantum Key Distribution

Takehisa Iwakoshi

•Jan 1, 2017•0 citations
Two recently published papers propose some very simple key distribution schemes designed to enable two or more parties to establish a shared secret key with the aid of a third party. Unfortunately, as we show, most of the schemes are inherently insecure and all are incompletely specified - moreover, claims that the schemes are inherently lightweight are shown to be highly misleading. We also briefly critique a somewhat related very recent paper by the same authors that uses similar techniques to achieve what are claimed to be secure multiparty computations.
In a secure communication, a one‐time session key is needed to be shared among all participants. Most well‐known key distribution schemes, such as Diffie–Hellman public‐key key distribution scheme invented in 1976 and quantum key distribution scheme invented in 1984 (also called the BB84 scheme), can only allow two users to share a key in conventional one‐to‐one communications. There are many research papers in the literature to propose group key distribution schemes for multiple participants in modern group communications. In this study, the authors propose lightweight group key distributions using pre‐shared pairwise keys. The authors first propose a three‐party group key distribution scheme. They then extend the basic three‐party scheme to establish a group key for a large size of group communications. The proposed generalised schemes can be based to any type of pairwise key distribution schemes, e.g. either quantum or non‐quantum. Moreover, both generalised multi‐party group key distribution schemes are lightweight. The main operations in the proposed schemes are key comparison between two or more than two keys (i.e. logic XOR operation) and the computation of key derivation functions.
Classical secret sharing proposed by Shamir used classical computational power in classical cryptography to achieve secret key sharing, but with the advent of quantum systems, computational power can be overruled. To ensure a secure secret sharing scheme independent of computational power, a scheme independent of computational complexity is needed to achieve security. This paper will provide a protocol dependent on inherent secure nature of quantum cryptography (quantum no cloning theorem and quantum measurement rule). A secure multiparty quantum secret sharing scheme has been proposed to ensure that no one can eavesdrop or extract any share of the secret message via inherent security provided by quantum entanglement swapping and quantum teleportation. Entanglement swapping is a process that allows two non-interacting quantum systems to be entangled. Whereas, Quantum teleportation allows a party to send a qubit to another entangled party without sending the qubit over the channel. Moreover, in order to ensure security against possible active attacks, sender himself will generate and distribute EPR pairs to be used in the scheme. Result will be a secure multiparty QSS scheme which will be secure against internal and external eavesdropping, masquerading and brute-force attacks.
We survey basic definitions and results concerning secure multi-party computations, where the two-party case is an important special case. In a nutshell, these results assert that, under a variety of reasonable settings and/or assumptions, it is possible to construct protocols for securely computing any desirable multi-party functionality. Confining ourselves to the very basics of this vast area of study, we focus on the stand-alone setting, while leaving the survey of the study of the security of concurrent executions to other surveys.
Group Key Transfer (GKT) protocols allow multiple parties to share a common secret key: a trusted Key Generation Center (KGC) selects a uniformly random value that has never been used before and securely distributes it to the legitimate principals. The paper restricts to GKT based on secret sharing; it briefly reviews the security goals and the existing formal security models. We motivate our work by the lack of GKT protocols based on secret sharing that are proved secure in a formal security model. Most of the recent proposals only provide informal and incomplete arguments to claim security, which makes them susceptible to known vulnerabilities. We support our affirmation by exemplifying with three different types of attacks (replay attack, insider attack and known key attack) mounted against protocols published within the last three years. We emphasize that none of these attacks would have been possible against a GKT protocol proved secure in a usual formal security model.