Quantum private comparison protocol without a third party

He, Guang Ping

doi:10.48550/arxiv.1604.06834

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, the TP may be semi-honest [5,6], semi-honest having an intelligent robot [10], dishonest [13], or almost-dishonest [11]. Despite, the strong proof of Lo, some efforts have been made to achieve QPC without TP [22,23], but they have been found to be insecure and/or unfair [24]. Thus, in what follows, we will concentrate on three party protocols of QPC, where a TP helps Alice and Bob to compare the equality of their information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthogonal-state-based and semi-quantum protocols for quantum private comparison in noisy environment

Thapliyal

Sharma

Pathak

2018

Int. J. Quantum Inform.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Private comparison is a primitive for many cryptographic tasks, and recently several schemes for the quantum private comparison (QPC) have been proposed, where two users can compare the equality of their secrets with the help of a semi-honest third party (TP) without knowing each other's secret and without disclosing the same to the TP. In the exisiting schemes, secrecy is obtained by using conjugate coding, and considering all participants as quantum users who can perform measurement(s) and/or create states in basis other than computational basis. In contrast, here we propose two new protocols for QPC, first of which does not use conjugate coding (uses orthogonal states only) and the second one allows the users other than TP to be classical whose activities are restricted to either reflecting a quantum state or measuring it in computational basis. Further, the performance of the protocols is evaluated under various noise models. made to achieve QPC without TP [22,23], but they have been found to be insecure and/or unfair [24]. Thus, in what follows, we will concentrate on three party protocols of QPC, where a TP helps Alice and Bob to compare the equality of their information. Such protocols for QPC have been proposed using different types of entangled states. For example, in Ref.[5], a scheme for QPC has been proposed using χ-type state, W state was used in Ref. [12], Bell state was used in [6,7,13], GHZ state was used in [11]. Further, in Ref.[25], a group theoretic structure of the protocols of quantum dialogue was proposed using a large number of different types of entangled states (e.g., W, GHZ, cluster, Q 4, Q 5, and Brown states), and it was shown that the quantum dialogue scheme proposed there can be converted to a protocol of the socialist millionaire problem, which is equivalent to QPC. Thus, in [25], several options for realization of protocols for QPC were provided. Further, in the similar line, in [26], a set of new options (e.g., 4-qubit Ω state, 4-qubit cat state, etc.) for realization of QD, and thus, QPC have been proposed.It's already established that the schemes for QPC have useful applications in private bidding and auctions, secret ballot elections, e-commerce, etc. ( [8] and references therein). Due to the fact that a scheme for QPC has applications in many fields, many variants of QPC have been studied in the recent past. For example, Huang et al., have recently proposed a GHZ-state-based QPC scheme for n users [11]. Huang et al.'s scheme considers an almost-dishonest TP and allows him to compare the equality of the secrets of a subset of users, too.In what follows, we plan to propose two protocols for QPC in the line of modified Tseng-Lin-Hwang (TLH) protocol, which was proposed in its original form in 2012 [6]. In the original TLH protocol a scheme for quantum private comparison was proposed using Bell states, but almost immediately after the publication of TLH scheme, Yang et al., [13] had shown that there exist a security flaw in the original TLH scheme and other similar schemes, whic...

show abstract