Results 1 
5 of
5
NonTransitive Transfer of Confidence: A Perfect ZeroKnowledge Interactive Protocol for SAT and Beyond
, 1986
"... A perfect zeroknowledge interactive proof is a protocol by which Alice can convince Bob of the truth of some theorem in a way that yields no information as to how the proof might proceed (in the sense of Shannon's information theory). We give a general technique for achieving this goal for any ..."
Abstract

Cited by 58 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A perfect zeroknowledge interactive proof is a protocol by which Alice can convince Bob of the truth of some theorem in a way that yields no information as to how the proof might proceed (in the sense of Shannon's information theory). We give a general technique for achieving this goal for any problem in NP (and beyond). The fact that our protocol is perfect zeroknowledge does not depend on unproved cryptographic assumptions. Furthermore, our protocol is powerful enough to allow Alice to convince Bob of theorems for which she does not even have a proof. Whenever Alice can convince herself probabilistically of a theorem, perhaps thanks to her knowledge of some trapdoor information, she can convince Bob as well, without compromising the trapdoor in any way. This results in a nontransitive transfer of confidence from Alice to Bob, because Bob will not be able to convince anyone else afterwards. Our protocol is dual to those of [GrMiWi86a, BrCr86]. 1. INTRODUCTION Assume that Alice h...
ZeroKnowledge Simulation of Boolean Circuits
, 1987
"... A zeroknowledge interactive proof is a protocol by which Alice can convince a polynomiallybounded Bob of the truth of some theorem without giving him any hint as to how the proof might proceed. Under cryptographic assumptions, we give a general technique for achieving this goal for any problem in ..."
Abstract

Cited by 42 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A zeroknowledge interactive proof is a protocol by which Alice can convince a polynomiallybounded Bob of the truth of some theorem without giving him any hint as to how the proof might proceed. Under cryptographic assumptions, we give a general technique for achieving this goal for any problem in NP. This extends to a presumably larger class, which combines the powers of nondeterminism and randomness. Our protocol is powerful enough to allow Alice to convince Bob of theorems for which she does not even have a proof. Whenever Alice can convince herself probabilistically of a theorem, perhaps thanks to her knowledge of some trapdoor information, she can convince Bob as well, without compromising the trapdoor in any way. 1. INTRODUCTION The notion of zeroknowledge interactive proofs (ZKIP) introduced a few years ago by Goldwasser, Micali and Rackoff [GwMiRac85] has become a very active research area. Assume that Alice holds the proof of some theorem. A zeroknowledge interactive pr...
Two Observations on Probabilistic Primality Testing
, 1987
"... In this note, we make two loosely related observations on Rabin's probabilistic primality test. The first remark gives a rather strange and provocative reason as to why is Rabin's test so good. It turns out that a single iteration fails with a nonnegligible probability on a composite numb ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this note, we make two loosely related observations on Rabin's probabilistic primality test. The first remark gives a rather strange and provocative reason as to why is Rabin's test so good. It turns out that a single iteration fails with a nonnegligible probability on a composite number of the form 4j +3 only if this number happens to be easy to split. The second observation is much more fundamental because is it not restricted to primality testing: it has profound consequences for the entire field of probabilistic algorithms. There we ask the question: how good is Rabin's algorithm? Whenever one wishes to produce a uniformly distributed random probabilistic prime with a given bound on the error probability, it turns out that the size of the desired prime must be taken into account.