Anonymity services in the EU may be forced by the new EU data retention directive to collect connection data and deanonymise some of their users in case of serious crimes. For this purpose, we propose a new privacy-friendly solution for incorporating revocation in an anonymous communication system. In contrast to other known methods, our scheme does not reveal the identity of a user to any other entity involved in the revocation procedure but the law enforcement agency. Another advantage is, that no user will need to provide more identifying information than his connection (IP) address, that is what he needs to communicate with the system anyway. The proposed scheme is based mainly on threshold group signatures and threshold atomic proxy re-encryption.


Signature Scheme Blind Signature Cryptographic Primitive Blind Signature Scheme Group Signature Scheme 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [BaNe99]
    Baumgart, M., Neumann, H.: Bezahlen von Mix-Netz-Diensten. Verläßliche IT-Systeme - VIS 1999, Vieweg (1999)Google Scholar
  2. [BeFK01]
    Berthold, O., Federrath, H., Köpsell, S.: Praktischer Schutz vor Flooding-Angriffen bei Chaumschen Mixen. In: Horster, P. (Hrsg.): Kommunikationssicherheit im Zeichen des Internet. DuD-Fachbeiträge, Vieweg, pp. 235–249 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. [BeGR98]
    Bellare, M., Garay, J.A., Rabin, T.: Fast Batch Verification for Modular Exponentiation and Digital Signatures. In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1403, pp. 236–250. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [CaGJ99]
    Canetti, R., Gennaro, R., Jarecki, S., Krawczyk, H., Rabin, T.: Adaptive Security for Threshold Cryptosystems. In: Wiener, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 1999. LNCS, vol. 1666, pp. 98–115. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [CaGr04]
    Camenisch, J.L., Groth, J.: Group Signatures: Better Efficiency and New Theoretical Aspects. In: Blundo, C., Cimato, S. (eds.) SCN 2004. LNCS, vol. 3352, pp. 120–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [CaKW04]
    Camenisch, J.L., Koprowski, M., Warinschi, B.: Efficient Blind Signatures Without Random Oracles. In: Blundo, C., Cimato, S. (eds.) SCN 2004. LNCS, vol. 3352, pp. 134–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [CaLy04]
    Camenisch, J., Lysyanskaya, A.: Signature Schemes and Anonymous Credentials from Bilinear Maps. In: Franklin, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3152, pp. 56–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [Chau81]
    Chaum, D.: Untraceable Electronic Mail, Return Addresses, and Digital Pseudonyms. Communications of the ACM 24(2), 84–88 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [Chau88]
    Chaum, D.: The dining cryptographers problem: Unconditional sender and recipient untraceability. Journal of Cryptology 1(1), 65–75 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [ClDí03]
    Claessens, J., Díaz, C., et al.: APES, Anonymity and Privacy in Electronic Services, Deliverable 10, Technologies for controlled anonymity, pp. 34–40 (2003),
  11. [EP05]
    European Parliament: European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication services and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (COM(2005)0438 C6-0293/2005 2005/0182(COD)) (2005)Google Scholar
  12. [FeGo04]
    Federrath, H., Golembiewski, C.: Speicherung von Nutzungsdaten durch Anonymisierungdienste im Internet. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit DuD 28(8), 486–490 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. [Golle04]
    Golle, P.: Reputable Mix Networks. In: Martin, D., Serjantov, A. (eds.) PET 2004. LNCS, vol. 3424, pp. 51–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [Jak99a]
    Jakobsson, M.: Flash mixing. In: Proc. of 1999 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pp. 83–89 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. [Jak99b]
    Jakobsson, M.: On Quorum Controlled Asymmetric Proxy Re-encryption. In: Imai, H., Zheng, Y. (eds.) PKC 1999. LNCS, vol. 1560, pp.112–121. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [KöMi05]
    Köpsell, S., Miosga, T.: Strafverfolgung trotz Anonymität - Rechtliche Reahmenbedingungen und technische Umsetzung, DuD Datenschutz und Datensicherheit, Heft 7, Vieweg, pp. 403–409 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. [Rab78]
    Rabin, M.: Digital signatures. In: DeMillo, R., Dobkin, D., Jones, A., Lipton, R. (eds.) Foundations of Secure Computation, pp. 155–168. Academic Press, London (1978)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Köpsell
    • 1
  • Rolf Wendolsky
    • 2
  • Hannes Federrath
    • 2
  1. 1.Dresden University of TechnologyGermany
  2. 2.University of RegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations