Score:0

Secuirty definion of a ad hoc multi-input functional encryption scheme

in flag

I have to write an essay on the paper ad hoc multi-input functional encryption, and can't understand the security definition. In a nutshell it is a primitive that allow sources to supply encrypted data, such that at any point a dynamically-chosen subset of sources can allow an agreed-upon joint function of their data to be computed by the aggregator.


Syntax description:

aMIFE syntax


Security definition:

enter image description here


I've got the following questions about the security definition:

  1. I do not understand why a queried function is defined and why its defined this way.

I think the gist is a function is queried if you could provide ciphertexts for all it's input arguments (by having the keys when its corrupted or asking keygen oracle). But what is it trying to say by "for every user associated with it's input wires"?

A function can be calculated on different subset of users. Would it not be more reasonable if it said "$f$ is queried if there exist a $\{i_1, ... , i_{\ell}\}$ such that for every user associated with ..."?

  1. Should it not read: "$j \in I$, i.e. $j$ is corrupted and $y_{j,0} = y_{j,i}$" at the bullet point that I highlighted?

Otherwise whats the point if the inputs that are controlled by the adversary are different? It's not going to help you distinguish the challenge and guess the $b$.

mike avatar
in flag
@Maarten Bodewes for the second question you edited "2. Should not it read". My english is not that good but isn't a mistake? is not better use says instead of read?(Just a suggestion)
Maarten Bodewes avatar
in flag
Two words were in a bit of a strange order, I think it is OK now.
mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.