CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 153Blockchain Technology Applications and SecurityCryptography and Data SecurityBlockchain Technology in Education and Learning

SoK of used cryptography in blockchain

Open access
Raikwar, Mayank, Gligoroski, Danilo, Kralevska, Katina·2019·IEEE Access
DOI 10.1109/access.2019.2946983
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The underlying fundaments of blockchain are cryptography and cryptographic concepts that provide reliable and secure decentralized solutions. Although many recent papers study the use-cases of blockchain in different industrial areas, such as finance, health care, legal relations, IoT, information security, and consensus building systems, only few studies scrutinize the cryptographic concepts used in blockchain. To the best of our knowledge, there is no Systematization of Knowledge (SoK) that gives a complete picture of the existing cryptographic concepts which have been deployed or have the potential to be deployed in blockchain. In this paper, we thoroughly review and systematize all cryptographic concepts which are already used in blockchain. Additionally, we give a list of cryptographic concepts which have not yet been applied but have big potentials to improve the current blockchain solutions. We also include possible instantiations of these cryptographic concepts in the blockchain domain. Last but not least, we explicitly postulate 21 challenging problems that cryptographers interested in blockchain can work on.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2019.2946983

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The IoT Operator uses cryptographic logic to analyze contractual stipulations in relation to safeguarded data, identifying relevant clauses and provisions that inform potential solutions to disagreements.

    “Its algorithms meticulously analyze the contractual stipulations in relation to the data it safeguards, identifying relevant clauses and provisions that inform potential solutions.”

    From IoT and Blockchain for Support for Smart Contracts Through TpM (2025) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Lightweight Cryptography section discusses safeguarding IoT data, and the Oblivious Transfer section mentions contract signing and smart contracts (page numbers unavailable). Neither describes an IoT Operator analyzing contractual clauses to identify solutions to disagreements. Searches for contractual stipulations and for IoT dispute resolution found no passage addressing that process. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 125

  1. D. Chaum, ''Blind signatures for untraceable payments,'' in Advances in Cryptology, D. Chaum, R. L. Rivest, and A. T. Sherman, Eds. Boston, MA, USA: Springer, 1983, pp. 199-203.
  2. C. Dwork and M. Naor, ''Pricing via processing or combatting junk mail,'' in Proc. Annu. Int. Cryptol. Conf. Springer, 1992, pp. 139-147.
  3. R. L. Rivest, A. Shamir, and D. A. Wagner, ''Time-lock puzzles and timed-release crypto,'' Massachusetts Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA, USA, Tech. Rep. MIT/LCS/TR-684, 1996.
  4. V. Morabito, Business Innovation Through Blockchain. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2017.
  5. W. Wang, D. T. Hoang, P. Hu, Z. Xiong, D. Niyato, P. Wang, Y. Wen, and D. I. Kim, ''A survey on consensus mechanisms and mining strategy man- agement in blockchain networks,'' 2018, arXiv:1805.02707. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.02707 · arXiv
  6. L. Wang, X. Shen, J. Li, J. Shao, and Y. Yang, ''Cryptographic prim- itives in blockchains,'' J. Netw. Comput. Appl., vol. 127, pp. 43-58, Feb. 2019. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S108480451830362X
  7. B. Preneel, ''The state of cryptographic hash functions,'' in School orga- nized by the European Educational Forum. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1998, pp. 158-182.
  8. P. Gallagher and A. Director, ''Secure hash standard (SHS),'' FIPS PUB, vol. 180, p. 183, Mar. 1995.
  9. E. Heilman, N. Narula, G. Tanzer, J. Lovejoy, M. Colavita, M. Virza, and T. Dryja, ''Cryptanalysis of curl-P and other attacks on the IOTA cryptocurrency,'' in Proc. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., 2019, p. 344.
  10. D. J. Bernstein, ''The Salsa20 family of stream ciphers,'' in New Stream Cipher Designs. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2008, pp. 84-97.
