Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Computer Science

ISSN 2095-2228

ISSN 2095-2236(Online)

CN 10-1014/TP

Postal Subscription Code 80-970

2018 Impact Factor: 1.129

Front. Comput. Sci.    2018, Vol. 12 Issue (3) : 451-478    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-016-6148-4
REVIEW ARTICLE
Primitives towards verifiable computation: a survey
Haseeb AHMAD1, Licheng WANG1(), Haibo HONG2, Jing LI1, Hassan DAWOOD3, Manzoor AHMED4, Yixian YANG1
1. State Key Laboratory of Networking and Switching Technology, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing 100876, China
2. School of Computer Science and Information Engineering, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China
3. Department of Computer Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila 47050, Pakistan
4. Future Internet & Communication Lab, Department of Electronic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
 Download: PDF(613 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Verifiable computation (VC) paradigm has got the captivation that in real term is highlighted by the concept of third party computation. In more explicate terms, VC allows resource constrained clients/organizations to securely outsource expensive computations to untrusted service providers, while acquiring the publicly or privately verifiable results. Many mainstream solutions have been proposed to address the diverse problems within the VC domain. Some of them imposed assumptions over performed computations, while the others took advantage of interactivity/non-interactivity, zero knowledge proofs, and arguments. Further proposals utilized the powers of probabilistic checkable or computationally sound proofs. In this survey, we present a chronological study and classify the VC proposals based on their adopted domains. First, we provide a broader overview of the theoretical advancements while critically analyzing them. Subsequently, we present a comprehensive view of their utilization in the state of the art VC approaches. Moreover, a brief overviewof recent proof based VC systems is also presented that lifted up the VC domain to the verge of practicality. We use the presented study and reviewed results to identify the similarities and alterations, modifications, and hybridization of different approaches, while comparing their advantages and reporting their overheads. Finally, we discuss implementation of such VC based systems, their applications, and the likely future directions.

Keywords verifiable computation      cloud computation      interactive      non-interactive      zero knowledge      probabilistic checkable proofs      computationally sound proofs     
Corresponding Author(s): Licheng WANG   
Just Accepted Date: 12 October 2016   Online First Date: 23 May 2017    Issue Date: 02 May 2018
 Cite this article:   
Haseeb AHMAD,Licheng WANG,Haibo HONG, et al. Primitives towards verifiable computation: a survey[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2018, 12(3): 451-478.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcs/EN/10.1007/s11704-016-6148-4
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcs/EN/Y2018/V12/I3/451
1 Gennaro R, Gentry C, Parno B. Non-interactive verifiable computing: outsourcing computation to untrusted workers. In: Proceedings of Annual Cryptology Conference. 2010, 465–482
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14623-7_25
2 Goldwasser S, Kalai Y T, Rothblum G N. Delegating computation: interactive proofs for muggles. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 2008, 113–122
https://doi.org/10.1145/1374376.1374396
3 Anderson D P. Public computing: reconnecting people to science. In: Proceedings of Conference on Shared Knowledge and the Web. 2003, 17–19
4 Anderson D P. BOINC: a system for public-resource computing and storage. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Grid Computing. 2004, 4–10
https://doi.org/10.1109/GRID.2004.14
5 Anderson D P, Cobb J, Korpela E, Lebofsky M, Werthimer D. SETI@home: an experiment in public-resource computing. Communications of the ACM, 2002, 45(11): 56–61
https://doi.org/10.1145/581571.581573
6 Mell P, Grance T. The NIST definition of cloud computing. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2009, 53(6): 50
7 Goldwasser S, Micali S, Racko C. The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 1989, 18(1): 186–208
https://doi.org/10.1137/0218012
8 Babai L. Trading group theory for randomness. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 1985, 421–429
https://doi.org/10.1145/22145.22192
9 Babai L, Fortnow L, Levin L A, Szegedy M. Checking computations in polylogarithmic time. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 1991, 21–32
https://doi.org/10.1145/103418.103428
10 Arora S, Safra S. Probabilistic checking of proofs: a new characterization of NP. Journal of the ACM, 1998, 45(1): 70–122
https://doi.org/10.1145/273865.273901
11 Arora S, Lund C, Motwani R, Sudan M, Szegedy M. Proof verification and the hardness of approximation problems. Journal of the ACM, 1998, 45(3): 501–555
https://doi.org/10.1145/278298.278306
12 Kilian J. A note on efficient zero-knowledge proofs and arguments. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 1992, 723–732
13 Kilian J. Improved efficient arguments. In: Proceedings of Annual International Cryptology Conference. 1995, 311–324
https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44750-4_25
14 Micali S. Computationally sound proofs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 2000, 30(4): 1253–1298
https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539795284959
15 Shamir A. IP= PSPACE. Journal of the ACM, 1992, 39(4): 869–877
https://doi.org/10.1145/146585.146609
16 Lund C, Fortnow L, Karlo H, Nisan N. Algebraic methods for interactive proof systems. Journal of the ACM, 1992, 39(4): 859–868
https://doi.org/10.1145/146585.146605
17 Chung K M, Kalai Y, Vadhan S. Improved delegation of computation using fully homomorphic encryption. In: Proceedings of Annual Cryptology Conference. 2010, 483–501
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14623-7_26
18 Goldwasser S, Sipser M. Private coins versus public coins in interactive proof systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 1986, 59–68
https://doi.org/10.1145/12130.12137
19 Ben-Or M, Goldwasser S, Kilian J, Wigderson A. Multi-prover interactive proofs: how to remove intractability assumptions. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 1988, 113–131
https://doi.org/10.1145/62212.62223
20 Babai L, Fortnow L, Lund C. Non-deterministic exponential time has two-prover interactive protocols. Computational Complexity, 1991, 1(1): 3–40
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01200056
21 Goldreich O, Micali S, Wigderson A. Proofs that yield nothing but their validity or all languages in NP have zero-knowledge proof systems. Journal of the ACM, 1991, 38(3): 690–728
https://doi.org/10.1145/116825.116852
22 Ben-Or M, Goldreich O, Goldwasser S, Håstad J, Kilian J, Micali S, Rogaway P. Everything provable is provable in zero-knowledge. In: Proceedings of Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptography. 1988, 37–56
23 Fortnow L. The complexity of perfect zero-knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 1987, 204–209
https://doi.org/10.1145/28395.28418
24 Aiello W, Hastad J. Perfect zero-knowledge languages can be recognized in two rounds. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 1987, 439–448
https://doi.org/10.1109/sfcs.1987.47
25 Feige U, Fiat A, Shamir A. Zero-knowledge proofs of identity. Journal of Cryptology, 1988, 1(2): 77–94
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02351717
26 Fiat A, Shamir A. How to prove yourself: Practical solutions to identification and signature problems. In: Proceedings of Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptographic Techniques. 1986, 186–194
27 Goldreich O, Oren Y. Definitions and properties of zero-knowledge proof systems. Journal of Cryptology, 1994, 7(1): 1–32
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00195207
28 Feige U, Shamir A. Zero knowledge proofs of knowledge in two rounds. In: Proceedings of Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology. 1989, 526–544
29 Goldreich O, Kahan A. A How to construct constant-round zero knowledge proof systems for NP. Journal of Cryptology, 1996, 9(3): 167–189
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001459900010
30 Groth J, Ostrovsky R, Sahai A. Perfect non-interactive zero knowledge for NP. In: Proceedings of Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. 2006, 339–358
https://doi.org/10.1007/11761679_21
31 Micali S, Rabin M, Kilian J. Zero-knowledge sets. In: Proceedings of the 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 2003, 80–91
https://doi.org/10.1109/sfcs.2003.1238183
32 Feige U, Goldwasser S, Lovász L, Safra S, Szegedy M. Approximating clique is almost NP-complete. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 1991, 2–12
https://doi.org/10.1109/sfcs.1991.185341
33 Kalai Y T, Raz R. Interactive PCP. In: Proceedings of International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming. 2008, 536–547
34 Kalai Y T, Raz R. Probabilistically checkable arguments. In: Halevi S, eds. Advances in Cryptology-CRYPTO. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 5677. Berlin: Springer, 2009, 143–159
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03356-8_9
35 Cachin C, Micali S, Stadler M. Computationally private information retrieval with polylogarithmic communication. In: Proceedings of International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. 1999, 402–414
https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48910-x_28
36 Bitansky N, Canetti R, Chiesa A, Tromer E. From extractable collision resistance to succinct non-interactive arguments of knowledge, and back again. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference. 2012, 326–349
https://doi.org/10.1145/2090236.2090263
37 Chung K M, Kalai Y T, Liu F H, Raz R. Memory delegation. In: Proceedings of Annual Cryptology Conference. 2011, 151–168
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22792-9_9
38 Gentry C. A fully homomorphic encryption scheme. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Stanford: Stanford University, 2009
39 Barak B, Goldreich O. Universal arguments and their applications. SIAM Journal on Computing, 2008, 38(5): 1661–1694
https://doi.org/10.1137/070709244
40 Goldwasser S, Lin H, Rubinstein A. Delegation of Computation without Rejection Problem from Designated Verifier CS-Proofs. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2011, 2011: 456
41 Sadeghi A R. Trusted computing—special aspects and challenges. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Computer Science. 2008, 98–117
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77566-9_9
42 Wen Y, Lee J, Liu Z, Zheng Q, Shi W, Xu S, Suh T. Multi-processor architectural support for protecting virtual machine privacy in untrusted cloud environment. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers. 2013
https://doi.org/10.1145/2482767.2482799
43 Seshadri A, Luk M, Shi E, Perrig A, van Doorn L, Khosla P. Pioneer: verifying code integrity and enforcing untampered code execution on legacy systems. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 2005, 39(5): 1–16
https://doi.org/10.1145/1095809.1095812
44 Parno B, McCune J M, Perrig A. Bootstrapping Trust in Modern Computers. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1460-5
45 Malkhi D, Reiter M. Byzantine quorum systems. Distributed Computing, 1998, 11(4): 203–213
https://doi.org/10.1007/s004460050050
46 Canetti R, Riva B, Rothblum G N. Practical delegation of computation using multiple servers. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2011, 445–454
https://doi.org/10.1145/2046707.2046759
47 Monrose F, Wycko P, Rubin A D. Distributed Execution with Remote Audit. InNDSS, 1999, 99: 3–5
48 Belenkiy M, Chase M, Erway C C, Jannotti J, Küpçü A, Lysyanskaya A. Incentivizing outsourced computation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Economics of Networked Systems. 2008, 85–90
https://doi.org/10.1145/1403027.1403046
49 Yao A C. How to generate and exchange secrets. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 1986, 162–167
https://doi.org/10.1109/sfcs.1986.25
50 Benabbas S, Gennaro R, Vahlis Y. Verifiable delegation of computation over large datasets. In: Proceedings of Annual Cryptology Conference. 2011, 111–131
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22792-9_7
51 Ananth P, Chandran N, Goyal V, Kanukurthi B, Ostrovsky R. Achieving privacy in verifiable computation with multiple servers—without FHE and without pre-processing. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Public Key Cryptography. 2014, 149–166
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54631-0_9
52 Fiore D, Gennaro R, Pastro V. Efficiently verifiable computation on encrypted data. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2014, 844–855
https://doi.org/10.1145/2660267.2660366
53 Ben-Or M, Goldwasser S, Kilian J, Wigderson A. Multi-prover interactive proofs: how to remove intractability assumptions. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 1988, 113–131
https://doi.org/10.1145/62212.62223
54 Setty S T, Vu V, Panpalia N, Braun B, Blumberg A J, Walfish M. Taking proof-based verified computation a few steps closer to practicality. In: Proceedings of USENIX Security Symposium. 2012, 253–268
55 Cormode G, Mitzenmacher M, Thaler J. Practical verified computation with streaming interactive proofs. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference. 2012, 90–112
https://doi.org/10.1145/2090236.2090245
56 Setty S, Braun B, Vu V, Blumberg A J, Parno B, Walfish M. Resolving the conflict between generality and plausibility in verified computation. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems. 2013, 71–84
https://doi.org/10.1145/2465351.2465359
57 Parno B, Howell J, Gentry C, Raykova M. Pinocchio: nearly practical verifiable computation. In: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. 2013, 238–252
https://doi.org/10.1109/sp.2013.47
58 Costello C, Fournet C, Howell J, Kohlweiss M, Kreuter B, Naehrig M, Parno B, Zahur S. Geppetto: versatile verifiable computation. In: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. 2015, 253–270
https://doi.org/10.1109/sp.2015.23
59 Ben-Sasson E, Chiesa A, Tromer E, Virza M. Succinct non-interactive zero knowledge for a von Neumann architecture. In: Proceedings of the 23rd USENIX Security Symposium. 2014
60 Braun B, Feldman A J, Ren Z, Setty S, Blumberg A J, Walfish M. Verifying computations with state. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. 2013, 341–357
https://doi.org/10.1145/2517349.2522733
61 Wahby R S, Setty S T V, Ren Z, Blumberg A J, Walfish M. Efficient RAM and control flow in verifiable outsourced computation. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2014, 2014: 674
62 Walfish M, Blumberg A J. Verifying computations without reexecuting them. Communications of the ACM, 2015, 58(2): 74–84
https://doi.org/10.1145/2641562
63 Bennet S Y. Using secure coprocessors. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University, 1994
64 Smith S W, Weingart S. Building a high-performance, programmable secure coprocessor. Computer Networks, 1999, 31(8): 831–860
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-1286(98)00019-X
65 Vu V, Setty S, Blumberg A J, Walfish M. A hybrid architecture for interactive verifiable computation. In: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. 2013, 223–237
https://doi.org/10.1109/sp.2013.48
66 Rothblum G N, Vadhan S, Wigderson A. Interactive proofs of proximity: delegating computation in sublinear time. In: Proceedings of the 45th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 2013, 793–802
https://doi.org/10.1145/2488608.2488709
67 Goldwasser S, Kalai Y T, Rothblum G N. Delegating computation: interactive proofs for muggles. Journal of the ACM, 2015, 62(4): 27
https://doi.org/10.1145/2699436
68 Blumberg A J, Thaler J, Vu V, Walfish M. Verifiable computation using multiple provers. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2014, 2014: 846
69 Goldreich O. Modern Cryptography, Probabilistic Proofs and Pseudorandomness. Springer Science & Business Media, 1998
70 Goldreich O. Zero-Knowledge twenty years after its invention. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2002, 2002: 186
71 Blum M, Feldman P, Micali S. Non-interactive zero-knowledge and its applications. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 1988, 103–112
https://doi.org/10.1145/62212.62222
72 Lapidot D, Shamir A. Publicly verifiable non-interactive zero knowledge proofs. In: Proceedings of Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptography. 1990, 353–365
73 Groth J. Short pairing-based non-interactive zero-knowledge arguments. In: Proceedings of International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security. 2010, 321–340
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17373-8_19
74 Bitansky N, Canetti R, Chiesa A, Tromer E. Recursive composition and bootstrapping for SNARKs and proof-carrying data. In: Proceedings of the 45th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 2013, 111–120
https://doi.org/10.1145/2488608.2488623
75 Ben-Sasson E, Chiesa A, Tromer E, Virza M. Scalable zero knowledge via cycles of elliptic curves. In: Proceedings of International Cryptology Conference. 2014, 276–294
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44381-1_16
76 Chiesa A, Tromer E, Virza M. Cluster computing in zero knowledge. In: Proceedings of Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. 2015, 371–403
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46803-6_13
77 Gennaro R, Gentry C, Parno B, Raykova M. Quadratic span programs and succinct NIZKs without PCPs. In: Proceedings of Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. 2013, 626–645
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38348-9_37
78 Lipmaa H. Succinct non-interactive zero knowledge arguments from span programs and linear error-correcting codes. In: Proceedings of International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security. 2013, 41–60
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-42033-7_3
79 Fauzi P, Lipmaa H, Zhang B. Efficient modular NIZK arguments from shift and product. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Cryptology and Network Security. 2013, 92–121
