Skip to main content
added a tag; minor mistakes
Source Link
Patriot
  • 3.1k
  • 3
  • 19
  • 66

Identity based-based encryption schemes [*]schemes[*] seem to have great potential in high-latency Delay, delay-Toleranttolerant and mobile, ad-hoc networks since they apparently seem to avoid the need for key negotiation and exchanges. Used soleysolely for key exchange, they allow any pair of members in the same group (however you choose to define it) to establish a unique pairwise secret that can be computed by each member up-front and as a function of their respective identities.

However, since each pairing based scheme - that I'm aware of - is predicated on a pre-distribution of some shared secret (e.g., the hashed ID of the agent raised to some secret integer), do any of these schemes offer any significant advantages over, let's say, a simple authenticated diffieDiffie-hellmanHellman (at least for purposes of symmetric key establishment)?

[*] Including pairing-based symmetric-key establishment schemes.

Identity based encryption schemes [*] seem to have great potential in high-latency Delay-Tolerant and mobile, ad-hoc networks since they apparently seem to avoid the need for key negotiation and exchanges. Used soley for key exchange, they allow any pair of members in the same group (however you choose to define it) to establish a unique pairwise secret that can be computed by each member up-front and as a function of their respective identities.

However, since each pairing based scheme - that I'm aware of - is predicated on a pre-distribution of some shared secret (e.g., the hashed ID of the agent raised to some secret integer), do any of these schemes offer any significant advantages over, let's say, a simple authenticated diffie-hellman (at least for purposes of symmetric key establishment)?

[*] Including pairing-based symmetric-key establishment schemes.

Identity-based encryption schemes[*] seem to have great potential in high-latency, delay-tolerant and mobile, ad-hoc networks since they apparently seem to avoid the need for key negotiation and exchanges. Used solely for key exchange, they allow any pair of members in the same group (however you choose to define it) to establish a unique pairwise secret that can be computed by each member up-front and as a function of their respective identities.

However, since each pairing based scheme - that I'm aware of - is predicated on a pre-distribution of some shared secret (e.g., the hashed ID of the agent raised to some secret integer), do any of these schemes offer any significant advantages over, let's say, a simple authenticated Diffie-Hellman (at least for purposes of symmetric key establishment)?

[*] Including pairing-based symmetric-key establishment schemes.

Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackCrypto/status/215075408599728128
Source Link
Bill
  • 293
  • 2
  • 5

Does Identity-Based Encryption actually solve any problem?

Identity based encryption schemes [*] seem to have great potential in high-latency Delay-Tolerant and mobile, ad-hoc networks since they apparently seem to avoid the need for key negotiation and exchanges. Used soley for key exchange, they allow any pair of members in the same group (however you choose to define it) to establish a unique pairwise secret that can be computed by each member up-front and as a function of their respective identities.

However, since each pairing based scheme - that I'm aware of - is predicated on a pre-distribution of some shared secret (e.g., the hashed ID of the agent raised to some secret integer), do any of these schemes offer any significant advantages over, let's say, a simple authenticated diffie-hellman (at least for purposes of symmetric key establishment)?

[*] Including pairing-based symmetric-key establishment schemes.