  11. D. Gligoroski, V. Klima, S. J. Knapskog, M. El-Hadedy, and J. Amundsen, ''Cryptographic hash function blue midnight wish,'' in Proc. 1st Int. Workshop Secur. Commun. Netw., May 2009, pp. 1-8.
  12. S. Bano, A. Sonnino, M. Al-Bassam, S. Azouvi, P. McCorry, S. Meiklejohn, and G. Danezis, ''Consensus in the age of blockchains,'' 2017, arXiv:1711.03936. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1711.03936 · arXiv
  13. I. Eyal, A. E. Gencer, E. G. Sirer, and R. van Renesse, ''Bitcoin-NG: A scalable blockchain protocol,'' in Proc. NSDI, 2016, pp. 45-59.
  14. V. Buterin and V. Griffith, ''Casper the friendly finality gadget,'' 2017, arXiv:1710.09437. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09437 · arXiv
  15. L. Ren, ''Proof of stake velocity: Building the social currency of the digital age,'' White Paper, 2014, pp. 1-13. [Online]. Available: http:// reddcoin.com
  16. Y. Gilad, R. Hemo, S. Micali, G. Vlachos, and N. Zeldovich, ''Algo- rand: Scaling byzantine agreements for cryptocurrencies,'' in Proc. 26th Symp. Oper. Syst. Princ. (SOSP), New York, NY, USA, 2017, pp. 51-68. doi: 10.1145/3132747.3132757. · DOI · Paper page
  17. A. Kiayias, I. Konstantinou, A. Russell, B. David, and R. Oliynykov, ''A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol,'' in Proc. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., 2016, p. 889.
  18. M. Milutinovic, W. He, H. Wu, and M. Kanwal, ''Proof of luck: An effi- cient blockchain consensus protocol,'' in Proc. 1st Workshop Syst. Softw. Trusted Execution (SysTEX), 2016, pp. 2:1-2:6. doi: 10.1145/3007788. 3007790. · DOI
  19. L. Chen, L. Xu, N. Shah, Z. Gao, Y. Lu, and W. Shi, ''On security analysis of proof-of-elapsed-time (PoET),'' in Stabilization, Safety, and Security of Distributed Systems, P. Spirakis and P. Tsigas, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2017, pp. 282-297.
  20. I. Bentov, R. Pass, and E. Shi, ''Snow white: Provably secure proofs of stake,'' in Proc. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., 2016, p. 919.
  21. J. Garay, A. Kiayias, and N. Leonardos, ''The bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications,'' in Advances in Cryptology-EUROCRYPT 2015, E. Oswald and M. Fischlin, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2015, pp. 281-310.
  22. I. Bentov, A. Gabizon, and A. Mizrahi, ''Cryptocurrencies without proof of work,'' in Proc. Int. Conf. Financial Cryptogr. Data Secur. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2016, pp. 142-157.
  23. A. Biryukov and D. Khovratovich, ''Equihash: Asymmetric proof-of- work based on the generalized birthday problem,'' Ledger J., vol. 2, pp. 1-30, Apr. 2017.
  24. M. Castro and B. Liskov, ''Practical Byzantine fault tolerance,'' in Proc. OSDI, vol. 99, 1999, pp. 173-186.
  25. A. Kiayias, E. Koutsoupias, M. Kyropoulou, and Y. Tselekounis, ''Blockchain mining games,'' in Proc. ACM Conf. Econ. Comput. (EC), New York, NY, USA, 2016, pp. 365-382. doi: 10.1145/2940716. 2940773. · DOI
  26. M. Rosenfeld, ''Analysis of bitcoin pooled mining reward sys- tems,'' 2011, arXiv:1112.4980. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/1112.4980 · arXiv
  27. M. Babaioff, S. Dobzinski, S. Oren, and A. Zohar, ''On bitcoin and red balloons,'' in Proc. 13th ACM Conf. Electron. Commerce (EC), New York, NY, USA, 2012, pp. 56-73. doi: 10.1145/2229012.2229022. · DOI
  28. E. B. Sasson, A. Chiesa, C. Garman, M. Green, I. Miers, E. Tromer, and M. Virza, ''Zerocash: Decentralized anonymous payments from bitcoin,'' in Proc. IEEE Symp. Secur. Privacy, May 2014, pp. 459-474.
