A Hybrid PKI-IBC Based Ephemerizer System

  • Srijith K. Nair
  • Mohammad T. Dashti
  • Bruno Crispo
  • Andrew S. Tanenbaum
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 232)


The concept of an Ephemerizer system has been introduced in earlier works as a mechanism to ensure that a file deleted from the persistent storage remains unrecoverable. The principle involved storing the data in an encrypted form in the user’s machine and the key to decrypt the data in a physically separate machine. However the schemes proposed so far do not provide support for fine-grained user settings on the lifetime of the data nor support any mechanism to check the integrity of the system that is using the secret data. In addition we report the presence of a vulnerability in one version of the proposed scheme that can be exploited by an attacker to nullify the ephemeral nature of the keys. We propose and discuss in detail an alternate Identity Based cryptosystem powered scheme that overcomes the identified limitations of the original system.


Expiry Date Trust Platform Module Expiration Time Trust Computing Group Platform Configuration Register 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    United States Department of Defense (2006) National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual. DoD 5220.22-MGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perlman R(2005) The Ephemerizer: Making Data Disappear. Journal of Information System Security, Vol. 1(1), pp. 51–68Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perlman R (2005) File System Design with Assured Delete. Third IEEE International Security in Storage Workshop, pp. 83–88, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellare M, Canetti R, Krawczyk H (1996) Keying Hash Functions for Message Authentication. Advances in Cryptology — Crypto 96, LNCS 1109, Springer-Verlag, pp. 1–15Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crescenzo GD, Ferguson N, Impagliazzo R, Jakobsson M (1999) How to Forget a Secret. International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, LNCS 1563, Springer-Verlag, pp. 500–509Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shamir A (1984) Identity-based Cryptosystems and Signature Schemes. Advances in Cryptology — Crypto 84, LNCS 196, Springer-Verlag, pp. 47–53Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boneh D, Franklin F (2001) Identity-based Encryption from Weil Pairing. Advances in Cryptology — Crypto 2001, LNCS 2139, Springer-Verlag, pp. 213–229Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lang S (1973) Elliptic Functions. Addision-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frey G, Muller M, Ruck H (1999) The Tate Pairing and the Discrete Logarithm Applied to Elliptic Curve Cryptosystems. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 45(5)L1717–1719zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen L, Harrison K, Smart NP, Soldera D (2002) Applications of Multiple Trust Authorities in Pairing Based Cryptosystems. InfraSec 2002, LNCS 2437, Springer-Verlag, pp. 260–275Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gentry C (2003) Certificate-based Encryption and the Certificate Revocation Problem. Advances in Cryptology — Eurocrypt 2003, LNCS 25656, Springer-Verlag, pp. 272–293Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Al-Riyani S, Paterson K (2003) Certificateless Public Key Cryptography. Advances in Cryptology — Asiacrypt 2003, LNCS 2894, Springer-Verlag, pp. 452–473Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dyer J, Lindemann M, Perez R, Sailer R, van Doom L, Smith SW, Weingart S (2001) Building the IBM 4758 Secure Coprocessor. IEEE Computer Vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 57–66Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haldar V, Chandra D, Franz M (2004) Semantic Remote Attestation: A Virtual Machine Directed Approach to Trusted Computing. USENIX Virtual Machine Research and Technology Symposium, pp. 29–41Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abdalla M, Catalano D, Dent AW, Malone-Lee J, Neven G, Smart NP (2006) Identity-Based Encryption Gone Wild. Automata, Languages and Programming: 33rd International Colloquium, LNCS 4052, Springer-Verlag, pp. 300–311Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Trusted Computing Group (2006)
  17. 17.
    Trusted Computing Group (2006) Trusted Platform Module Main Specification, Part 1: Design Principles, Part 2: TPM Structures, Part 3: Commands, Version 1.2, Revision 94.
  18. 18.
    Sailer R, Zhang X, Jaeger T, vanDoom L (2004), Design and Implementation of a TCG-Based Integrity Measurement Architecture. 13th Usenix Security Symposium, USENIX, pp. 223–238Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Srijith K. Nair
    • 1
  • Mohammad T. Dashti
    • 2
  • Bruno Crispo
    • 1
    • 3
  • Andrew S. Tanenbaum
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. Computer ScienceVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.DTIUniversity of TrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations