Fair Exchange under Limited Trust

  • Chihiro Ito
  • Mizuho Iwaihara
  • Yahiko Kambayashi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2444)


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.


Smart Card Mobile Agent Electronic Commerce Trusted Third Party Risk Limit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 8.
    J. Su, D. Manchala, “Building Trust for Distributed Commerce Transactions”, Proc. 17th ICDCS, pp. 322–329, Baltimore, May 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Su, D. Manchala, “Trust Vs. Threats: Recovery and Survival in Electronic Commerce”, Proc. 19th ICDCS, pp. 126–133, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 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. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chihiro Ito
    • 1
  • Mizuho Iwaihara
    • 1
  • Yahiko Kambayashi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social InformaticsKyoto UniversityJapan

Personalised recommendations