Paper detail

Mistakes of A Popular Protocol Calculating Private Set Intersection and Union Cardinality and Its Corrections

In 2012, De Cristofaro et al. proposed a protocol to calculate the Private Set Intersection and Union cardinality(PSI-CA and PSU-CA). This protocol's security is based on the famous DDH assumption. Since its publication, it has gained lots of popularity because of its efficiency(linear complexity in computation and communication) and concision. So far, it's still considered one of the most efficient PSI-CA protocols and the most cited(more than 170 citations) PSI-CA paper based on the Google Scholar search. However, when we tried to implement this protocol, we couldn't get the correct result of the test data. Since the original paper lacks of experimental results to verify the protocol's correctness, we looked deeper into the protocol and found out it made a fundamental mistake. Needless to say, its correctness analysis and security proof are also wrong. In this paper, we will point out this PSI-CA protocol's mistakes, and provide the correct version of this protocol as well as the PSI protocol developed from this protocol. We also present a new security proof and some experimental results of the corrected protocol.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.