{"schema_version":"0.1","map_id":"paper-13-map","publication_id":13,"publication_anchor":"paper-13","slug":"paper-13","canonical_path":"/knowledge/papers/paper-13/","machine_path":"/knowledge/papers/paper-13.json","root_node_id":"paper-13","stage":"mapped_draft","contribution_type_vocabulary_version":"0.1","contribution_types":["protocol","primitive"],"title":"Group Distance Bounding Protocols (Short Paper)","year":2011,"venue":"4th International Conference on Trust and Trustworthy Computing (TRUST)","topic":"secure-systems-networks","labels":["Theory"],"authors":["Srdjan Čapkun","Karim Eldefrawy","Gene Tsudik"],"keywords":["distance bounding","proximity","authentication"],"research_question":"How can several provers and verifiers establish one-way distance bounds more efficiently than running every verifier-prover pair separately, while retaining a meaningful security argument?","central_answer":"A passive verifier can infer a distance bound by observing an active distance-bounding exchange and combining time-difference-of-arrival geometry with the active verifier's bound. Rotating a subset of verifiers through the active role reduces message cost, but the guarantees depend on trusted active verifiers, known locations, radio and timing assumptions, and the security of the underlying pairwise protocol.","curation":{"drafted_at":"2026-07-11","drafted_by":[{"actor_type":"ai","name":"OpenAI Codex","role":"full-text extraction, protocol decomposition, evidence linking, and initial assessment"}],"method":"Source-grounded review of the complete checked-in short paper, its publisher record, and a dated ResearchGate citation snapshot. Security arguments are labeled as analytical and conditional rather than formal machine-checked proofs.","source_scope":"full_source_audit","approval":{"status":"pending","note":"AI-authored source-linked map awaiting author verification; technical summaries and ratings may be revised before approval."}},"sources":[{"id":"source-paper-13-paper","type":"scholarly_article","title":"Group Distance Bounding Protocols (Short Paper)","url":"/pubs/2011/group-distance-bounding-trust2011.pdf","media_type":"application/pdf","sha256":"8cc3cb818ed21bd4772fea76b12a01d54b336e6019f0f847c6a9e08887665503","page_count":8,"provenance_category":"author","retrieved_at":"2026-07-11","retrieved_from_url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20150703110554id_/http://www.ics.uci.edu/~keldefra/papers/trust11.pdf"},{"id":"source-paper-13-official","type":"publication_record","title":"TRUST 2011 publisher record","url":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21599-5_23"},{"id":"source-paper-13-citations","type":"citation_index_snapshot","title":"ResearchGate citation snapshot","url":"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225982565_GDB_Group_Distance_Bounding_Protocols","retrieved_at":"2026-07-11"}],"source_anchors":[{"id":"anchor-paper-13-question","source_id":"source-paper-13-paper","label":"Motivation, contribution, and one-way GDB scope","locator":"Abstract and Section 1, PDF pages 1-2","url":"/pubs/2011/group-distance-bounding-trust2011.pdf#page=1"},{"id":"anchor-paper-13-model","source_id":"source-paper-13-paper","label":"GDB cases, environmental assumptions, and adversary","locator":"Section 2, PDF pages 2-3","url":"/pubs/2011/group-distance-bounding-trust2011.pdf#page=2"},{"id":"anchor-paper-13-passive","source_id":"source-paper-13-paper","label":"Passive distance-bounding primitive and geometric argument","locator":"Section 3, PDF pages 4-5","url":"/pubs/2011/group-distance-bounding-trust2011.pdf#page=4"},{"id":"anchor-paper-13-protocol","source_id":"source-paper-13-paper","label":"One-way group protocol construction","locator":"Section 4, PDF pages 5-6","url":"/pubs/2011/group-distance-bounding-trust2011.pdf#page=5"},{"id":"anchor-paper-13-performance","source_id":"source-paper-13-paper","label":"Message-count analysis and active-verifier tradeoff","locator":"Section 5.1, PDF page 6","url":"/pubs/2011/group-distance-bounding-trust2011.pdf#page=6"},{"id":"anchor-paper-13-security","source_id":"source-paper-13-paper","label":"Security analysis and malicious-active-verifier boundary","locator":"Section 5.2, PDF pages 6-7","url":"/pubs/2011/group-distance-bounding-trust2011.pdf#page=6"},{"id":"anchor-paper-13-future","source_id":"source-paper-13-paper","label":"Conclusions and future work","locator":"Section 7, PDF page 8","url":"/pubs/2011/group-distance-bounding-trust2011.pdf#page=8"},{"id":"anchor-paper-13-publication","source_id":"source-paper-13-official","label":"Official short-paper publication record","locator":"TRUST 2011, DOI record","url":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21599-5_23"},{"id":"anchor-paper-13-citations","source_id":"source-paper-13-citations","label":"Citation-count snapshot","locator":"ResearchGate displayed Citations (14), observed 2026-07-11; the page may merge or separate versions differently from other indexes.","url":"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225982565_GDB_Group_Distance_Bounding_Protocols"}],"nodes":[{"id":"paper-13","kind":"paper","parent_id":null,"order":1,"epistemic_status":"published","title":"One-way group distance bounding","summary":"A short paper defining group distance-bounding settings and introducing passive observation as a primitive for cheaper multi-party protocols.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-question"]},{"id":"paper-13-question","kind":"question","parent_id":"paper-13","order":1,"epistemic_status":"research_question","title":"Research question","summary":"Can multiple verifiers and provers establish secure upper-distance bounds with fewer rapid exchanges than a complete pairwise deployment?","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-question"]},{"id":"paper-13-answer","kind":"contribution","parent_id":"paper-13","order":2,"epistemic_status":"analytically_supported","title":"Central answer","summary":"Let some verifiers actively challenge while others passively observe timing; passive bounds can be derived geometrically and the active fraction controls a security-efficiency tradeoff.