Attribute-based encryption implies identity-based encryption

Attribute-based encryption implies identity-based encryption

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Your details
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
IET Information Security — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

In this study, the author formally proves that designing attribute-based encryption schemes cannot be easier than designing identity-based encryption schemes. In more detail, they show how an attribute-based encryption scheme which admits, at least, and policies can be combined with a collision-resistant hash function to obtain an identity-based encryption scheme. Even if this result may seem natural, not surprising at all, it has not been explicitly written anywhere, as far as they know. Furthermore, it may be an unknown result for some people: Odelu et al. in 2016 and 2017 have proposed both an attribute-based encryption scheme in the discrete logarithm setting, without bilinear pairings, and an attribute-based encryption scheme in the RSA setting, both admitting and policies. If these schemes were secure, then by using the implication proved in this study, one would obtain secure identity-based encryption schemes in both the RSA and the discrete logarithm settings, without bilinear pairings, which would be a breakthrough in the area. Unfortunately, the author presents here complete attacks of the two schemes proposed by Odelu et al.


    1. 1)
      • 1. Shamir, A.: ‘Identity-based cryptosystems and signature schemes’. Proc. Crypto'84, 1984 (LNCS, 196), pp. 4753.
    2. 2)
      • 2. Sahai, A., Waters, B.: ‘Fuzzy identity-based encryption’. Proc. Eurocrypt'05, 2005 (LNCS, 3494), pp. 457473.
    3. 3)
      • 3. Goyal, V., Pandey, O., Sahai, A., et al: ‘Attribute-based encryption for fine-grained access control of encrypted data’. Proc. Computer and Communications Security, CCS'06, 2006, pp. 8998.
    4. 4)
      • 4. Bethencourt, J., Sahai, A., Waters, B.: ‘Ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption’. Proc. IEEE Symp. on Security and Privacy, 2007, pp. 321334.
    5. 5)
      • 5. Boneh, D., Papakonstantinou, P.A., Rackoff, C., et al: ‘On the impossibility of basing identity based encryption on trapdoor permutations’. Proc. FOCS'08, 2008, pp. 283292.
    6. 6)
      • 6. Katz, J., Yerukhimovich, A.: ‘On black-box constructions of predicate encryption from trapdoor permutations’. Proc. Asiacrypt'09, 2009 (LNCS, 5912), pp. 197213.
    7. 7)
      • 7. Odelu, V., Das, A.K.: ‘Design of a new CP-ABE with constant-size secret keys for lightweight devices using elliptic curve cryptography’, Sec. Commun. Netw., 2016, 9, (17), pp. 40484059..
    8. 8)
      • 8. Jo, M., Odelu, V., Das, A.K., et al: ‘Expressive CP-ABE scheme for mobile devices in IoT satisfying constant-size keys and ciphertexts’, IEEE Access, 2017, 5, pp. 32733283..
    9. 9)
      • 9. Tessaro, S., Wilson, D.A.: ‘Bounded-collusion identity-based encryption from semantically-secure public-key encryption: Generic constructions with short ciphertexts’. Proc. PKC'14, 2014 (LNCS, 8383), pp. 257274.
    10. 10)
      • 10. Herranz, J.: ‘Attribute-based versions of Schnorr and ElGamal’, Appl. Algebra Eng. Commun. Comput., 2016, 27, (1), pp. 1757.
    11. 11)
      • 11. Itkis, G., Shen, E., Varia, M., et al: ‘Bounded-collusion attribute-based encryption from minimal assumptions’. Proc. PKC'17, 2017 (LNCS, 10175), pp. 6787.

Related content

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address