Computational Aspects of Ideal (tn)-Threshold Scheme of Chen, Laing, and Martin

  • Mayur PunekarEmail author
  • Qutaibah Malluhi
  • Yvo Desmedt
  • Yongee Wang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11261)


In CANS 2016, Chen, Laing, and Martin proposed an ideal (tn)-threshold secret sharing scheme (the CLM scheme) based on random linear code. However, in this paper we show that this scheme is essentially same as the one proposed by Karnin, Greene, and Hellman in 1983 (the KGH scheme) from privacy perspective. Further, the authors did not analyzed memory or XOR operations required to either store or calculate an inverse matrix needed for recovering the secret. In this paper, we analyze computational aspects of the CLM scheme and discuss various methods through which the inverse matrix required during the secret recovery can be obtained. Our analysis shows that for \(n \le 30\) all the required inverse matrices can be stored in memory whereas for \(30 \le n < 9000\) calculating the inverse as and when required is more appropriate. However, the CLM scheme becomes impractical for \(n > 9000\). Another method which we discuss to recover the secret in KGH scheme is to obtain only the first column of the inverse matrix using Lagrange’s interpolation however, as we show, this method can not be used with the CLM scheme. Some potential application of the secret sharing schemes are also discussed. From our analysis we conclude that the CLM scheme is neither novel nor as practical as has been suggested by Chen et al. whereas the KGH scheme is better suited for practical applications with large n.



This publication was made possible by the NPRP award NPRP8-2158-1-423 from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of The Qatar Foundation). The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Shamir, A.: How to share a secret. Commun. ACM 22(11), 612–613 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blakely, G.: Safeguarding cryptographic keys. In: Proceedings of the National Computer Conference, vol. 48, pp. 313–317 (1979)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kurihara, J., Kiyomoto, S., Fukushima, K., Tanaka, T.: A new \((k, n)\)-threshold secret sharing scheme and its extension. In: Wu, T.-C., Lei, C.-L., Rijmen, V., Lee, D.-T. (eds.) ISC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5222, pp. 455–470. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kurihara, J., Kiyomoto, S., Fukushima, K., Tanaka, T.: A fast \((3, n)\)-threshold secret sharing scheme using exclusive-or operations. IEICE Trans. Fundam. Electron. Commun. Comput. Sci. 91(1), 127–138 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lv, C., Jia, X., Tian, L., Jing, J., Sun, M.: Efficient ideal threshold secret sharing schemes based on exclusive-or operations. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Network and System Security (NSS), pp. 136–143 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lv, C., Jia, X., Lin, J., Jing, J., Tian, L., Sun, M.: Efficient secret sharing schemes. In: Park, J.J., Lopez, J., Yeo, S.-S., Shon, T., Taniar, D. (eds.) STA 2011. CCIS, vol. 186, pp. 114–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang, Y., Desmedt, Y.: Efficient secret sharing schemes achieving optimal information rate. In: Proceedings of IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW) 2014, Tasmania, Australia, pp. 516–520, November 2014Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, L., Camble, P.T., Watkins, M.R., Henry, I.J.: Utilizing error correction (ECC) for secure secret sharing. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP, World Intellectual Property Organisation. Patent Number WO2016048297 (2016).
  9. 9.
    Chen, L., Laing, T.M., Martin, K.M.: Efficient, XOR-based, ideal \((t,n)\)- threshold schemes. In: Foresti, S., Persiano, G. (eds.) CANS 2016. LNCS, vol. 10052, pp. 467–483. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karnin, E., Greene, J., Hellman, M.: On secret sharing systems. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 29(1), 35–41 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beimel, A.: Secret-sharing schemes: a survey. In: Chee, Y.M., et al. (eds.) IWCC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6639, pp. 11–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  12. 12.
    McEliece, R.J., Sarwate, D.V.: On sharing secrets and Reed-Solomon codes. Commun. ACM 24(9), 583–584 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berlekamp, E.R.: Algebraic Coding Theory, Revised edn. Aegean Park Press, Laguna Hills (1984). Previous publisher. McGraw-Hill, New York [1968]. ISBN 0-89412-063-8zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berlekamp, E., McEliece, R., van Tilborg, H.: On the inherent intractability of certain coding problems. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 24(3), 384–386 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Worsch, T.: Lower and Upper Bounds for (Sums of) Binomial Coefficients.
  16. 16.
    Bunch, J.R., Hopcroft, J.E.: Triangular factorization and inversion by fast matrix multiplication. Math. Comput. 28(125), 231–236 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coppersmith, D., Winograd, S.: Matrix multiplication via arithmetic progressions. J. Symb. Comput. 9(3), 251–280 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strassen, V.: Gaussian elimination is not optimal. Numerische Mathematik 13(4), 354–356 (1969)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    NTL: A Library for doing Number Theory.
  20. 20.
    Forsythe, G.E., Leibler, R.A.: Matrix inversion by a Monte Carlo method. Math. Tables Other Aids Comput. 4(31), 127–129 (1950)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu, C.L.: Introduction to Combinatorial Mathematics. McGraw-Hill, New York (1968)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cramer, R., Fehr, S., Stam, M.: Black-box secret sharing from primitive sets in algebraic number fields. In: Shoup, V. (ed.) CRYPTO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3621, pp. 344–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mayur Punekar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Qutaibah Malluhi
    • 1
  • Yvo Desmedt
    • 2
  • Yongee Wang
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringQatar UniversityDohaQatar
  2. 2.The University of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA
  3. 3.Department of SISUNC CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations