[ietf-privacy] anonymity definition in "draft-hansen-privacy-terminology-03"

zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn Thu, 09 February 2012 02:51 UTC

Return-Path: <zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07EED11E80B7 for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:51:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.688, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yCjlFfrmkdsZ for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C4911E80BE for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:51:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 56690753685861; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:24:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 5467.753685861; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:51:29 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q192pNke081942 for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:51:23 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn)
To: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OFCB4FE8AD.BBD4A5AE-ON4825799F.000C7A03-4825799F.000FB1CC@zte.com.cn>
From: zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:51:13 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-02-09 10:51:24, Serialize complete at 2012-02-09 10:51:24
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 000FB1CC4825799F_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn q192pNke081942
Subject: [ietf-privacy] anonymity definition in "draft-hansen-privacy-terminology-03"
X-BeenThere: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <ietf-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-privacy>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:51:45 -0000

Hi,all

the definition of anonymity
"Definition:  Anonymity of a subject from an attacker's perspective
      means that the attacker cannot sufficiently identify the subject
      within a set of subjects, the anonymity set.
"
1) is not clear about the content of anonymity set, will the real 
identities of candidate subjects be included?
2) has too much variance when evaluating a scheme's anonymity.

For example, draft-zhang-hip-privacy-protection-04 gives a privacy 
protection scheme by  hashing the real identity:
B-HIT-I=SHA-1(HIT-T,N)

and send B-HIT-I along with N (chosen for each session).

if suppose the attacker has no knowledge of HIT-I, or  a set of HIT-I, the 
scheme has a certain anonymity;
if suppose the attacker has knowledge of HIT-I, or a set of HIT-I(which is 
not difficult to collect), the scheme has no anonymity because he can try 
each HIT-I he knowes by
recalculating SHA-1.
 
The scheme has anonymity at first and has less anonymity with time went on 
and users have collected more HITs?

I think as a character of system, it should be stable.
 

Regards~~~

-Sujing Zhou