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02937-5_6
80 Lipmaa H. Almost optimal short adaptive non-interactive zero knowledge. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2014, 2014: 396
81 Ishai Y, Kushilevitz E, Ostrovsky R. Efficient arguments without short PCPs. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity. 2007, 278–291
https://doi.org/10.1109/ccc.2007.10
82 Di Crescenzo G, Lipmaa H. Succinct NP proofs from an extractability assumption. In: Proceedings of Conference on Computability in Europe. 2008, 75–185
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69407-6_21
83 Xu G, Amariucai G, Guan Y. Delegation of computation with verification outsourcing: curious verifiers. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. 2013
https://doi.org/10.1145/2484239.2484253
84 Setty S, Blumberg A J, Walfish M. Toward practical and unconditional verification of remote computations. In: Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Conference on Hot Topics in Operating Systems. 2011
85 Chung K M, Kalai Y, Vadhan S. Improved delegation of computation using fully homomorphic encryption. In: Proceedings of Annual Cryptology Conference. 2010, 483–501
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14623-7_26
86 Parno B, Raykova M, Vaikuntanathan V. How to delegate and verify in public: verifiable computation from attribute-based encryption. In: Proceedings of Theory of Cryptography Conference. 2012, 422–439.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28914-9_24
87 Papamanthou C, Shi E, Tamassia R. Signatures of correct computation. In: Sahai A, eds. Theory of Cryptography. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 7785. Berlin: Springer, 2013, 222–242
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36594-2_13
88 Choi S G, Katz J, Kumaresan R, Cid C. Multi-client non-interactive verifiable computation. In: Sahai A, eds. Theory of Cryptography. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 7785. Berlin: Springer, 2013, 499–518
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36594-2_28
89 Apon D, Katz J, Shi E, Thiruvengadam A. Verifiable oblivious storage. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Public Key Cryptography. 2014, 131–148
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54631-0_8
90 Laud P, Pankova A. Verifiable computation in multiparty protocols with honest majority. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Provable Security. 2014, 146–161
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12475-9_11
91 Sahai A, Waters B. Fuzzy identity-based encryption. In: Proceedings of Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. 2005, 457–473
https://doi.org/10.1007/11426639_27
92 Goyal V, Pandey O, Sahai A, Waters B. Attribute-based encryption for fine-grained access control of encrypted data. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2006, 89–98
https://doi.org/10.1145/1180405.1180418
93 Alderman J, Janson C, Cid C, Crampton J. Revocation in publicly verifiable outsourced computation. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Public Key Cryptography. 2014, 51–71
94 Alderman J, Janson C, Cid C, Crampton J. Access control in publicly verifiable outsourced computation. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security. 2015, 657–662
https://doi.org/10.1145/2714576.2714636
95 Alderman J, Janson C, Cid C, Crampton J. Hybrid publicly verifiable computation. In: Proceedings of Cryptographers’ Track at the RSA Conference. 2016, 147–163
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29485-8_9
96 Gordon S D, Katz J, Liu F H, Shi E, Zhou H S. Multi-client verifiable computation with stronger security guarantees. In: Proceedings of Theory of Cryptography Conference. 2015, 144–168
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46497-7_6
97 Backes M, Fiore D, Reischuk R M. Verifiable delegation of computation on outsourced data. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer & Communications Security. 2013, 863–874
https://doi.org/10.1145/2508859.2516681
98 Gennaro R, Wichs D. Fully homomorphic message authenticators. In: Proceedings of International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security. 2013, 301–320
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-42045-0_16
99 Juels A, Kaliski Jr B S. PORs: proofs of retrievability for large files. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2007, 584–597
https://doi.org/10.1145/1315245.1315317
100 Fiore D, Gennaro R. Publicly verifiable delegation of large polynomials and matrix computations, with applications. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2012, 501–512
