Fuzzy Quantifiable Trust in Secure E-Commerce

  • Daniel W. Manchala
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 105)


Traditional models of trust between vendors and buyers fall short of requirements for an electronic marketplace, where anonymous transactions cross territorial and legal boundaries as well as traditional value chain structures. Fuzzy quantifications of trust may offer better evaluations of transaction risk in this environment.

How do we set measurement criteria to make these distinctions? One way is to quantify trust. This fundamental concept in managing commercial risk refers broadly to the assurance that someone or something will act in exactly the way you expect. Research on this problem in e-commerce has focused on authentication— that is, associating a public key with its owner [11]. However, all these models were based on transitive trust along a transaction path of entities that trust the key to different extents. E-commerce, on the other hand, requires mutual trust among a vendor, a customer, and all transaction intermediaries. This article introduces a notion of fuzzy quantifiable trust and then develops models that can use these metrics to verify e-commerce transactions in ways that might be able to satisfy the requirements of mutual trust. The article attempts to define fuzzy quantifiable trust for an e-commerce infrastructure.


Smart Card Versus Versus Versus Versus Trust Relationship Trust Index Trust Authority 
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.
    Adam NR, Wortmann JC (1989) Security Control Methods for Statistical Databases: A Comparative Study. ACM Computing Surveys 21: 515–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaum D, Pedersen TP (1993) Wallet Databases with Observers. Advances in Cryptology-Cypto’92Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chung E, Dardailler E (1997) Joint Electronic Payment Initiative, W3C-Note, Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cox B, Sirbu M, Tygar JD (1995) NetBill Security and Transaction Protocol. Proceedings of the 1st USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, pp. 77–88Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    deBry R. et al., (1999) Internet Printing Protocol—Model and Semantics, Version 1.0. RFC 2566, available at More information on IPP can be found at Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dierks T, Allen C (1999) The TLS Protocol Version 1, RFC-2246,
  7. 7.
    ITU-T Recommendation X.509 (1997): Information Technology-Open Systems Interconnection-The Directory: Authentication FrameworkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ketchpel S, Garcia HM (1996) Making Trust Explicit in Distributed Commerce Transactions, 16th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS `96), Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Knowledge Systems Laboratory, FuzzyCLIPS, User’s Guide. Institute of Information Technology, National Research Council, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neuman BC, Medvinsky G (1995) Requirements for Network Payment: The NetCheque Perspective, In: Proceedings of IEEE Compcom ‘85Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reiter MK and Stubblebine SG (1997) Toward Acceptable Metrics of Authentication, In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, pp. 10–20Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roscheisen M, Winograd T (1996) A Communication Agreement Framework of Access/Action Control. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    SET (2000) Secure Electronic Transactions,
  14. 14.
    Su J, Manchala DW (1997) Building Trust for Distributed Commerce Transactions, In: 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS ‘87), Baltimore, pp. 322–329Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Su J, Manchala DW (1999) Trust Vs. Threats: Recovery and Survival in Electronic Commerce, In: 19th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS `99), Austin, pp. 126–133Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zadeh L (1978) Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1: 3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zimmerman H J (1991) Fuzzy Set Theory-And Its Applications, 2nd Revised Edition, Kluwer Academic, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel W. Manchala
    • 1
  1. 1.Xerox Research and TechnologyXerox CorporationUSA

Personalised recommendations