  29. E. Androulaki et al., ''Hyperledger fabric: A distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains,'' in Proc. 13th EuroSys Conf., New York, NY, USA, 2018, pp. 30:1-30:15.
  30. P. Maymounkov and D. Mazières, ''Kademlia: A peer-to-peer infor- mation system based on the XOR metric,'' in Peer-to-Peer Systems, P. Druschel, F. Kaashoek, and A. Rowstron, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2002, pp. 53-65.
  31. E. Heilman, A. Kendler, A. Zohar, and S. Goldberg, ''Eclipse attacks on bitcoin's peer-to-peer network,'' in Proc. 24th USENIX Secur. Symp. (USENIX Secur.), Washington, DC, USA, 2015, pp. 129-144. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/ usenixsecurity15/technical-sessions/presentation/heilman
  32. M. Apostolaki, A. Zohar, and L. Vanbever, ''Hijacking bitcoin: Routing attacks on cryptocurrencies,'' in Proc. IEEE Symp. Secur. Privacy (SP), May 2017, pp. 375-392.
  33. J. Mirkovic and P. Reiher, ''A taxonomy of DDoS attack and DDoS defense mechanisms,'' ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 39-53, Apr. 2004. doi: 10.1145/997150.997156. · DOI
  34. M. Vasek, M. Thornton, and T. Moore, ''Empirical analysis of denial- of-service attacks in the bitcoin ecosystem,'' in Financial Cryptography and Data Security, R. Böhme, M. Brenner, T. Moore, and M. Smith, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2014, pp. 57-71.
  35. J. Bonneau, A. Miller, J. Clark, A. Narayanan, J. A. Kroll, and E. W. Felten, ''SoK: Research perspectives and challenges for Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies,'' in Proc. IEEE Symp. Secur. Privacy, May 2015, pp. 104-121.
  36. S. Kadhe, J. Chung, and K. Ramchandran, ''SeF: A secure foun- tain architecture for slashing storage costs in blockchains,'' 2019, arXiv:1906.12140. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.12140 · arXiv
  37. A. G. Dimakis, P. B. Godfrey, Y. Wu, M. J. Wainwright, and K. Ramchandran, ''Network coding for distributed storage systems,'' IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 4539-4551, Sep. 2010.
  38. K. Kralevska, D. Gligoroski, R. E. Jensen, and H. Øverby, ''Hashtag erasure codes: From theory to practice,'' IEEE Trans. Big Data, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 516-529, Dec. 2018.
  39. P. Gopalan, C. Huang, H. Simitci, and S. Yekhanin, ''On the local- ity of codeword symbols,'' IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 6925-6934, Aug. 2012.
  40. K. Kralevska, D. Gligoroski, and H. Øverby, ''Balanced locally repairable codes,'' in Proc. Int. Sym. Turbo Codes Iterative Inf. Process. (ISTC), Sep. 2016, pp. 280-284.
  41. G. M. Kamath, N. Prakash, V. Lalitha, and P. V. Kumar, ''Codes with local regeneration and erasure correction,'' IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 4637-4660, Aug. 2014.
  42. D. Gligoroski, K. Kralevska, R. E. Jensen, and P. Simonsen, ''Repair dual- ity with locally repairable and locally regenerating codes,'' in Proc. IEEE 15th Int. Conf. Dependable, Autonomic Secure Comput., 15th Int. Conf. Pervasive Intell. Comput., 3rd Int. Conf. Big Data Intell. Comput. Cyber Sci. Technol. Congr. (DASC/PiCom/DataCom/CyberSciTech), Nov. 2017, pp. 979-984.
  43. L. H. White, ''The market for cryptocurrencies,'' Cato J., vol. 35, no. 2, p. 383, 2015.
  44. B. McLannahan, ''Bitcoin exchange MT GOX files for bankruptcy pro- tection,'' Financial Times, vol. 28, Feb. 2014.
  45. L. Luu, V. Narayanan, C. Zheng, K. Baweja, S. Gilbert, and P. Saxena, ''A secure sharding protocol for open blockchains,'' in Proc. ACM SIGSAC Conf. Comput. Commun. Secur. (CCS), New York, NY, USA, 2016, pp. 17-30. doi: 10.1145/2976749.2978389. · DOI
  46. J. Poon and V. Buterin, ''Plasma: Scalable autonomous smart contracts,'' White Paper, 2017, pp. 1-47. [Online]. Available: http://plasma.io
  47. C. Burchert, C. Decker, and R. Wattenhofer, ''Scalable funding of bitcoin micropayment channel networks,'' Roy. Soc. Open Sci., vol. 5, no. 8, 2018, Art. no. 180089.
  48. C. Egger, P. Moreno-Sanchez, and M. Maffei, ''Atomic multi-channel updates with constant collateral in bitcoin-compatible payment-channel networks,'' in Proc. Cryptol. ePrint Arch., 2019, pp. 1-27. [Online]. Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/583
  49. G. Malavolta, P. Moreno-Sanchez, C. Schneidewind, A. Kate, and M. Maffei, ''Anonymous multi-hop locks for blockchain scalability and interoperability,'' in Proc. NDSS, 2019, pp. 1-30.
  50. M. Dong, Q. Liang, X. Li, and J. Liu, ''Celer network: Bring Internet scale to every blockchain,'' 2018, arXiv:1810.00037. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.00037 · arXiv
  51. N. Kshetri, ''5G in E-commerce activities,'' IEEE IT Prof., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 73-77, Jul. 2018.
  52. R. H. N. J. Dewey and R. Plasencia, ''Blockchain and 5G-enabled Internet of Things (IoT) will redefine supply chains and trade finance,'' in Proc. Secured Lender, Jan/Feb. 2018, pp. 43-45.
  53. R. Xu, Y. Chen, E. Blasch, and G. Chen, ''BlendCAC: A blockchain- enabled decentralized capability-based access control for iots,'' 2018, arXiv:1804.09267. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.09267 · arXiv
  54. S. Wei, S. Li, P. Liu, and M. Liu, ''BAVP: Blockchain-based access veri- fication protocol in LEO constellation using IBE keys,'' Secur. Commun. Netw., vol. 2018, pp. 1-14, May 2018.
  55. S. Bose, M. Raikwar, D. Mukhopadhyay, A. Chattopadhyay, and K.-Y. Lam, ''BLIC: A blockchain protocol for manufacturing and sup- ply chain management of ICS,'' in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Internet Things (iThings) IEEE Green Comput. Commun. (GreenCom) IEEE Cyber, Phys. Social Comput. (CPSCom) IEEE Smart Data (SmartData), Jul./Aug. 2018, pp. 1326-1335.
  56. A. Dorri, S. S. Kanhere, R. Jurdak, and P. Gauravaram, ''LSB: A lightweight scalable blockchain for IoT security and privacy,'' 2017, arXiv:1712.02969. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.02969 · arXiv
  57. H. Liu, Y. Zhang, and T. Yang, ''Blockchain-enabled security in elec- tric vehicles cloud and edge computing,'' IEEE Netw., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 78-83, May 2018.
  58. A. Narayanan and M. Möser, ''Obfuscation in bitcoin: Techniques and politics,'' 2017, arXiv:1706.05432. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv. org/abs/1706.05432 · arXiv
  59. E. Cecchetti, F. Zhang, Y. Ji, A. Kosba, A. Juels, and E. Shi, ''Solidus: Confidential distributed ledger transactions via PVORM,'' in Proc. ACM SIGSAC Conf. Comput. Commun. Secur. (CCS), New York, NY, USA, 2017, pp. 701-717. doi: 10.1145/3133956.3134010. · DOI
  60. J. Gancher, A. Groce, and A. Ledger, ''Externally verifiable oblivious ram,'' Proc. Privacy Enhancing Technol., vol. 2017, no. 2, pp. 149-171, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/ popets/2017/2/article-p149.xml
  61. P. Jiang, F. Guo, K. Liang, J. Lai, and Q. Wen, ''Searchain: Blockchain-based private keyword search in decentralized storage,'' Future Gener. Comput. Syst., to be published. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167739X17318630
  62. Y.-L. Gao, X.-B. Chen, Y.-L. Chen, Y. Sun, X.-X. Niu, and Y.-X. Yang, ''A secure cryptocurrency scheme based on post-quantum blockchain,'' IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 27205-27213, 2018.
  63. D. Aggarwal, G. K. Brennen, T. Lee, M. Santha, and M. Tomamichel, ''Quantum attacks on bitcoin, and how to protect against them,'' 2017, arXiv:1710.10377. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10377 · arXiv
  64. A. Miller, A. Juels, E. Shi, B. Parno, and J. Katz, ''Permacoin: Repur- posing bitcoin work for data preservation,'' in Proc. IEEE Symp. Secur. Privacy (SP), May 2014, pp. 475-490. [Online]. Available: https://ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/SP.2014.37 · DOI
  65. B. Sengupta, S. Bag, S. Ruj, and K. Sakurai, ''Retricoin: Bitcoin based on compact proofs of retrievability,'' in Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Distrib. Comput. Netw. (ICDCN), New York, NY, USA, 2016, pp. 14:1-14:10. doi: 10.1145/2833312.2833317. · DOI
  66. S. Bartolucci, P. Bernat, and D. Joseph, ''SHARVOT: Secret SHARe- based VOTing on the blockchain,'' 2018, arXiv:1803.04861. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04861 [116(2018). Wanchain. [Online]. Available: https://www.wanchain.org · arXiv
  67. G. Zyskind, O. Nathan, and A. Pentland, ''Enigma: Decentralized com- putation platform with guaranteed privacy,'' 2015, arXiv:1506.03471. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03471 · arXiv
  68. A. Kosba, A. Miller, E. Shi, Z. Wen, and C. Papamanthou, ''Hawk: The blockchain model of cryptography and privacy-preserving smart contracts,'' in Proc. IEEE Symp. Secur. Privacy (SP), May 2016, pp. 839-858.
  69. B. David, P. Gaži, A. Kiayias, and A. Russell, ''Ouroboros praos: An adaptively-secure, semi-synchronous proof-of-stake blockchain,'' in Advances in Cryptology-EUROCRYPT 2018, J. B. Nielsen and V. Rijmen, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018, pp. 66-98.
  70. T. Hanke, M. Movahedi, and D. Williams, ''DFINITY technology overview series, consensus system,'' 2018, arXiv:1805.04548. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04548 · arXiv
  71. C. Liem, E. AbdAllah, C. Okoye, J. O'Connor, M. S. Ul Alam, and S. Janes, ''Runtime self-protection in a trusted blockchain-inspired ledger,'' in Proc. ESCAR Eur., Nov. 2017, pp. 1-10.
  72. D. Boneh, M. Drijvers, and G. Neven, ''Compact multi-signatures for smaller blockchains,'' in Advances in Cryptology-ASIACRYPT 2018, T. Peyrin and S. Galbraith, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018, pp. 435-464.
  73. D. Chaum, Blind Signature System. Boston, MA, USA: Springer, 1984, p. 153.
  74. L. Valenta and B. Rowan, ''Blindcoin: Blinded, accountable mixes for bitcoin,'' in Financial Cryptography and Data Security, M. Brenner, N. Christin, B. Johnson, and K. Rohloff, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2015, pp. 112-126.
  75. E. Heilman, F. Baldimtsi, and S. Goldberg, ''Blindly signed contracts: Anonymous on-blockchain and off-blockchain bitcoin transactions,'' in Financial Cryptography and Data Security, J. Clark, S. Meikle- john, P. Y. Ryan, D. Wallach, M. Brenner, and K. Rohloff, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2016, pp. 43-60.
  76. F. Zhang and K. Kim, ''Id-based blind signature and ring signature from pairings,'' in Advances in Cryptology-ASIACRYPT 2002, Y. Zheng, Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2002, pp. 533-547.
  77. S. Meiklejohn and R. Mercer, ''Möbius: Trustless tumbling for trans- action privacy,'' Proc. Privacy Enhancing Technol., vol. 2018, no. 2, pp. 105-121, 2018.
  78. J. H. Ziegeldorf, F. Grossmann, M. Henze, N. Inden, and K. Wehrle, ''CoinParty: Secure multi-party mixing of bitcoins,'' in Proc. 5th ACM Conf. Data Appl. Secur. Privacy, New York, NY, USA, 2015, pp. 75-86.
  79. D. Johnson, A. Menezes, and S. Vanstone, ''The elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (ECDSA),'' Int. J. Inf. Secur., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 36-63, Aug. 2001. doi: 10.1007/s102070100002. · DOI
  80. O. Goldreich and Y. Oren, ''Definitions and properties of zero-knowledge proof systems,'' J. Cryptol., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1-32, Dec. 1994. doi: 10.1007/BF00195207. · DOI
  81. E. Ben-Sasson, A. Chiesa, E. Tromer, and M. Virza, ''Succinct non-interactive zero knowledge for a von neumann architecture,'' in Proc. 23rd USENIX Secur. Symp. (USENIX Secur.), San Diego, CA, USA, 2014, pp. 781-796. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/ conference/usenixsecurity14/technical-sessions/presentation/ben-sasson
  82. R. S. Sandhu and P. Samarati, ''Access control: Principle and practice,'' IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 40-48, Sep. 1994.
  83. A. Azaria, A. Ekblaw, T. Vieira, and A. Lippman, ''MedRec: Using blockchain for medical data access and permission management,'' in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Open Big Data (OBD), Aug. 2016, pp. 25-30.
  84. X. Yue, H. Wang, D. Jin, M. Li, and W. Jiang, ''Healthcare data gateways: Found healthcare intelligence on blockchain with novel pri- vacy risk control,'' J. Med. Syst., vol. 40, no. 10, p. 218, Aug. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s10916-016-0574-6. · DOI · Paper page
  85. A. Outchakoucht, J. P. Leroy, and H. Es-Samaali, ''Dynamic access control policy based on blockchain and machine learning for the Internet of Things,'' Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl., vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 417-424, 2017.
  86. S. H. Hashemi, F. Faghri, and R. H. Campbell, ''Decentralized user-centric access control using pubsub over blockchain,'' 2017, arXiv:1710.00110. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.00110 · arXiv
  87. S. Tahir and M. Rajarajan, ''Privacy-preserving searchable encryp- tion framework for permissioned blockchain networks,'' in Proc. IEEE Proc. iThings, GreenCom, CPSCom SmartData, Jul./Aug. 2018, pp. 1628-1633.
  88. A. Boudguiga, N. Bouzerna, L. Granboulan, A. Olivereau, F. Quesnel, A. Roger, and R. Sirdey, ''Towards better availability and accountability for IoT updates by means of a blockchain,'' in Proc. IEEE Eur. Symp. Secur. Privacy Workshops (EuroS PW), Apr. 2017, pp. 50-58.
  89. R. K. Raman and L. R. Varshney, ''Distributed storage meets secret sharing on the blockchain,'' in Proc. Inf. Theory Appl. Workshop (ITA), Feb. 2018, pp. 1-6.
  90. T. P. Pedersen, ''Non-interactive and information-theoretic secure verifiable secret sharing,'' in Advances in Cryptology-CRYPTO'91, J. Feigenbaum, Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1992, pp. 129-140.
  91. T. Ruffing and G. Malavolta, ''Switch commitments: A safety switch for confidential transactions,'' in Proc. Int. Conf. Financial Cryptogr. Data Secur. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2017, pp. 170-181.
  92. M. O. Rabin, ''How to exchange secrets with oblivious transfer,'' in Proc. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., 2005, p. 187.
  93. D. C. Sánchez, ''Raziel: Private and verifiable smart contracts on blockchains,'' 2018, arXiv:1807.09484. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv. org/abs/1807.09484 · arXiv
  94. A. Juels and B. S. Kaliski, Jr., ''PORs: Proofs of retrievability for large files,'' in Proc. 14th ACM Conf. Comput. Commun. Secur. (CCS), New York, NY, USA, 2007, pp. 584-597. doi: 10.1145/1315245. 1315317. · DOI
  95. F. Armknecht, J.-M. Bohli, G. O. Karame, Z. Liu, and C. A. Reuter, ''Out- sourced proofs of retrievability,'' in Proc. 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conf. Com- put. Commun. Secur. (CCS), New York, NY, USA, 2014, pp. 831-843. doi: 10.1145/2660267.2660310. · DOI
  96. D. J. Bernstein, Introduction to Post-Quantum Cryptography. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2009, pp. 1-14.
  97. A. Ekert and R. Jozsa, ''Quantum computation and shor's factoring algorithm,'' Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 68, no. 3, p. 733, 1996.
  98. K. Chalkias, J. Brown, M. Hearn, T. Lillehagen, I. Nitto, and T. Schroeter, ''Blockchained post-quantum signatures,'' in Proc. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., 2018, p. 658.
  99. O. Regev, ''Lattice-based cryptography,'' in Proc. Annu. Int. Cryptol. Conf. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2006, pp. 131-141.
  100. J. Ding and B.-Y. Yang, ''Multivariate public key cryptography,'' in Post- Quantum Cryptography. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2009, pp. 193-241.
  101. R. Overbeck and N. Sendrier, ''Code-based cryptography,'' in Post- Quantum Cryptography. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2009, pp. 95-145.
  102. M. A. Khan and K. Salah, ''IoT security: Review, blockchain solu- tions, and open challenges,'' Future Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 82, pp. 395-411, May 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0167739X17315765
  103. S. Micali, M. Rabin, and S. Vadhan, ''Verifiable random functions,'' in Proc. 40th Annu. Symp. Found. Comput. Sci., Oct. 1999, pp. 120-130.
  104. W. Li, S. Andreina, J.-M. Bohli, and G. Karame, ''Securing proof-of-stake blockchain protocols,'' in Data Privacy Management, Cryptocurren- cies and Blockchain Technology, J. Garcia-Alfaro, G. Navarro-Arribas, H. Hartenstein, and J. Herrera-Joancomartí, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2017, pp. 297-315.
  105. A. S. de Pedro, D. Levi, and L. I. Cuende, ''Witnet: A decentralized oracle network protocol,'' 2017, arXiv:1711.09756. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.09756 · arXiv
  106. A. Shamir, ''Identity-based cryptosystems and signature schemes,'' in Adv. Cryptol., G. R. Blakley and D. Chaum, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1985, pp. 47-53.
  107. D. Boneh and M. Franklin, ''Identity-based encryption from the Weil pair- ing,'' in Advances in Cryptology-CRYPTO 2001, J. Kilian, Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2001, pp. 213-229.
  108. D. Boneh, X. Boyen, and E.-J. Goh, ''Hierarchical identity based encryp- tion with constant size ciphertext,'' in Proc. Annu. Int. Conf. Theory Appl. Cryptograph. Techn. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2005, pp. 440-456.
  109. V. Goyal, O. Pandey, A. Sahai, and B. Waters, ''Attribute-based encryp- tion for fine-grained access control of encrypted data,'' in Proc. 13th ACM Conf. Comput. Commun. Secur., 2006, pp. 89-98.
  110. A. Lewko and B. Waters, ''Decentralizing attribute-based encryption,'' in Proc. Annu. Int. Conf. Theory Appl. Cryptograph. Techn. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2011, pp. 568-588.
  111. S. Agrawal, S. Gorbunov, V. Vaikuntanathan, and H. Wee, ''Functional encryption: New perspectives and lower bounds,'' in Proc. Annu. Cryptol. Conf. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2013, pp. 500-518.
  112. D. Boneh, J. Bonneau, B. Bünz, and B. Fisch, ''Verifiable delay func- tions,'' in Advances in Cryptology-CRYPTO 2018, H. Shacham and A. Boldyreva, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018, pp. 757-788.
  113. B. Bünz, S. Goldfeder, and J. Bonneau, ''Proofs-of-delay and randomness beacons in ethereum,'' in Proc. IEEE Secur. Privacy Blockchain (IEEE S&B), Apr. 2017, pp. 1-11.
  114. D. Boneh, B. Bünz, and B. Fisch, ''A survey of two verifiable delay functions,'' in Proc. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., 2018, p. 712.
  115. S. Kumar, E. Rosnes, and A. G. I. Amat, ''Private information retrieval in distributed storage systems using an arbitrary linear code,'' in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), Jun. 2017, pp. 1421-1425.
  116. S. Chow, P. Eisen, H. Johnson, and P. C. Van Oorschot, ''White-box cryptography and an AES implementation,'' in Proc. Int. Workshop Sel. Areas Cryptogr. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2002, pp. 250-270.
  117. M. Bellare, O. Goldreich, and S. Goldwasser, ''Incremental cryptography: The case of hashing and signing,'' in Proc. Annu. Int. Cryptol. Conf. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1994, pp. 216-233.
  118. H. Mihajloska, D. Gligoroski, and S. Samardjiska, ''Reviving the idea of incremental cryptography for the zettabyte era use case: Incremental hash functions based on SHA-3,'' in Proc. Int. Workshop Open Problems Netw. Secur. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2015, pp. 97-111.
  119. C. Delerablée, ''Identity-based broadcast encryption with constant size ciphertexts and private keys,'' in Advances in Cryptology-ASIACRYPT 2007, K. Kurosawa, Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 200-215.
  120. J. A. Akinyele, C. Garman, I. Miers, M. W. Pagano, M. Rushanan, M. Green, and A. D. Rubin, ''Charm: A framework for rapidly proto- typing cryptosystems,'' J. Cryptograph. Eng., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 111-128, 2013. doi: 10.1007/s13389-013-0057-3. · DOI
  121. C. Lin, D. He, X. Huang, K.-K. R. Choo, and A. V. Vasilakos, ''BSeIn: A blockchain-based secure mutual authentication with fine- grained access control system for industry 4.0,'' J. Netw. Comput. Appl., vol. 116, pp. 42-52, Aug. 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1084804518301619
  122. R. Goyal and V. Goyal, ''Overcoming cryptographic impossibility results using blockchains,'' in Theory of Cryptography, Y. Kalai and L. Reyzin, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2017, pp. 529-561.
  123. A. Scafuro, L. Siniscalchi, and I. Visconti, ''Publicly verifiable proofs from blockchains,'' in Public-Key Cryptography-PKC 2019. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019, pp. 374-401.
  124. N. Chandran, V. Goyal, R. Moriarty, and R. Ostrovsky, ''Position based cryptography,'' in Advances in Cryptology-CRYPTO 2009, S. Halevi, Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2009, pp. 391-407.
  125. C. A. Neff, ''A verifiable secret shuffle and its application to e-voting,'' in Proc. 8th ACM Conf. Comput. Commun. Secur., 2001, pp. 116-125.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raikwar, M., Gligoroski, D., & Kralevska, K.
Affiliations
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
ORCID
Venue
IEEE Access
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2019
Volume
7
Pages
148550-148575
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/access.2019.2946983
OpenAlex
W2964517019
Cited by
153
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6
FWCI
25.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
NTNU Research Project (81771158)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology in Education and Learning
Keywords
blockchain, cryptography, blockchain security, decentralized systems, consensus algorithms, open problems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review