scholarly journals Infinite families of optimal splitting authentication codes secure against spoofing attacks of higher order

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yeow Meng Chee ◽  
◽  
Xiande Zhang ◽  
Hui Zhang ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 87-94
Author(s):  
Stela Zhelezova

Abstract The (v, u×c, λ)-splitting balanced incomplete block designs correspond to c-splitting authentication codes. We classify splitting balanced incomplete block designs with definite parameters.


2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Maura B. Paterson ◽  
Douglas R. Stinson

<p style='text-indent:20px;'>A splitting BIBD is a type of combinatorial design that can be used to construct splitting authentication codes with good properties. In this paper we show that a design-theoretic approach is useful in the analysis of more general splitting authentication codes. Motivated by the study of algebraic manipulation detection (AMD) codes, we define the concept of a <i>group generated</i> splitting authentication code. We show that all group-generated authentication codes have perfect secrecy, which allows us to demonstrate that algebraic manipulation detection codes can be considered to be a special case of an authentication code with perfect secrecy.</p><p style='text-indent:20px;'>We also investigate splitting BIBDs that can be "equitably ordered". These splitting BIBDs yield authentication codes with splitting that also have perfect secrecy. We show that, while group generated BIBDs are inherently equitably ordered, the concept is applicable to more general splitting BIBDs. For various pairs <inline-formula><tex-math id="M1">\begin{document}$ (k, c) $\end{document}</tex-math></inline-formula>, we determine necessary and sufficient (or almost sufficient) conditions for the existence of <inline-formula><tex-math id="M2">\begin{document}$ (v, k \times c, 1) $\end{document}</tex-math></inline-formula>-splitting BIBDs that can be equitably ordered. The pairs for which we can solve this problem are <inline-formula><tex-math id="M3">\begin{document}$ (k, c) = (3, 2), (4, 2), (3, 3) $\end{document}</tex-math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><tex-math id="M4">\begin{document}$ (3, 4) $\end{document}</tex-math></inline-formula>, as well as all cases with <inline-formula><tex-math id="M5">\begin{document}$ k = 2 $\end{document}</tex-math></inline-formula>.</p>


2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Povinelli ◽  
Gabrielle C. Glorioso ◽  
Shannon L. Kuznar ◽  
Mateja Pavlic

Abstract Hoerl and McCormack demonstrate that although animals possess a sophisticated temporal updating system, there is no evidence that they also possess a temporal reasoning system. This important case study is directly related to the broader claim that although animals are manifestly capable of first-order (perceptually-based) relational reasoning, they lack the capacity for higher-order, role-based relational reasoning. We argue this distinction applies to all domains of cognition.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document