Advertisement

A Secure E-Tender Submission Protocol

  • Rong Du
  • Colin Boyd
  • Ernest Foo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4083)

Abstract

There is fundamental difference between a simple e-tender box and a traditional physical tender box. Access to the e-tender box has become a private activity in contrast with the public access to a traditional tender box. A significant opportunity is therefore created for malicious business collusion by use of a simple e-tender box even though it may have cryptographic keys. This indicates that a different approach to the e-tender box is needed. This paper presents a secure e-tender submission protocol to address the advanced security requirements in e-tender submission. The principles of commitment schemes have been applied to the protocol design to prevent submission time dispute and collusion between favoured parties. The protocol is assumed to run under the condition that all tendering parties (principal and tenderers) are dishonest players. The security analysis shows that the protocol meets its security goals under well known colluding scenarios.

Keywords

Time Stamp Commitment Scheme Security Goal Tender Opening Submission Time 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Buldas, A., Laud, P.: New linking schemes for digital time-stamping. In: Information Security and Cryptology, pp. 3–13 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buldas, A., Laud, P., Lipmaa, H., Villemson, J.: Time-stamping with Binary Linking Schemes. In: Krawczyk, H. (ed.) CRYPTO 1998. LNCS, vol. 1462, pp. 486–501. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Damgård, I.B.: Commitment schemes and zero-knowledge protocols. In: Damgård, I.B. (ed.) EEF School 1998. LNCS, vol. 1561, p. 63. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Du, R., Foo, E., Boyd, C., Raymond, K.-K.: Formal analysis of secure contracting protocol for e-tendering. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Steketee, C., Susilo, W. (eds.) Fourth Australasian Information Security Workshop (Network Security) (AISW 2006), Hobart, Australia. CRPIT, vol. 54, pp. 155–164. Australian Computer Society Inc. and ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haber, S., Stornetta, W.S.: How to time-stamp a digital document. Journal of Cryptology 3(2), 99–111 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Massias, H., Serret, X., Quisquater, J.-J.: Main issues on their use and implementation. In: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises - Fourth International Workshop on Enterprise Security, IEEE 8th International Workshop on Enabling Technologies, pp. 178–183 (1999) ISBN 0-7695-0365-9Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pedersen, T.P.: A threshold cryptosystem without a trusted party. In: Davies, D.W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1991. LNCS, vol. 547, pp. 522–526. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Une, M.: The security evaluation of time stamping schemes: The present situation and studies. In: IMES Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, number No.2001-E-18 in IMES Discussion Paper Series. Bank of Japan, C.P.O BOX 203 Tokyo 100-8630 Japan (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Une, M., Matsumoto, T.: A framework to evaluate security and cost of time stamping schemes. IEICE Trans. Fundamentals E85-A, 125–139 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rong Du
    • 1
  • Colin Boyd
    • 1
  • Ernest Foo
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Security Institute (ISI), Faculty of Information TechnologyQueensland University of TechnologyAustralia

Personalised recommendations