White Paper – Elevating Cybersecurity with Quantum-Resistant Computing (QRC)
Abstract
In an era where organizational success hinges on the availability and integrity of critical information, and connectivity is pervasive, safeguarding data against malicious actors is not simply a priority but an imperative. Cybersecurity stands as the frontline defender in this relentless battle, leveraging state- of-the-art technologies to fortify digital infrastructure against an ever- evolving array of threats. Yet, as the looming shadow of quantum computing casts doubt on the eGicacy of conventional cryptographic methods, a new paradigm emerges – Quantum-resistant Cryptography (QRC).
This white paper serves as an exploration into the realm of QRC and its pivotal role in ushering cybersecurity to unparalleled heights. With a keen focus on unravelling the principles, confronting the challenges, and unveiling the practical applications of QRC, PrivID empowers stakeholders across industries, providing them with the necessary tools to navigate the dynamic landscape of digital security with confidence.
Throughout the ensuing sections, we will examine the foundational concepts underpinning our QRC framework, dissect the potential vulnerabilities introduced by quantum computing to traditional cryptographic algorithms, and show how our strategies and solutions eGectively mitigate these risks. We will delve into examples, demonstrating how PrivID's technology not only resolves current security threats but also anticipates and pre- emptively addresses those looming on the horizon.
In response to the escalating advancements in quantum computing and the vulnerabilities posed to conventional cryptographic methods, PrivID has embraced a proactive stance by integrating QRC with cutting- edge technologies such as Zero -Knowledge Proofs (ZKP) and Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE). This strategic fusion forms a strong defence mechanism, ensuring resilience against emerging threats in digital security. Recognizing the critical significance of safeguarding sensitive data amidst the ever-growing cyber threats, PrivID employs a multi-layered security strategy. Leveraging the inherent strengths of ZKP and FHE, PrivID eGectively transcends the limitations of traditional encryption methods, oGering a holistic solution to the escalating sophistication of contemporary cybersecurity challenges.
The Security of the Future: An Introduction to PrivID
Zero -Knowledge
Proofs (ZKP) in Static and Dynamic States:
Zero -Knowledge Proofs (ZKP) play a pivotal role in ensuring data security at rest. PrivID employs ZKP to allow entities to prove knowledge of specific information without revealing that information itself. This is particularly eGective in scenarios where static data, such as stored user credentials or personal information, needs to be safeguarded.
In dynamic states, where data is in constant flux, ZKP ensures the integrity and authenticity of data transactions without disclosing the underlying details. This capability is crucial for securing realtime interactions and transactions within a system.
White Paper – Elevating Cybersecurity with Quantum-Resistant Computing (QRC)
End-to -End Encryption: Introducing Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE):
Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) is a cryptographic technique (originally developed at MIT in the 1980’s, however, the computing power for day-to - day operations was not available until recently) that enables computations on encrypted data without decrypting it first. PrivID leverages FHE to provide end-to - end encryption for communication systems. By doing so, PrivID ensures that data remains confidential during transmission and is only decrypted by the intended recipient, oGering an unparalleled level of security.
By incorporating FHE into its architecture, PrivID ensures that communication systems remain resilient against eavesdropping and unauthorised access. This level of encryption significantly enhances the security of sensitive communications, protecting them from potential breaches.
Preventing Man-In-The-Middle (MITM) Attacks
Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) and Zero -Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) are cryptographic techniques that prevent Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attacks in diGerent ways:
1. Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE): FHE allows computations to be performed on encrypted data without decrypting it. This means that even if an attacker intercepts the encrypted data, they cannot decipher its contents. Thus, in a communication scenario where FHE is used, even if an attacker attempts a MITM attack to intercept and modify the encrypted data, they wouldn't be able to understand or modify it without the appropriate decryption key.
2. Zero -Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs): ZKPs allow one party (the prover) to prove to another party (the verifier) that they possess certain knowledge without revealing the knowledge itself. In the context of preventing MITM attacks, ZKPs can be used in authentication protocols. For instance, in a ZKPbased authentication scheme, the prover can prove their identity to the verifier without revealing their identity credentials (like passwords or cryptographic keys). This prevents an attacker from impersonating either party in a communication channel because they cannot generate valid proofs without possessing the required knowledge.
In summary, FHE prevents MITM attacks by ensuring that intercepted encrypted data remains unintelligible to attackers, while ZKPs prevent MITM attacks by allowing secure authentication without revealing sensitive information that could be exploited by attackers.
Preventing SMTP Smuggling:
Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) and Zero -Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) can contribute to preventing SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) smuggling through diGerent mechanisms:
1. Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE): In the context of SMTP smuggling, FHE can be used to encrypt the SMTP traGic, making it indecipherable to potential attackers attempting to manipulate the data in transit. By encrypting the SMTP messages, FHE prevents attackers from understanding or modifying the content of the messages, thus thwarting SMTP smuggling attempts.
White Paper – Elevating Cybersecurity with Quantum-Resistant Computing (QRC)
2. Zero -Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs): In SMTP smuggling attacks, attackers may attempt to manipulate the SMTP headers or payloads to bypass security measures or exploit vulnerabilities. ZKPs can be employed to provide cryptographic proofs that validate the integrity of SMTP transactions without revealing the actual content of the messages. This allows SMTP servers to verify the legitimacy of incoming messages without being vulnerable to manipulation or tampering by malicious actors.
In summary, FHE prevents SMTP smuggling by encrypting the SMTP traGic, rendering it unreadable to attackers, while ZKPs help maintain the integrity and authenticity of SMTP transactions, ensuring that messages have not been tampered with during transit.
Quantum-Resistant Cryptography (QRC):
Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) and Zero -Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) play crucial roles in enhancing the security and privacy of Quick Response Codes (QRC) through the following mechanisms:
1. Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE): In the context of QRC, FHE can be employed to encrypt sensitive information embedded within the code itself. This ensures that even if the QRC is intercepted or scanned by unauthorised parties, the underlying data remains encrypted and inaccessible without the appropriate decryption key. By leveraging FHE, QRC systems can enhance data confidentiality and thwart unauthorised access to sensitive information.
2. Zero -Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs): In the context of QRC, ZKPs can be utilized to verify the authenticity or validity of the code without disclosing its contents. For example, a ZKP-based authentication scheme can be implemented to validate the integrity of the QRC data without exposing the underlying information to verification parties. This ensures that QRCs can be securely authenticated and validated without compromising data privacy.
In summary, FHE and ZKPs contribute to enhancing the security and privacy of Quick Response Codes by enabling encrypted data processing and authentication mechanisms that protect sensitive information from unauthorised access and ensure the integrity of the code contents.
Underlying Technology:
In the evolution of our Zero -Knowledge Proofs (ZKP) and Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) system, we harness an array of technologies, including Java, Python, Rust, WebAssembly, and more. Concurrently, our team is actively engaged in the seamless integration of Generative AI, enhancing the dynamic capabilities of our system.
Current Security Protocols
Here we will briefly examine some of the current security protocols in use today, and their weaknesses. The list is not comprehensive, it is meant purely to illustrate that the weaknesses are known, and as a result, they are easily exploited. These exploits lead to the many breaches that happen on a minute-by-minute basis. While there is also a ‘Social Engineering’ aspect to breaches, it is beyond the scope of this document.
1. RSA (Rivest-Shamir-Adleman):
• Purpose: Asymmetric encryption, digital signatures.
• Key Lengths: The security of RSA relies on the diGiculty of factoring large composite numbers. Key lengths are typically 2048 or 3072 bits.
• Weaknesses: The main potential weakness is the risk of breakthroughs in factoring large numbers using quantum computers. In anticipation of this, larger key lengths are recommended.
2. AES (Advanced Encryption Standard):
• Purpose: Symmetric encryption for securing sensitive data.
• Key Lengths: AES supports key lengths of 128, 192, or 256 bits.
• Weaknesses: No practical weaknesses have been identified in AES itself. However, the strength of AES depends on the secrecy of the key, and proper implementation is crucial to prevent side- channel attacks.
3. TLS (Transport Layer Security):
• Purpose: Secure communication over a computer network.
• Protocols: TLS 1.2, TLS 1.3 (latest per this document).
• Weaknesses: Vulnerabilities in specific implementations, downgrade attacks, and issues with outdated versions have been identified. It's crucial to use the latest version and follow best practices.
4. DES* (Data Encryption Standard):
• Purpose: A symmetric key algorithm for data encryption.
• Key Lengths: 56-bit keys (considered insecure due to small key size).
• Weaknesses: Vulnerable to brute-force attacks due to its small key size.
• *It's largely obsolete and replaced by AES.
5. 3DES (Triple Data Encryption Standard):
• Purpose: An improvement over DES, using three passes with DES encryption.
• Key Lengths: 168-bit keys (eGective key length due to triple encryption).
• Weaknesses: Vulnerable to certain attacks, and its use is being phased out in favour of more modern algorithms like AES.
6. ECC (Elliptic Curve Cryptography):
White Paper – Elevating Cybersecurity with Quantum-Resistant Computing (QRC)
• Purpose: Asymmetric encryption and digital signatures with shorter key lengths compared to traditional methods.
• Weaknesses: The security of ECC relies on the diGiculty of solving the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem. Quantum computers could potentially break ECC using Shor's algorithm**, which is a concern for the long-term security of ECC.
Other Security Protocols in Use and their Weaknesses
While multi-factor authentication (MFA) and zero -trust security models are eGective in enhancing overall security, they are not without weaknesses. It's important to understand these limitations to implement these security measures eGectively. Here are some weaknesses associated with multi-factor authentication and zero trust:
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA):
1. Phishing Attacks:
• Weakness: Phishing attacks can trick users into revealing both their passwords and the secondary authentication factor. Attackers may use social engineering to manipulate users into providing their credentials, including the second factor.
2. SIM Swapping:
• Weakness: If an attacker gains control of a user's phone number through SIM swapping, they may receive MFA codes sent via SMS. This highlights the vulnerability of relying on a mobile device for authentication.
3. Biometric Vulnerabilities:
• Weakness: Biometric authentication methods, such as fingerprints or facial recognition, can be susceptible to spoofing or reproduction. High- quality fake fingerprints or facial images could [potentially] trick the system.
4. Device Trustworthiness:
• Weakness: MFA assumes that the devices used for authentication are secure. If an attacker gains control of a trusted device, they may be able to bypass MFA.
5. Human Factors:
• Weakness: Users may sometimes find MFA processes inconvenient, leading them to choose less secure options or bypass the additional authentication steps, reducing the overall security eGectiveness.
1. Implementation Complexity:
• Weakness: Implementing a zero -trust architecture can be complex and may require significant changes to existing infrastructure. Organisations may face challenges in integrating legacy systems or ensuring a seamless user experience.
2. User Education:
• Weakness: Users may not fully understand the concept of zero trust, leading to potential security lapses. Education and awareness programs are crucial to ensure that users understand the importance of continuous verification and the principles of zero trust.
3. Dependency on Network Access:
• Weakness: Zero trust heavily relies on real-time assessment of network access. If the assessment process fails or if there are delays, legitimate users may experience disruptions or delays in accessing resources.
4. Insider Threats:
• Weakness: Zero trust does not eliminate the risk of insider threats entirely. Malicious insiders with legitimate access can still exploit their privileges. Continuous monitoring and behavioural analysis are necessary to detect anomalous behaviour.
5. Resource Intensive:
• Weakness: Implementing a robust zero -trust architecture may require additional resources, both in terms of technology and personnel. Smaller organisations or those with limited resources may find it challenging to adopt a comprehensive zero -trust approach.
6. False Positives:
• Weakness: Overly strict zero -trust policies may lead to false positives, blocking legitimate users or devices. Striking the right balance between security and user experience is crucial.
With the inherent weaknesses of the existing technology, along with some of the issues of implementation, what are the options for organisations to truly safeguard their data? A solution that is simple to implement, future proof, can transition from Web2 to Web3 easily and can mitigate quantum computer attacks and help to identify where a breach is taking place, allowing time to properly react and protect data is the key to solving these issues. What is required?
PrivID uses a combination of Zero -Knowledge Proofs (ZKP) and Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) it can enhance security protocols, especially in the context of various cybersecurity challenges, such as those mentioned earlier. Here's how ZKP and FHE can contribute to improved security:
1. Enhanced Authentication with Zero -Knowledge Proofs (ZKP):
ZKP Contribution: ZKP allows a party to prove the knowledge of a secret without revealing the secret itself. In authentication scenarios, ZKP can be employed to strengthen identity verification without exposing sensitive information.
• Impact on Security: ZKP helps in reducing the risk of unauthorised access and protects against various attacks, including those involving identity theft or credential compromise. This can be particularly relevant in the context of multifactor authentication.
2. Secure Data Transmission with Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE):
• FHE Contribution: Homomorphic Encryption allows computations to be performed on encrypted data without decrypting it. This ensures that sensitive information remains confidential even during processing.
• Impact on Security: In the context of email and data transmission, FHE can be used to encrypt the content end-toend. This protects against eavesdropping, man-in-the-middle attacks, and unauthorised access to sensitive information.
3. Protection Against Phishing and Spoofing:
• ZKP and FHE Contribution: ZKP can enhance the verification of user identities, making it more diGicult for attackers to impersonate legitimate users. FHE can be used to encrypt email content, ensuring the confidentiality of messages.
• Impact on Security: Combining ZKP and FHE can contribute to a more robust defence against phishing attacks and email spoofing. Even if an attacker intercepts the communication, the encrypted content remains confidential.
4. Mitigating Insider Threats:
• ZKP Contribution: ZKP can be applied to authentication processes to strengthen user verification, reducing the risk of insider threats.
• FHE Contribution: FHE can help protect sensitive data from being exposed even to insiders by allowing computations on encrypted data without the need for decryption.
White Paper – Elevating Cybersecurity with Quantum-Resistant Computing (QRC)
• Impact on Security: The combination of ZKP and FHE can provide a comprehensive approach to mitigating both internal and external threats, ensuring that sensitive information remains confidential, and access is controlled.
5. Preventing Data Exfiltration:
• FHE Contribution: FHE can be used to perform computations on encrypted data, preventing unauthorised access to sensitive information.
• Impact on Security: By encrypting data end-to - end and allowing computations on the encrypted data, FHE can significantly reduce the risk of data exfiltration, even if a network or server is compromised.
6. Securing Communication Channels:
• ZKP and FHE Contribution: ZKP enhances the verification of participants in a communication channel, while FHE secures the content of the communication.
• Impact on Security: Together, ZKP and FHE can provide a more secure communication channel, protecting against various attacks, including eavesdropping, man-in-the-middle attacks, and unauthorised access to information.
How can PrivID’s Solution provide additional security in the case of Quantum-Resistant Cryptography
PrivID’s solution of Zero -Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) and Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) are cryptographic techniques that provide advantages in the context of quantum-resistant cryptography, which is designed to withstand attacks from quantum computers. Quantum computers have the potential to break widely used classical cryptographic algorithms, such as RSA and ECC, due to their ability to eGiciently solve certain mathematical problems, like integer factorization and discrete logarithms, that underlie the security of these algorithms. Here's how ZKPs and FHE can be beneficial against quantum computers:
1. Resistance to Quantum Attacks:
• ZKP: ZKPs, such as those based on lattice-based cryptography, are considered postquantum secure. The mathematical problems they rely on, such as lattice problems, are believed to be hard even for quantum computers.
• FHE: Some fully homomorphic encryption schemes, like those based on lattice-based cryptography or code-based cryptography, are also considered post- quantum secure. Quantum computers would not have a significant advantage in breaking these encryption schemes.
2. Secure Multi-Party Computation
:
• ZKP: ZKPs can be used in secure multi-party computation scenarios where parties want to jointly compute a function over their inputs while keeping those inputs private. ZKPs help ensure that the computation is performed correctly without revealing the inputs.
• FHE: FHE enables computations on encrypted data without the need for decryption, allowing multiple parties to jointly perform computations on sensitive information without exposing the data.
3. Secure Data Processing in Untrusted Environments:
• ZKP: ZKPs can be employed to verify certain properties of data without revealing the data itself. This is particularly useful when processing sensitive information in untrusted environments.
• FHE: FHE enables secure data processing in untrusted environments by allowing computations on encrypted data. The results of the computations remain confidential, even when processed by untrusted entities.
4. Enhanced Privacy and Confidentiality:
ZKP: ZKPs enable one party to prove the knowledge of certain information to another party without revealing the information itself. This contributes to enhanced privacy and confidentiality.
• FHE: FHE ensures that data remains confidential during processing, providing a higher level of privacy and confidentiality, even in the presence of quantum computers.
5. Post- Quantum Security Assurances:
• Both ZKPs and certain FHE schemes provide a level of security that is resilient against quantum attacks. This makes them promising candidates for securing communications and data in a post- quantum world.
**It's important to note that the field of quantum-resistant cryptography is evolving, and ongoing research is being conducted to identify and develop cryptographic techniques that will remain secure in the era of quantum computing. As quantum computers continue to advance, the adoption of quantum-resistant cryptographic techniques, including ZKPs and certain FHE schemes, will become increasingly important for ensuring the long-term security of sensitive information.
How does PrivID protect Data and Communication in Various States
An overview of how PrivID’s implementation of ZKP and FHE can be used to protect data online and oGline, as well as archived data, and to prevent various attacks, including Man-in-the Middle (MITM) and phishing attacks.
1. Protection of Data in Transit (Online):
• ZKP and FHE in Communication Protocols: ZKPs can enhance the security of authentication processes and verify identities without revealing sensitive information. FHE can be used to encrypt data during transmission, protecting it from eavesdropping.
• Impact: This combination helps secure online communication channels by ensuring that data remains confidential and authenticating parties without exposing sensitive information. It can protect against MITM attacks where attackers attempt to intercept and manipulate communication between two parties.
2. Protection of Data at Rest (OZline and Archived):
• FHE for Encryption at Rest: FHE can be applied to encrypt data stored oGline or in archives. This ensures that the data remains confidential even when it is not actively being processed.
• Impact: With FHE, data is protected against unauthorised access, even if the storage medium is compromised. This helps prevent data breaches and ensures the confidentiality of sensitive information in oGline and archived environments.
3. Zero -Knowledge Proofs for Identity Verification
:
• ZKP in Authentication: ZKPs can be used in authentication processes to prove the knowledge of certain information (e.g., a password or private key) without revealing the actual information.
• Impact: ZKP enhances identity verification, making it more resistant to phishing attacks where attackers attempt to trick users into revealing their credentials. It ensures that the verification process is secure without exposing sensitive data.
4. Protection Against Phishing Attacks:
• ZKP for Secure Authentication: ZKPs can contribute to secure authentication, making it more challenging for attackers to impersonate legitimate users.
White Paper – Elevating Cybersecurity with Quantum-Resistant Computing (QRC)
• Impact: By enhancing authentication security, ZKPs help protect against phishing attacks, where attackers attempt to trick users into providing sensitive information. The confidential nature of the authentication process reduces the risk of unauthorised access.
5. Secure Multi-Party Computation:
• FHE for Secure Data Processing: Homomorphic Encryption allows computations on encrypted data without the need for decryption. This can be utilised for secure multiparty computation scenarios.
• Impact: By enabling secure computations on encrypted data, FHE contributes to protecting data integrity and confidentiality even when multiple parties are involved, reducing the risk of data manipulation or exposure.
What are the underlying technologies for PrivID?
Creating applications with Zero -Knowledge Proofs (ZKP) and Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) involves utilising specific libraries and frameworks in each programming language. Here's a brief overview of how PrivID uses Java, Rust, Python, and WebAssembly to develop ZKP and FHE applications:
1. Java
2. Rust
3. Python
4. WebAssembly
Note:
These are only some of the libraries we use, and we are creating our own library as well.
How does PrivID use its Technology to Protect Organisations and Individuals?
There is a revolution in privacy technology happening. The emergence and maturing of new privacy enhancing technologies (PET) that allow for data use and collaboration without sharing plain text data or sending data to a central location are part of this revolution.
The United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Co - operation and Development, the U.S. White House, the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity, the UK Royal Society, and Singapore’s media and privacy authorities all released reports, guidelines, and regulatory sandboxes around the use of PETs in quick succession. We are in an era where there are high hopes for data insights to be leveraged for the public good while maintaining privacy principles and enhanced security.
With the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) initiating an oGicial project to establish FHE standards (ISO/IEC AWI 28033-1). Currently, the project is in the comments resolution phase, with the passing on the first- of-its-kind FHE standardization expected late 2024/early 2025.
Below is an overview of the uses, benefits, and practical applications of combining FHE and ZKPs:
1. Enhanced Privacy: The combination of FHE and ZKPs allows for privacy at multiple levels FHE enables computations on encrypted data, while ZKPs can be used to prove statements about the encrypted data without revealing any details.
2. Data Confidentiality: FHE ensures that data remains encrypted throughout the computation, and ZKPs allow for proofs about the encrypted data. This ensures that sensitive information is never exposed during processing or verification.
3. Verifiability: ZKPs enable parties to verify the correctness of computations performed on encrypted data without decrypting it. This can build trust in applications where data integrity is critical.
4. Selective Disclosure: ZKPs provide the ability to selectively disclose specific information while keeping the rest confidential. Users can prove they meet certain criteria without revealing all the underlying data.
5. Security and Transparency: The combination of FHE and ZKPs can provide a high level of security while maintaining transparency. Users can verify the correctness of computations while data remains private.
White Paper – Elevating Cybersecurity with Quantum-Resistant Computing (QRC)
Practical Applications of Combining FHE and ZKPs:
1. Secure Outsourcing of Computation: Companies can securely outsource computations to third-party service providers while maintaining data privacy. ZKPs can be used to verify that the computation was performed correctly without revealing the data or the computation result.
2. Financial Services and Privacy-Preserving Analytics: In the financial sector, FHE and ZKPs can be employed to perform analytics on encrypted financial data. For example, banks can verify compliance with financial regulations without exposing customer details.
3. Secure Voting Systems: Combining FHE and ZKPs can enhance the security and privacy of electronic voting systems. Voters can prove that their vote was correctly counted without revealing their vote choice.
4. Supply Chain and Provenance: In supply chain management, FHE and ZKPs can be used to ensure the authenticity of product information and origin without disclosing proprietary data.
5. Healthcare Data Analysis: Analysis of encrypted patient data while using ZKPs to verify the correctness of computations, ensuring patient privacy and data security.
6. Secure Collaboration: Businesses and Government agencies can collaborate on data analysis projects without sharing sensitive information. FHE enables computations on encrypted data, while ZKPs verify the accuracy of the results.
White Paper – Elevating Cybersecurity with Quantum-Resistant Computing (QRC)
7. Cross-Border Compliance and Reporting: In the financial and regulatory sectors, FHE and ZKPs can be used to verify compliance with cross-border regulations and reporting requirements while protecting sensitive data.
8. Secure AI and Machine Learning: FHE and ZKPs can be applied to secure AI and machine learning model training and inference. Data remains encrypted, and ZKPs can validate model outputs without exposing training data.
9. Privacy-Preserving Cloud Computing: Organisations can perform computations on encrypted data in the cloud and use ZKPs to verify the integrity of the results without disclosing sensitive information.
10. Data Monetization: Companies can monetize their data by oGering privacy-preserving analytics services to third parties. FHE and ZKPs ensure data confidentiality and the correctness of results.
11. *Military and Defence: FHE can protect sensitive military data by allowing computations on encrypted data, making it extremely diGicult for adversaries to gain access to classified information.
* PrivID's cutting- edge data security solution is tailor-made to keep [military/government] data safe and confidential:
1. Strong Encryption at All Stages: PrivID employs FHE to protect data both at rest and in transit. This means that [military/government] data remains encrypted throughout its lifecycle, from storage to transmission and even during processing.
2. Privacy-Preserving Data Processing: One of the key features of PrivID's solution is its ability to perform computations on encrypted data. This enables [military/government] personnel to process sensitive information without ever decrypting it. Even during data analysis or manipulation, the data remains confidential and secure.
White Paper – Elevating Cybersecurity with Quantum-Resistant Computing (QRC)
3. Zero -Knowledge Proofs for Authentication: PrivID's use of Zero -Knowledge Proofs ensures that only authorised personnel can access [military/government] data. ZeroKnowledge Proofs allow users to prove their identity or access rights without revealing sensitive information, making it incredibly diGicult for unauthorised parties to breach security.
4. Endorsement by Leading Organisations: FHE is a solution that is being examined closely by large organisations like the EU cybersecurity group, and the US Department of Defence. In Canada, Statistics Canada has already implemented FHE as part of its security mandate.
5. Immune to Insider Threats: PrivID's encryption and privacy-preserving computation make it highly resistant to insider threats. Even individuals with access to the system cannot compromise the security of the data, as they can only perform authorised operations without seeing the underlying information.
6. Alignment with Future Standards: ISO/IEC initiated an oGicial project (ISO/IEC AWI 28033-1) to establish FHE standards. Currently, the project is in the comments resolution phase, with the passing on the first- of-its-kind FHE standardization expected late 2024/early 2025.
7. Protection Against Advanced Cyberattacks: PrivID's solution is designed to thwart even the most sophisticated cyberattacks. With [military/government] data protected by the combined FHE/ZKP solution, the risk of data breaches, data leaks, and unauthorised access is significantly reduced. No threat level can be reduced to zero, however, this design comes very close.
8. Data Sovereignty and Control: PrivID's solution allows [military/government] organisations to retain control over their data. They can share data securely with trusted partners or allies whilst maintaining full sovereignty and ensuring that sensitive information never falls into the wrong hands.
9. Compliance with Stringent Regulations: PrivID's security measures adhere to the strictest data protection regulations and standards. Military data is subject to rigorous legal and regulatory requirements, and PrivID's solution ensures compliance with these mandates.
PrivID's combination of Fully Homomorphic Encryption and Zero -Knowledge Proofs oGers a multilayered approach to data security. It combines strong encryption, privacy-preserving computation, authentication without revealing sensitive information. By choosing PrivID, government institutions can confidently protect their sensitive data from both external threats and insider risks, ensuring the highest level of security and compliance with evolving cybersecurity standards.
White Paper – Elevating Cybersecurity with Quantum-Resistant Computing (QRC)
References
Foundations of Cryptography: Volume 1, Basic Tools: Oded Goldreich
Zero Knowledge Systems, Proceedings of the Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS): Shafi Goldwasser, Silvio Micali, and Charles Racko9
Introduction to Modern Cryptography: Jonathan Katz and Yehuda Lindell
Non-interactive zero -knowledge proofs in dynamic settings: Jens Groth and Rafail Ostrovsky
Dynamic Proofs of Retrievability via Oblivious RAM: Dan Boneh and Brent
End-to -End Encryption with Fully Homomorphic Encryption: Marten van Dijk, Craig Gentry, Shai Halevi, and Vinod Vaikuntanathan
Homomorphic Encryption: A Promising Technique for Privacy-Preserving Outsourcing of Biometric Authentication: Niharika Sachdeva and Mayank Dave
Towards Practical Fully Homomorphic Encryption with Multi-User Support: Florian Bourse et al.
Secure Two -Party Computation with Fully Homomorphic Encryption: Craig Gentry
Preventing Man-in-the-Middle Attacks in Secure Multiparty Computation with Fully Homomorphic Encryption: Zvika Brakerski and Guy N. Rothblum
SMTP Security Extensions: The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Zero -Knowledge Proofs: A Survey and Annotated Bibliography: Oded Goldreich.
Fully Homomorphic Encryption Over the Integers: Jean-Sébastien Coron et al
Zero -Knowledge Proofs for Quantum States from Classical Witnesses: Alex B. Grilo et al.
Homomorphic Encryption for Quantum Circuits: Nicolas Gama et al.
Post- Quantum Zero -Knowledge Proofs for Accumulators: Stefano Tessaro et al.
Integrating Zero -Knowledge Proofs into Secure Communication Protocols: Rafael Pass and Abhi Shelat
Secure Outsourcing Computation with Zero -Knowledge Proofs in Dynamic Environments: Yuanli Zhang et al.
Homomorphic Encryption: A Promising Technique for Privacy-Preserving Outsourcing of Biometric Authentication: Niharika Sachdeva and Mayank Dave
Phishing and Countermeasures: Understanding the Increasing Problem of Electronic Identity Theft: Markus Jakobsson and Steven Myers
Smishing: A New Threat on the Horizon: Marios Anagnostopoulos et al.
The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security: Kevin D. Mitnick and William L. Simon
Cybersecurity and Applied Cryptography: Hoi-Jun Yoo et al
Email Security with DNSSEC and DKIM: John Levine et al.
Zero -Knowledge Proofs: Oded Goldreich
Fully Homomorphic Encryption: Craig Gentry
Zero -Knowledge Proofs: From Theoretical Implementations to Practical Applications: edited by Ronald Cramer et al.
Homomorphic Encryption: From Mathematical Foundations to Applications: edited by Dario Catalano et al.
Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2020: 40th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Proceedings, Part III: edited by Yael Kalai and Alexandra Boldyreva
Secure Computation with Fully Homomorphic Encryption: Nigel P. Smart and Frederik Vercauteren
Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems: Ross Anderson
Cryptography Engineering: Design Principles and Practical Applications: Niels Ferguson, Bruce Schneier, and Tadayoshi Kohno
The Tangled Web: A Guide to Securing Modern Web Applications: Michal Zalewski
Attacking Network Protocols: A Hacker's Guide to Capture, Analysis, and Exploitation: James Forshaw
Secure Messaging over the Internet: Attack and Defense: Liang Xiong and Zheng Yang
Understanding PKI: Concepts, Standards, and Deployment Considerations: Carlisle Adams and Steve Lloyd
The Challenges of Implementing Multi-Factor Authentication: NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
The Failure of Two -Factor Authentication: Alex Weinert
The Zero Trust Security Model: Discarding the Castle-and-Moat Mindset: Forrester Research
The Seven Pitfalls of Zero Trust Security: Gartner
Defining the Future of Network Security: Zero Trust Networking: John Kindervag
The Inconvenient Truth About Zero Trust: Richard Stiennon
2023 UN Case Study 9: Statistics Canada: Training A Machine Learning Model for Private Text Classification using Homomorphic Encryption
The UN Guide for Privacy Enhancing Technologies for O`icial Statistics 2023