[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [freehaven-dev] would you like to play a game?
On Mon, 15 May 2000 email@example.com wrote:
> To Do :
* I stated these in terms of two things from which to distinguish
because that's the way Micali started off in 6.875. Is that
the right way to do things, or should we start with the entire
set of publishers or entire set of documents and "come down"?
* Related question -- when we eventually define these for
two things, can we then use the "hybrid arguments" used to
prove multi-message indistinguishability to prove
multi-publisher and multi-publishing indistinguishability?
(or go the other way if necessary)
* These notions do not take into account any information the
adversary may have "out of band" on the parties' preferences.
The situation is similar with the definition of
indistinguishability for public-key crypto. There, we have a definition
which _does_ take such "out of band" info into account in
semantic security. What's more, we know that those two
definitions are equivalent!
Do we need or want a sort of "semantic publishing anonymity"
and if we do, is it equivalent to the definitions we end up
with in terms of indistinguishability?
* If all the equivalences and so forth go through the
way they do for public-key crypto, does this tell us
anything about "general" equivalence of "semantic" and
"indistinguishability" ways of looking at a property,
or are we just fudging definitions to make it look like
what we know and love?
What OTHER properties exist out there which can have
definitions formulated and proved equivalent using the
same "flavor" of definitions? not just for anon
publication systems, but for anything?