Fair Exchange under Limited Trust
The Internet technology encourages electronic commerce between people and/or organizations that are physically distributed in different locations, which makes it difficult to trust each other. The existing work of electronic trades have proposed protocols and mechanisms with mediation by Trusted Third Parties (TTP), on the assumption that the third parties could be trusted without reservation by each party on a trade. Such an assumption, however, is sometimes not applicable to businesses via the Internet where various parties are trading each other, and it is not practical to give infinite trust to the parties regardless of the scale or period of trades. This paper proposes the degree of trust which limits the amount of money or goods that can be sent at one time according to the risk of the parties on trades. Each of risk limits is assumed to be determined through information from credit facilities or by the decision of each party. Then we discuss the feasibility of transactions within given credit limits and propose algorithms to judge the feasibility.
KeywordsSmart Card Mobile Agent Electronic Commerce Trusted Third Party Risk Limit
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.N. Asokan, M. Schunter, and M. Waidner, “Optimistic Protocols for Fair Exchange”, Proc. 4th ACM Conf. on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 6–17, Zürich, Switzerland, April 1997.Google Scholar
- 2.M. K. Franklin, M. K. Reiter, “Fair Exchange with a Semi-Trusted Third Party”, Proc. 4th ACM Conf. on Computer and Communication Security, April 1997.Google Scholar
- 3.F. C. Gärtner, H. Pagnia, and H. Vogt, “Approaching a Formal Definition of Fairness in Electronic Commerce”, Proc. International Workshop on Electronic Commerce (WELCOM’99), pp. 354–359, Lausanne, Switzerland, Oct, 1999.Google Scholar
- 4.S. P. Ketchpel, H. Garcia-Monia, “Making Trust Explicit in Distributed Commerce Transactions”, Proc. 16th ICDCS, pp. 270–281, Hong Kong, May 1996.Google Scholar
- 5.D. W Manchala, “Trust Metrics, Models and Protocols for Electronic Commerce Transactions” Proc. 18th ICDCS, pp. 312–321, Amsterdam, May 1998.Google Scholar
- 6.H. Pagnia, H. Vogt, F. C. Gärtner, and U. G. Wilhelm, “Solving Fair Exchange with Mobile Agents”, Proc. 2nd ASA/MA, pp. 57–72, 2000.Google Scholar
- 7.T. W. Sandholm and V. R. Lesser, “Equilibrium analysis of the possibilities of unenforced exchange in multiagent systems”, Proc. 14th International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 694–703, San Mateo, August 1995.Google Scholar
- 8.J. Su, D. Manchala, “Building Trust for Distributed Commerce Transactions”, Proc. 17th ICDCS, pp. 322–329, Baltimore, May 1997.Google Scholar
- 9.J. Su, D. Manchala, “Trust Vs. Threats: Recovery and Survival in Electronic Commerce”, Proc. 19th ICDCS, pp. 126–133, 1999.Google Scholar
- 10.H. Vogt, H. Pagnia, and F. C. Gärtner “Modular Fair Exchange Protocols for Electronic Commerce”, Proc. 15th Annual Computer Security Applications Conf., pp. 3–11, Phoenix, December 1999.Google Scholar
- 11.H. Vogt, H. Pagnia, and F. C. Gärtner, “Using Smart Cards for Fair Exchange”, Proc. International Workshop on Electronic Commerce (WELCOM 2001), pp. 101–113, Heidelberg, Germany, November 2001.Google Scholar
- 12.U. G. Wilhelm, L. Buttyán, and S. Staamann, “On the Problem of Trust in Mobile Agent Systems”, Symp. on Network and Distributed System Security, pp. 114–124, March 1998.Google Scholar