Efficient Certificateless Anonymous Multi-Receiver Encryption Scheme without Bilinear Parings

Abstract

With the growing development of Internet technology and popularization of mobile devices, we easily access the Internet anytime and anywhere by mobile devices. It has brought great convenience for our lives. But it brought more challenges than traditional wired communication, such as confidentiality and privacy. In order to improve security and privacy protection in using mobile network, numerous multi-receiver identity-based encryption schemes have been proposed with bilinear pairing and probabilistic hap-to-point (HTP) function. To address the troubles of private key escrow in multi-receiver encryption scheme based on ID-PKC, recently, some certificateless anonymous multi-receiver encryption (CLAMRE) schemes are introduced. But previous CLAMRE schemes using the bilinear pairing are not suitable to mobile device because the use of bilinear pairing and probabilistic hashto-point (HTP) function results in expensive operation costs in encryption or decryption. In this paper, we propose an efficient CLAMRE scheme using elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) without bilinear pairing and HTP hash function. Since our scheme does not use bilinear pairing and HTP operation during the encryption and decryption process, the proposed CLAMRE scheme has much less computation cost than the latest CLAMRE schemes. Performance analysis shows that runtime of our scheme is much less when the sender generates ciphertext, compared with existing schemes. Security analysis shows proposed CLAMRE scheme provides confidentiality of message and receiver anonymity under the random oracle model with the difficulties of decision DiffieHellman problem and against the adversaries defined in CL-PKC system.

Efficient and Anonymous Certificateless Multi-Message and Multi-Receiver Signcryption Scheme Based on ECC

“…However, in recent years, the multicast communication environment in reality has become more and more complex [8]. In a practical application environment, it often happens that different services need to be provided to different customers, and in this case, the multi-message and multi-receiver signcryption [9], as the further extension of the multi-receiver signcryption [10], comes into being. In a multi-receiver signcryption scheme, the sender is enabled to send the unique and same message to all authorized receivers, while in a multi-message and multi-receiver signcryption scheme, the sender is enabled to send multiple and different messages to different receivers in one logic operation, and each authorized receiver can designcrypt out his/her own plaintext message without exposing the plaintext messages of others.…”

Anonymous Certificateless Multi-Receiver Signcryption Scheme Without Secure Channel

“…From TABLE 3 and TABLE 4, we can see that our scheme is more efficient than schemes [23], [31], [34]- [37], [41], and [42] in encryption/signcryption process, and it is more efficient than schemes [23], [31], [35], [37], [38], and [41] in decryption/de-signcryption process. However, our scheme is more inefficient than schemes [38] and [39] in encryption/signcryption process, and it is more inefficient than schemes [34], [36], [39], and [42] in decryption/ de-signcryption process, because we have increased some computation to avoid the use of secure channels. Although the computational complexity of our scheme is higher than that of some schemes, the extra calculation costs are considered acceptable when considering the costs spent on maintaining the secure channel, because it is well known that maintaining a secure channel requires a lot in practical applications.…”

“…To show the advantages of our scheme, we will compare our scheme with schemes [23], [31], [34]- [39], [41] and [42] in terms of computational efficiency and functions, because these schemes are similar to our scheme in functions or cryptographic foundation.…”

“…The comparisons of functions between our scheme and schemes [23], [31], [34]- [39], [41] and [42] are shown in TABLE 5, from where we can see the performance of each scheme in terms of functions.…”

“…From TABLE 5, we can see that only scheme [23] has key escrow problem because it is based on IBC. In terms of privacy protection, our scheme and schemes [23], [34]- [37], [39], and [42] provide receiver anonymity so that no one except the sender knows the authorized receivers, whereas schemes [31], [38], and [41] do not consider receiver anonymity. Our scheme and schemes [31], [38], and [39] offer source verifiability to resist the forgery of attackers.…”