Paper detail

Benaloh's Dense Probabilistic Encryption Revisited

In 1994, Josh Benaloh proposed a probabilistic homomorphic encryption scheme, enhancing the poor expansion factor provided by Goldwasser and Micali's scheme. Since then, numerous papers have taken advantage of Benaloh's homomorphic encryption function, including voting schemes, computing multi-party trust privately, non-interactive verifiable secret sharing, online poker... In this paper we show that the original description of the scheme is incorrect, possibly resulting in ambiguous decryption of ciphertexts. We give a corrected description of the scheme and provide a complete proof of correctness. We also compute the probability of failure of the original scheme. Finally we analyze several applications using Benaloh's encryption scheme. We show in each case the impact of a bad choice in the key generation phase of Benaloh's scheme. For instance in the application of e-voting protocol, it can inverse the result of an election, which is a non negligible consequence.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.