https://doi.org/10.1145/2382196.2382250
101 Schröder D, Schröder H. Verifiable data streaming. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2012, 953–964
https://doi.org/10.1145/2382196.2382297
102 Krupp J, Schröder D, Simkin M, Fiore D, Ateniese G, Nuernberger S. Nearly optimal verifiable data streaming. In: Cheng C M, Chung K M, Persiano G, et al., eds. Public-Key Cryptography – PKC 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 9614. Berlin: Springer, 2016
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49384-7_16
103 Blanton M, Zhang Y, Frikken K B. Secure and verifiable outsourcing of large-scale biometric computations. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 2013, 16(3): 11
https://doi.org/10.1145/2535523
104 Li J, Jia C, Li J, Chen X. Outsourcing encryption of attribute-based encryption with MapReduce. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Information and Communications Security. 2012, 191–201
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34129-8_17
105 Sahai A, Seyalioglu H, Waters B. Dynamic credentials and cipher text delegation for attribute-based encryption. In: Safavi-Naini R, Canetti R, eds. Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 7417. Berlin: Springer, 2012, 199–217
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32009-5_13
106 Li J, Huang X, Li J, Chen X, Xiang Y. Securely outsourcing attribute based encryption with checkability. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2014, 25(8): 2201–2210
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2013.271
107 Li J, Li X, Wang L, He D, Ahmad H, Niu X. Fuzzy encryption in cloud computation: efficient verifiable outsourced attribute-based encryption. Soft Computing. 2017, 1–8
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2482-1
108 Carter H, Mood B, Traynor P, Butler K. Secure outsourced garbled circuit evaluation for mobile devices. Journal of Computer Security, 2016, 24(2): 137–180
https://doi.org/10.3233/JCS-150540
109 Carter H, Lever C, Traynor P. Whitewash: outsourcing garbled circuit generation for mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. 2014, 266–275
https://doi.org/10.1145/2664243.2664255
110 Chen X, Li J, Ma J, Tang Q, Lou W. New algorithms for secure outsourcing of modular exponentiations. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2014, 25(9): 2386–2396
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2013.180
111 Kiraz M S, Uzunkol O. Efficient and verifiable algorithms for secure outsourcing of cryptographic computations. International Journal of Information Security, 2016, 15(5): 519–537
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-015-0308-7
112 Ben-Sasson E, Chiesa A, Genkin D, Tromer E, Virza M. SNARKs for C: verifying program executions succinctly and in zero knowledge. In: Canetti R, Garay J A, eds. Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 8043. Berlin: Springer, 2013, 90–108
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40084-1_6
113 Kosba A E, Papadopoulos D, Papamanthou C, Sayed M F, Shi E, Triandopoulos N. TRUESET: faster verifiable set computations. USENIX Security, 2014, 81(84): 153
114 Thaler J, Roberts M, Mitzenmacher M, Pfister H. Verifiable computation with massively parallel interactive proofs. In: Proceedings of HotCloud. 2012
115 Thaler J. Time-optimal interactive proofs for circuit evaluation. In: Canetti R, Garay J A, eds. Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 8043. Berlin: Springer, 2013, 71–89
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40084-1_5
116 Wang L C, LI J, Ahmad H. Challenges of fully homomorphic encryptions for the Internet of things. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 2016, 99(8): 1982–1990
https://doi.org/10.1587/transinf.2015INI0003
117 Hong H, Wang L, Ahmad H, Yang Y, Qu Z. Minimum length key in MST cryptosystems. Science China Information Sciences, 2017, 60(5): 05210
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-015-5479-3
[1] Yan ZHU, Khaled RIAD, Ruiqi GUO, Guohua GAN, Rongquan FENG. New instant confirmation mechanism based on interactive incontestable signature in consortium blockchain[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2019, 13(6): 1182-1197.
[2] Le DONG, Ning FENG, Mengdie MAO, Ling HE, Jingjing WANG. E-GrabCut: an economic method of iterative video object extraction[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2017, 11(4): 649-660.
[3] Chao DING,Ligang LIU. A survey of sketch based modeling systems[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 2016, 10(6): 985-999.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed