Advertisement

A Topological Condition for Solving Fair Exchange in Byzantine Environments

  • Benoît Garbinato
  • Ian Rickebusch
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4307)

Abstract

In this paper, we study the solvability of fair exchange in the context of Byzantine failures. In doing so, we first present a generic model with trusted and untrusted processes, and propose a specification of the fair exchange problem that clearly separates safety and liveness, via fine-grained properties. We then show that the solvability of fair exchange depends on a necessary and sufficient topological condition, which we name the reachable majority condition. The first part of this result, i.e., the condition is necessary, was shown in a companion paper and is briefly recalled here. The second part, i.e., the condition is sufficient, is the focal point of this paper. The correctness proof of this second part consists in proposing a solution to fair exchange in the aforementioned model.

Keywords

Major Trustee Correct Process Failure Pattern Trusted Third Party Trust Platform Module 
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.
    Avoine, G., Gärtner, F., Guerraoui, R., Kursawe, K., Vaudenay, S., Vukolic, M.: Reducing fair exchange to atomic commit. Technical report, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avoine, G., Gärtner, F., Guerraoui, R., Vukolic, M.: Gracefully degrading fair exchange with security modules (extended abstract). In: Dal Cin, M., Kaâniche, M., Pataricza, A. (eds.) EDCC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3463, pp. 55–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Avoine, G., Vaudenay, S.: Fair exchange with guardian angels. Technical report, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garbinato, B., Rickebusch, I.: Impossibility results on fair exchange. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Innovative Internet Community Systems (I2CS 2006). LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Asokan, N., Shoup, V., Waidner, M.: Optimistic fair exchange of digital signatures. IEEE Journal on Selected Area in Communications 18, 593–610 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dyer, J., Lindemann, M., Perez, R., Sailer, R., van Doorn, L., Smith, S., Weingart, S.: Building the IBM 4758 secure coprocessor. Computer 34(10), 57–66 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bajikar, S.: Trusted Platform Module (TPM) based Security on Notebook PCs – White Paper. Intel Corporation – Mobile Platforms Group. (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doudou, A., Garbinato, B., Guerraoui, R.: Tolerating Arbitrary Failures with State Machine Replication. In: Dependable Computing Systems: Paradigms, Performance Issues, and Applications, pp. 27–56. Wiley, Chichester (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chandra, T.D., Toueg, S.: Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems. Journal of the ACM 43(2), 225–267 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hadzilacos, V., Toueg, S.: Fault-tolerant broadcasts and related problems, pp. 97–145 (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pagnia, H., Gärtner, F.: On the impossibility of fair exchange without a trusted third party. Technical report, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Drabkin, V., Friedman, R., Segal, M.: Efficient byzantine broadcast in wireless ad-hoc networks. In: DSN 2005: Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN 2005), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 160–169. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lamport, L., Shostak, R., Pease, M.: The byzantine generals problem. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 4(3), 382–401 (1982)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pease, M., Shostak, R., Lamport, L.: Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. Journal of the ACM 27(2), 228–234 (1980)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Markowitch, O., Gollmann, D., Kremer, S.: On fairness in exchange protocols. In: Lee, P.J., Lim, C.H. (eds.) ICISC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2587, pp. 451–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ray, I., Ray, I.: Fair exchange in e-commerce. SIGecom Exchanges 3(2) (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ateniese, G.: Efficient verifiable encryption (and fair exchange) of digital signatures. In: CCS 1999: Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pp. 138–146. ACM Press, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Franklin, M., Reiter, M.: Fair exchange with a semi-trusted third party (extended abstract). In: CCS 1997: Proceedings of the 4th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pp. 1–5. ACM Press, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Micali, S.: Simple and fast optimistic protocols for fair electronic exchange. In: PODC 2003: Proceedings of the twenty-second annual symposium on Principles of distributed computing, pp. 12–19. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ray, I., Ray, I., Natarajan, N.: An anonymous and failure resilient fair-exchange e-commerce protocol. Decision Support Systems 39(3), 267–292 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fischer, M., Lynch, N., Paterson, M.: Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process. J. ACM 32, 374–382 (1985)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Even, S., Yacobi, Y.: Relations among public key signature systems. Technical report, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology (1980)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ketchpel, S., García-Molina, H.: Making trust explicit in distributed commerce transactions. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chaum, D., Crépeau, C., Damgard, I.: Multiparty unconditionally secure protocols. In: STOC 1988: Proceedings of the 20th ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 11–19. ACM Press, New York (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goldreich, O.: The Foundations of Cryptography, vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bürk, H., Pfitzmann, A.: Value exchange systems enabling security and unobservability. Computers & Security 9(9), 715–721 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bao, F., Deng, R.H., Mao, W.: Efficient and practical fair exchange protocols with off-line TTP. In: RSP: 19th IEEE Computer Society Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baum-Waidner, B., Waidner, M.: Round-optimal and abuse free optimistic multi-party contract signing. In: Welzl, E., Montanari, U., Rolim, J.D.P. (eds.) ICALP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1853, pp. 524–535. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Srivatsa, M., Xiong, L., Liu, L.: Exchangeguard: A distributed protocol for electronic fair-exchange. In: 19th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS 2005). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goldwasser, S., Levin, L.: Fair computation of general functions in presence of immoral majority. In: Menezes, A., Vanstone, S.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 1990. LNCS, vol. 537, pp. 77–93. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benoît Garbinato
    • 1
  • Ian Rickebusch
    • 1
  1. 1.Université de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations