skip to main content
research-article

Improving Unlinkability of Attribute-based Authentication through Game Theory

Published:04 March 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This article first formalizes the problem of unlinkable attribute-based authentication in the system where each user possesses multiple assertions and uses them interchangeably. Currently, there are no recommendations for optimal usage of assertions in such authentication systems. To mitigate this issue, we use conditional entropy to measure the uncertainty for a Relying Party who attempts to link observed assertions with user labels. Conditional entropy is the function of usage statistics for all assertions in the system. Personal decisions made by the users about the usage of assertions contribute to these statistics. This collective effect from all the users impacts the unlinkability of authentication and must be studied using game theory. We specify several instances of the game where context information that is provided to the users differs. Through game theory and based on conditional entropy, we demonstrate how each user optimizes usage for the personal set of assertions. In the experiment, we substantiate the advantage of the proposed rational decision-making approaches: Unlinkability that we obtain under Nash equilibrium is higher than in the system where users authenticate using their assertions at random. We finally propose an algorithm that calculates equilibrium and assists users with the selection of assertions. This manifests that described techniques can be executed in realistic settings. This does not require modification of existing authentication protocols and can be implemented in platform-independent identity agents. As a use case, we describe how our technique can be used in Digital Credential Wallets: We suggest that unlinkability of authentication can be improved for Verifiable Credentials.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Alpár Gergely, Broek Fabian van den, Hampiholi Brinda, Jacobs Bart, Lueks Wouter, and Ringers Sietse. 2017. IRMA: Practical, decentralized and privacy-friendly identity management using smartphones. In Proceedings of the Hot Topics in Privacy Enhancing Technologies (HotPETs’17).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Angel Sebastian and Setty Srinath. 2016. Unobservable communication over fully untrusted infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI’16). USENIX Association, 551569. https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi16/technical-sessions/presentation/angel.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] Beduschi A., Cinnamon J., Langford J., Luo C., and Owen D.. 2017. Building digital identities: The challenges, risks and opportunities of collecting behavioural attributes for new digital identity systems. 40 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [4] Berbecaru Diana and Cameroni Cesare. 2020. ATEMA: An attribute enablement module for attribute retrieval and transfer through the eIDAS Network. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on System Theory, Control and Computing (ICSTCC’20). IEEE, 532539. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Berg Joyce, Dickhaut John, and McCabe Kevin. 1995. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 10, 1 (1995), 122142. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. [6] Bergemann Dirk and Morris Stephen. 2016. Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information structures in games. Theor. Econ. 11, 2 (2016), 487522. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] Berman Ron, Fiat Amos, and Ta-Shma Amnon. 2004. Provable unlinkability against traffic analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography. Springer, 266280.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Berners-Lee T., Fielding R., and Masinter L.. 2005. Uniform resource identifier (URI): Generic syntax. Retrieved from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] Birrell E. and Schneider F. B.. 2013. Federated identity management systems: A privacy-based characterization. IEEE Secur. Priv. 11, 5 (2013), 3648.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. [10] Boeckl Kaitlin R. and Lefkovitz Naomi B.. 2020. NIST Privacy Framework: A Tool for Improving Privacy through Enterprise Risk Management, Version 1.0. Special Publication. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [11] Boneh Dan, Boyen Xavier, and Shacham Hovav. 2004. Short group signatures. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual International Cryptology Conference (CRYPTO’04), Matt Franklin (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 41–55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. [12] Borowski E. J. and Borwein J. M.. 2002. Collins Dictionary of Mathematics. HarperCollins.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. [13] Brusó Mayla, Chatzikokolakis Konstantinos, Etalle Sandro, and Hartog Jerry Den. 2012. Linking unlinkability. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Trustworthy Global Computing, Catuscia Palamidessi and Mark D. Ryan (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 129–144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Camenisch J., Krenn S., Mikkelsen A. Lehmann G. L., Neven G., and Pedersen M. Ø.. 2014. D3. 1: Scientific comparison of ABC protocols. Part I-Formal Treatment of Privacy-Enhancing Credential Systems. Project deliverable in ABC4Trust (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. [15] Camenisch Jan and Lysyanskaya Anna. 2002. A signature scheme with efficient protocols. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Security in Communication Networks (SCN’02), Revised Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2576. Springer, 268289.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. [16] Carter Tom. 2007. An introduction to information theory and entropy. Complex Systems Summer School, Santa Fe.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Castle Sam, Pervaiz Fahad, Weld Galen, Roesner Franziska, and Anderson Richard. 2016. Let’s talk money: Evaluating the security challenges of mobile money in the developing world. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Symposium on Computing for Development. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, Article 4, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [18] Chadwick David W., Laborde Romain, Oglaza Arnaud, Venant Remi, Wazan Samer, and Nijjar Manreet. 2019. Improved identity management with verifiable credentials and FIDO. IEEE Commun. Stand. Mag. 3, 4 (2019), 1420.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Clark Mike. 2019. German government adds iPhone NFC identity card reading to digital ID app. Retrieved from https://www.nfcw.com/2019/10/01/364573/german-government-adds-iphone-nfc-identity-card-reading-to-digital-id-app/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Clark Sarah. 2020. Germany to begin rollout of open national digital identity service “later this year”. Retrieved from https://www.nfcw.com/2020/07/29/367360/germany-to-begin-rollout-of-open-national-digital-identity-service-later-this-year/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Clauß Sebastian and Schiffner Stefan. 2006. Structuring anonymity metrics. In Proceedings of the 2006 Workshop on Digital Identity Management, Alexandria, VA, USA, November 3, 2006, Ari Juels, Marianne Winslett, and Atsuhiro Goto (Eds.). ACM, 55–62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. [22] Coleman Thomas F. and Li Yuying. 1996. An interior trust region approach for nonlinear minimization subject to bounds. SIAM J. Optim. 6, 2 (1996), 418445.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Commission European. 2018. Looking ahead: The user experience of eIDAS-based eID. Value Proposition of eIDAS eID.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. [24] Cooper Alissa, Tschofenig Hannes, Aboba Bernard D., Peterson Jon, Morris John, Hansen Marit, and Smith Rhys. 2013. Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols. Request for Comments IETF RFC 6973. The Internet Engineering Task Force, Wilmington, DE. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] Davie Matthew, Gisolfi Dan, Hardman Daniel, Jordan John, O’Donnell Darrell, and Reed Drummond. 2019. The trust over ip stack. IEEE Commun. Stand. Mag. 3, 4 (2019), 4651.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. [26] Diaz Claudia, Seys Stefaan, Claessens Joris, and Preneel Bart. 2002. Towards measuring anonymity. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies Roger Dingledine and Paul Syverson (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 54–68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Dizme. 2021. The Key to Digital Identity. Retrieved from https://www.dizme.io/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. [28] Engle-Warnick Jim and Slonim Robert L.. 2004. The evolution of strategies in a repeated trust game. J. Econ. Behav. Organiz. 55, 4 (2004), 553573. DOI:Trust and Trustworthiness.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] European Commission. 2020-07-23. Proposal for a European Digital Identity (EUid) and Revision of the eIDAS Regulation. Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (2020-07-23).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. [30] Parliament European. 2014-07-23. Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the european parliament and of the council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC. Council of the European Union (2014-07-23).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Feige Uriel, Fiat Amos, and Shamir Adi. 1987. Zero Knowledge Proofs of Identity. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1987, New York, New York, USA, Aho Alfred V. (Ed.). ACM, 210–217. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. [32] Force Joint Task. 2020. Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations. Special Publication NIST SP 800-53 rev.5. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] Franz Matthias, Meyer Bernd, and Pashalidis Andreas. 2007. Attacking unlinkability: The importance of context. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. Springer, 116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. [34] Freudiger Julien, Manshaei Mohammad Hossein, Hubaux Jean-Pierre, and Parkes David C. 2009. On non-cooperative location privacy: A game-theoretic analysis. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 324337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. [35] Fudenberg Drew and Tirole Jean. 1991. Game Theory (11 ed.). The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] Ghosh Arpita and Ligett Katrina. 2013. Privacy as a coordination game. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton’13). IEEE, 16081615.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] Gonçalves Sérgio Manuel Nóbrega, Tomasi Alessandro, Bisegna Andrea, Pellizzari Giulio, and Ranise Silvio. 2020. Verifiable Contracting. In Computer Security, Boureanu Ioana, Cǎtǎlin Drǎgan Constantin, Manulis Mark, Giannetsos Thanassis, Dadoyan Christoforos, Gouvas Panagiotis, Hallman Roger A., Li Shujun, Chang Victor, Pallas Frank, Pohle Jörg, and Sasse Angela (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 133–144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. [38] Grassi Paul A., Garcia Michael E., and Fenton James L.. 2020. Digital Identity Guidelines. Standard NIST SP 800-63-3. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. [39] Grassi Paul A., Lefkovitz Naomi B., Nadeau Ellen M., Galluzzo Ryan J., and Dinh Abhiraj T.. 2018. Attribute Metadata: A Proposed Schema for Evaluating Federated Attributes. Technical Report NISTIR 8112. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. [40] Halpern Joseph Y. and O’Neill Kevin R.. 2005. Anonymity and information hiding in multiagent systems. J. Comput. Secur. 13, 3 (2005), 483514.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. [41] Harsanyi John C.. 1967. Games with incomplete information played by “Bayesian” players, I–III Part I. the basic model. Manage. Sci. 14, 3 (1967), 159182. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] Hopper Nicholas, Vasserman Eugene Y., and Chan-TIN Eric. 2010. How much anonymity does network latency leak?ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 13, 2, Article 13 (March 2010), 28 pages. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [43] Hu Vincent C., Ferraiolo David F., and Kuhn D. Richard. 2019. Attribute Considerations for Access Control Systems. Recommendation NIST SP 800-205. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. [44] Humbert Mathias, Manshaei Mohammad Hossein, Freudiger Julien, and Hubaux Jean-Pierre. 2010. Tracking games in mobile networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Decision and Game Theory for Security. Springer, 3857.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. [45] IDunion. 2021. An open ecosystem for trusted identities. Retrieved from https://idunion.org/?lang=en.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. [46] Secretary ISO Central. 2012. Information Technology–Security Techniques–Security Assurance Framework–Part 1: Introduction and Concepts. Technical Report ISO/IEC TR 15443-1:2012(E). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. [47] Secretary ISO Central. 2018. Information Technology–Security Techniques–Information Security Risk Management. Standard ISO/IEC 27005:2018(E). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. [48] Secretary ISO Central. 2019. Systems and Software Engineering–Systems and Software Assurance–Part 1: Concepts and Vocabulary. Standard ISO/IEC/IEEE 15026-1:2019(E). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. [49] Secretary ISO Central. 2020. Information Security, Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection–Evaluation Criteria for IT Security–Part 2: Security Functional Components. Standard ISO/IEC DIS 15408-2:2020(E). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. [50] Secretary ISO Central. 2020. Information Technology–Requirements for Attribute-based Unlinkable Entity Authentication. Standard ISO/IEC DIS 27551. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. [51] ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector of. 2017. ITU-T Focus Group Digital Financial Services: Main Recommendations. Standard. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, CH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. [52] Jones M.. 2015. JSON web key (JWK). Retrieved from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7517.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. [53] Jones Michael and Hildebrand Joe. 2015. JSON Web Encryption (JWE). Request for Comments IETF RFC 7516. The Internet Engineering Task Force, Wilmington, DE. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. [54] Kearns Michael, Pai Mallesh, Roth Aaron, and Ullman Jonathan. 2014. Mechanism design in large games: Incentives and privacy. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science. 403410.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. [55] Kellogg Gregg, Champin Pierre-Antoine, and Longley Dave. 2020. JSON-LD 1.1: A JSON-based Serialization for Linked Data. Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. [56] Klyne G. and Newman C.. 2002. Date and time on the Internet: Timestamps. Retrieved from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. [57] Kubach Michael, Roßnagel Heiko, and Sellung Rachelle. 2013. Service providers’ requirements for eID solutions: Empirical evidence from the leisure sector. Open Identity Summit 2013 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. [58] Lesavre Loic, Varin Priam, Mell Peter, Davidson Michael, and Shook James. 2019. A taxonomic approach to understanding emerging blockchain identity management systems. CoRR abs/1908.00929 (2019). arXiv:1908.00929 http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.00929Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. [59] Liu Xinxin, Liu Kaikai, Guo Linke, Li Xiaolin, and Fang Yuguang. 2013. A game-theoretic approach for achieving k-anonymity in location based services. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’13). IEEE, 29852993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. [60] Longley Dave and Sporny Manu. 2020. RSA Signature Suite 2018. Specification. World Wide Web Consortium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. [61] Minami Kiraku. 2020. Trace equivalence and epistemic logic to express security properties. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Techniques for Distributed Objects, Components, and Systems. Springer, 115132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. [62] Nohl K. and Evans D.. 2009. Privacy through noise: A design space for private identification. In Proceedings of the Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. 518527.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. [63] Otto Nate, Lee Sunny, Sletten Brian, Burnett Daniel, Sporny Manu, and Ebert Ken. 2019. Verifiable Credentials Use Cases. Guide. World Wide Web Consortium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. [64] Ouafi Khaled and Phan Raphael C.-W.. 2008. Privacy of recent RFID authentication protocols. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Security Practice and Experience. Springer, 263277.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. [65] Pfitzmann Andreas and Hansen Marit. 2010. A terminology for talking about privacy by data minimization: Anonymity, unlinkability, undetectability, unobservability, pseudonymity, and identity management.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. [66] Filho Walter Priesnitz, Ribeiro Carlos, and Zefferer Thomas. 2019. Privacy-preserving attribute aggregation in eID federations. Fut. Gener. Comput. Syst. 92 (2019), 116. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. [67] Pudlák Pavel. 2013. Proofs of impossibility. In Logical Foundations of Mathematics and Computational Complexity. Springer, 255364.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. [68] Quintyne-Collins Mikerah, Vescent Heather, O’Donnell Darrell, Slepak Greg, Brown Michael, Allen Christoper, and Ruther Michael. [n. d.]. Digital credential wallets.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. [69] Reed Drummond, Sporny Manu, Longley Dave, Allen Christopher, Grant Ryan, and Sabadello Markus. 2021. Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0: Core Architecture, Data Model, and Representations. Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. [70] Servos Daniel and Osborn Sylvia L.. 2017. Current research and open problems in attribute-based access control. ACM Comput. Surv. 49, 4 (2017), 145.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. [71] Sniedovich Moshe. 2016. Wald’s mighty maximin: A tutorial. Int. Trans. Operat. Res. 23, 4 (2016), 625653. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. [72] Sporny Manu, Grant Noble, Longley Dave, Burnett Daniel, and Zundel Brent. 2019. Verifiable Credentials Data Model v1.0: Expressing Verifiable Information on the Web. Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. [73] Steinbrecher Sandra and Köpsell Stefan. 2003. Modelling Unlinkability. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Third International Workshop, PET 2003, Dresden, Germany, March 26-28, 2003, Revised Papers (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2760), Dingledine Roger (Ed.). Springer, 32–47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. [74] Toth Kalman C., Cavoukian Ann, and Anderson-Priddy Alan. 2020. Privacy by design architecture composed of identity agents decentralizing control over digital identity. In Proceedings of the Open Identity Summit, Roßnagel Heiko, Schunck Christian H., Müdersheim Sebastian, and Hühnlein Detlef (Eds.). Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Bonn, 163170. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. [75] Wagner Isabel and Eckhoff David. 2018. Technical privacy metrics: A systematic survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 3 (2018), 138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Improving Unlinkability of Attribute-based Authentication through Game Theory

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security
      ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security  Volume 25, Issue 2
      May 2022
      263 pages
      ISSN:2471-2566
      EISSN:2471-2574
      DOI:10.1145/3505216
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 4 March 2022
      • Accepted: 1 November 2021
      • Revised: 1 August 2021
      • Received: 1 March 2021
      Published in tops Volume 25, Issue 2

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Refereed
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)224
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)18

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!