Privacy Amplification Sample Clauses

Privacy Amplification. Comparing the security condition given in Definition 1.8 with Xxxxxxx’x criterion of secu- rity (perfect security) given in Definition 1.6 implies that a secure communication is the sense of Definition 1.8 is not necessarily a secure communication in the sense of Defini- tion 1.6. That is, Definition 1.8 requires only Xxx’s ratio of information about the message to be negligible. Hence, she can gain a possibly considerable amount of information about the message. Similarly, Condition 1.18b guarantees that only Xxx’s ratio of information about the key is negligible but not her information about any single bit of the key. On the other hand, a pair of agreed keys according to Definition 1.11 guarantees only a secure communication in the sense of Definition 1.8 according to Lemma 1.2. Conclusively, Definition 1.8 and Definition 1.11 are too weak to provide privacy require- ments [7,8] for the entire message and the entire key, respectively. Thus, the AS conditions in these definitions are referred to as the weak sense of security in the literature [3, 41]. Also, the achievable key rate and key capacity introduced in Definition 1.11 are known as the weak sense of achievable key rate and that of key capacity, respectively 19. New definition for the achievable key rate is given below to assure that the entire key is secure. Following [3], we first combine the security and the randomness conditions of Definition 1.11 into a security index S(n) , log(|K|) — H(K|z, e, P ) , (1.30)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Privacy Amplification. After information reconciliation, Xxxxx and Xxx both know x0 but cannot use it as key, since Xxx has some information about it (in fact, Xxx knows some positions of x0 with certainty in our setting). Xxxxx and Xxx rectify this situation in the next step, called privacy amplification. The simple idea is that Xxxxx and Xxx can apply a strong extractor: Xxxxx chooses a seed uniformly at random and sends it to Bob. Then, they both apply the extractor to x0. Since for Eve x0 has large min-entropy, this gives a bit string which is close to uniform with respect to Xxx’s information.
Privacy Amplification. The Alices apply a privacy amplification protocol to generate the final key systems XX0 XX0 · · · XXX . The winning condition for the M -partite parity-CHSH game is [RMW18] a1,j ⊕ a2,j = x1,j ∧ x2,j ⊕ Mi=3 ai,j ! , (2) M 4 where a1,j, . . . , xX,x, x0,x, and x2,j are realizations of the random variables specified in round j of the RMW18 Protocol. The winning probability for an arbitrary classical strategy is PCHSH = 3 . The Xxxx inequality corresponding to the classical–quantum threshold in the tripartite case is [HKB20] ν = O1O+O3 − O0O− ≤ 1, (3) i where O± = (O0 ± O1)/2, i refers to the ith party, and O0 and O1 are observables corresponding to the inputs 0 and 1, respectively, and are defined in [HKB20].
Privacy Amplification. [9] The transmitter and the legiti- mate receiver publicly agree on a deterministic function they apply to their common sequence to generate a secret key. In this work, we focus primarily on the first phase of the key- distillation process and we investigate the optimal transmission strategy to adopt when the terminals in the network deploy multiple antennas. of messages over the public channel. A secret-key rate is defined as the ratio between the number of key bits k obtained at the end of a key-distillation strategy and the number of noisy channel uses n required to obtain it. A secret-key rate R = k/n is achievable if there exists a secret-key distillation strategy such that, • on denoting the secret key distilled at the transmitter and that at the legitimate receiver by K and Kˆ, the error probability is zero asymptotically, that is: public communication channel W nR R + YnR B lim n→∞ P hK =/ Kˆi = 0; (3) A XnT HE HR + ZnE E W • the mutual information between the secret key and the eavesdropper observations is arbitrarily low (strong se- crecy constraint [11]); that is, if we denote the messages sent on the public two-way channel by the the random variable F and we collect the outputs of the eavesdropper nE E

Related to Privacy Amplification

  • Privacy Statement 6.1. The Parties agree to keep all information related to the signing and fulfillment of this Agreement confidential, and not to disclose it to any third parties, except for subcontractors involved in this agreement, unless prior written consent is obtained from the other Party. Should subcontractors be engaged under this agreement, they are required to adhere to its terms and conditions.

  • Privacy Act If performance involves design, development or operation of a system of records on individuals, this Agreement incorporates by reference FAR 52.224-1 Privacy Act Notification (Apr 1984) and FAR 52.224-2 Privacy Act (Apr 1984).

  • CERTIFICATION REGARDING DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS The undersigned (authorized official signing for the contracting organization) certifies that the contractor will, or will continue to, provide a drug-free workplace in accordance with 45 CFR Part 76 by:

  • Privacy Compliance The Provider shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to Student Data privacy and security, all as may be amended from time to time.

  • Health Information System i. As required by 42 CFR 438.242(a), the MCP shall maintain a health information system that collects, analyzes, integrates, and reports data. The system shall provide information on areas including, but not limited to, utilization, grievances and appeals, and MCP membership terminations for other than loss of Medicaid eligibility.

  • Data Encryption Contractor must encrypt all State data at rest and in transit, in compliance with FIPS Publication 140-2 or applicable law, regulation or rule, whichever is a higher standard. All encryption keys must be unique to State data. Contractor will secure and protect all encryption keys to State data. Encryption keys to State data will only be accessed by Contractor as necessary for performance of this Contract.

  • HIPAA To the extent (if any) that DXC discloses “Protected Health Information” or “PHI” as defined in the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules (45 CFR, Part 160-164) issued pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) to Supplier or Supplier accesses, maintains, uses, or discloses PHI in connection with the performance of Services or functions under this Agreement, Supplier will: (a) not use or further disclose PHI other than as permitted or required by this Agreement or as required by law; (b) use appropriate safeguards to prevent use or disclosure of PHI other than as provided for by this Agreement, including implementing requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule with regard to electronic PHI; (c) report to DXC any use or disclosure of PHI not provided for under this Agreement of which Supplier becomes aware, including breaches of unsecured protected health information as required by 45 CFR §164.410, (d) in accordance with 45 CFR §164.502(e)(1)(ii), ensure that any subcontractors or agents of Supplier that create, receive, maintain, or transmit PHI created, received, maintained or transmitted by Supplier on DXC’s behalf, agree to the same restrictions and conditions that apply to Supplier with respect of such PHI; (e) make available PHI in a Designated Record Set (if any is maintained by Supplier) in accordance with 45 CFR section 164.524;

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.