Comparing Oblivious Transfer Implementations Sample Clauses

Comparing Oblivious Transfer Implementations. | − We compare implementation of RSA oblivious transfer (Sect. 2.1), batch RSA oblivious transfer (Sect. 2.2), and OT 2 protocol proposed by Xxxx and Xxxxxx in [13] based on the computational Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxx assumption (we denote this protocol NaPi). NaPi computes in subgroup of order r of Zs, where s is prime and r s 1. For the purpose of our test we choose 160 bit long r. The hash function is instantiated as SHA-1 in the protocols. The first graph on Fig. 1 shows combined time spent by the sender and the chooser when performing 128 oblivious transfers simultaneously while increasing the length of the RSA modulus n (for RSA-based protocols) or the length of prime s (for NaPi protocol). The second graph presents combined computational time while increasing the number of oblivious transfers computed in parallel. The length of RSA modulus, and the length of prime s is fixed to 1024 bits in this case. We compare only on-line computations, off-line (pre-computed) parts of pro- tocols are not considered. On-line computation of NaPi protocol requires two modular exponentiations in a subgroup of order r. Since the length of expo- nents is 160 bits, the protocol is faster than standard RSA oblivious transfer. However, when multiple oblivious transfers should be performed, batch RSA RSA OT NaPi OT Batch RSA OT 70 60 time (sec) 50 40 30 20 10 0 512 768 1024 1280 1536 modulus/prime length (bits) RSA OT NaPi OT Batch RSA OT time (sec) 20 10 oblivious transfers
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Comparing Oblivious Transfer Implementations

  • Additional Acceptable Uses of Student Data Contractor is prohibited from using Student Data for any secondary use not described in this agreement except:

  • COOPERATION IN IMPLEMENTATION On demand of the other Spouse and without undue delay or expense, each Spouse shall execute, acknowledge, or deliver any instrument, furnish any information, or perform any other acts reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions of this Agreement. If a Spouse fails to execute any document as required by this provision, the court may appoint the court clerk or his or her authorized designee to execute the document on that Xxxxxx’s behalf.

  • Information regarding Interconnection Facilities 4.2.1 The SPD shall be required to obtain all information from the STU/CTU/concerned authority with regard to the Interconnection Facilities as is reasonably necessary to enable it to design, install and operate all interconnection plant and apparatus on the SPD’s side of the Delivery Point to enable delivery of electricity at the Delivery Point. The transmission of power up to the point of interconnection where the metering is done for energy accounting shall be the responsibility of the SPD at his own cost.

  • Collocation Transfer of Responsibility Without Working Circuits The Collocation is not serving any End User Customers and does not have active service terminations (e.g., Interconnection trunks or UNE Loops) or 2) Collocation Transfer of Responsibility With Working Circuits – The Collocation has active service terminations, such as Interconnection trunks or is serving End User Customers.

  • Joint Network Implementation and Grooming Process Upon request of either Party, the Parties shall jointly develop an implementation and grooming process (the “Joint Grooming Process” or “Joint Process”) which may define and detail, inter alia:

  • Access Toll Connecting Trunk Group Architecture 9.2.1 If CBB chooses to subtend a Verizon access Tandem, CBB’s NPA/NXX must be assigned by CBB to subtend the same Verizon access Tandem that a Verizon NPA/NXX serving the same Rate Center Area subtends as identified in the LERG.

  • Proposing Integration Activities in the Planning Submission No integration activity described in section 6.3 may be proposed in a CAPS unless the LHIN has consented, in writing, to its inclusion pursuant to the process set out in section 6.3(b).

  • Supplemental JBoss Software Conditions Software Access and Software Maintenance for Supplemental JBoss Software is intended and available for Development Purposes only and for up to 25 users for each 16 Core Band Subscription of Red Hat JBoss Middleware Software that you purchased. If you deploy or use the Supplemental JBoss Software for Production Purposes or for more than 25 users, you agree to purchase the appropriate Software Subscriptions for each Unit that you deploy or use. Red Hat’s Open Source Assurance Program applies only to the Red Hat JBoss Middleware Software Subscription that you purchased (such as Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform in the example above) and does not apply to Supplemental JBoss Software. JBoss xPaaS Subscriptions (defined below) are not considered Supplemental JBoss Software. Each installation and use of JBoss xPaaS Subscriptions Software for either Development Purposes or Production Purposes is a Unit and requires a paid Software Subscription.

  • Transfer or Deletion of Student Data The Provider shall review, on an annual basis, whether the Student Data it has received pursuant to the DPA continues to be needed for the purpose(s) of the Service Agreement and this DPA. If any of the Student Data is no longer needed for purposes of the Service Agreement and this DPA, the Provider will provide written notice to the LEA as to what Student Data is no longer needed. The Provider will delete or transfer Student Data in readable form to the LEA, as directed by the LEA (which may be effectuated through Exhibit D of the DPA), within 30 calendar days if the LEA requests deletion or transfer of the Student Data and shall provide written confirmation to the LEA of such deletion or transfer. Upon termination of the Service Agreement between the Provider and LEA, Provider shall conduct a final review of Student Data within 60 calendar days. If the LEA receives a request from a parent, as that term is defined in 105 ILCS 10/2(g), that Student Data being held by the Provider be deleted, the LEA shall determine whether the requested deletion would violate State and/or federal records laws. In the event such deletion would not violate State or federal records laws, the LEA shall forward the request for deletion to the Provider. The Provider shall comply with the request and delete the Student Data within a reasonable time period after receiving the request. Any provision of Student Data to the LEA from the Provider shall be transmitted in a format readable by the LEA.

  • SERVICE MONITORING, ANALYSES AND ORACLE SOFTWARE 11.1 We continuously monitor the Services to facilitate Oracle’s operation of the Services; to help resolve Your service requests; to detect and address threats to the functionality, security, integrity, and availability of the Services as well as any content, data, or applications in the Services; and to detect and address illegal acts or violations of the Acceptable Use Policy. Oracle monitoring tools do not collect or store any of Your Content residing in the Services, except as needed for such purposes. Oracle does not monitor, and does not address issues with, non-Oracle software provided by You or any of Your Users that is stored in, or run on or through, the Services. Information collected by Oracle monitoring tools (excluding Your Content) may also be used to assist in managing Oracle’s product and service portfolio, to help Oracle address deficiencies in its product and service offerings, and for license management purposes.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.