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-passive","anchor-paper-13-protocol","anchor-paper-13-performance"]},{"id":"paper-13-scope","kind":"scope","parent_id":"paper-13","order":3,"epistemic_status":"explicitly_scoped","title":"One-way group settings","summary":"The construction addresses many-prover/many-verifier, one-prover/many-verifier, and many-prover/one-verifier one-way cases; mutual GDB is acknowledged but left outside this short paper.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-model","anchor-paper-13-future"]},{"id":"paper-13-assumptions","kind":"assumption_group","parent_id":"paper-13-scope","order":1,"epistemic_status":"assumed","title":"Timing, geometry, and trust assumptions","summary":"Nodes are in mutual radio range, rapid processing is available, verifiers know their locations and pairwise distances, and passive verifiers can receive the three relevant transmissions.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-model","anchor-paper-13-passive"]},{"id":"paper-13-adversary","kind":"threat_model","parent_id":"paper-13-scope","order":2,"epistemic_status":"defined","title":"Adversary and exclusions","summary":"Provers may collude and attempt distance or mafia fraud, but verifiers are trusted in the base argument; reception blocking, directional antennas, terrorist fraud, and distance hijacking beyond the assumed base protocol are excluded.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-model","anchor-paper-13-security"]},{"id":"paper-13-primitive","kind":"primitive","parent_id":"paper-13","order":4,"epistemic_status":"proposed","title":"Passive distance bounding","summary":"A passive verifier timestamps the active verifier's commitment/challenge and the prover's response, then combines a time-difference-of-arrival hyperbola with the active distance bound to derive its own upper bound.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-passive"]},{"id":"paper-13-primitive-security","kind":"security_argument","parent_id":"paper-13-primitive","order":1,"epistemic_status":"conditional_argument","title":"Why a prover cannot shorten only the passive bound","summary":"Under the timing geometry, making the passive verifier infer an impossibly short distance would also require defeating the active verifier's underlying distance-bound exchange.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-passive"]},{"id":"paper-13-protocol","kind":"protocol","parent_id":"paper-13","order":5,"epistemic_status":"proposed","title":"Active/passive GDB protocol","summary":"A selected fraction of verifiers runs active pairwise exchanges while remaining verifiers observe them, permitting each active exchange to contribute bounds to more than one verifier.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-protocol"]},{"id":"paper-13-evidence-performance","kind":"analytic_evidence","parent_id":"paper-13","order":6,"epistemic_status":"calculated","title":"Communication-cost analysis","summary":"For the paper's 30-prover/30-verifier example, an 80% active fraction saves about one third of messages and a 60% active fraction saves more than half relative to naive pairwise execution.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-performance"]},{"id":"paper-13-evidence-security","kind":"analytic_evidence","parent_id":"paper-13","order":7,"epistemic_status":"conditional_analysis","title":"Security analysis","summary":"The paper relates success probability to the underlying distance-bounding protocol and the chance that an adversary controls active verifiers; it provides analytical metrics rather than a reduction-style theorem or machine-checked proof.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-security"]},{"id":"paper-13-boundary-active","kind":"limitation","parent_id":"paper-13","order":8,"epistemic_status":"material","title":"Malicious active verifier boundary","summary":"An active verifier can lie about location or send challenges early, so passive conclusions are only as trustworthy as the active participant and underlying protocol; multiple simultaneous verifiers may be needed for secure localization.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-security"]},{"id":"paper-13-limitations","kind":"limitation_group","parent_id":"paper-13","order":9,"epistemic_status":"explicitly_reported","title":"Unresolved scope","summary":"The short paper has no implementation or noisy-channel evaluation and leaves mutual GDB, passive operation without known verifier locations, denial of service, and realistic group-radio conditions to future work.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-future"]},{"id":"paper-13-artifacts","kind":"artifact_group","parent_id":"paper-13","order":10,"epistemic_status":"paper_only","title":"Artifacts","summary":"The located artifact is the complete eight-page short paper. No protocol implementation, trace set, or formal proof artifact is linked.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-question","anchor-paper-13-performance"]},{"id":"paper-13-scrutiny","kind":"scrutiny","parent_id":"paper-13","order":11,"epistemic_status":"venue_reviewed","title":"External scrutiny and reception","summary":"The work appeared at TRUST 2011 and ResearchGate reports 14 citations; review reports and an independent implementation or proof audit were not located.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-publication","anchor-paper-13-citations"]},{"id":"paper-13-lineage","kind":"lineage","parent_id":"paper-13","order":12,"epistemic_status":"source_asserted","title":"Research lineage","summary":"The paper extends distance bounding from one verifier-prover pair to group settings and introduces passive distance bounding as the organizing primitive for that extension.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-question","anchor-paper-13-passive"]}],"relations":[{"id":"paper-13-relation-primitive-enables-protocol","type":"enables","from_id":"paper-13-primitive","to_id":"paper-13-protocol"},{"id":"paper-13-relation-security-supports-primitive","type":"supports","from_id":"paper-13-primitive-security","to_id":"paper-13-primitive"},{"id":"paper-13-relation-performance-supports-answer","type":"supports","from_id":"paper-13-evidence-performance","to_id":"paper-13-answer"},{"id":"paper-13-relation-security-supports-answer","type":"supports","from_id":"paper-13-evidence-security","to_id":"paper-13-answer"},{"id":"paper-13-relation-active-qualifies-security","type":"qualifies","from_id":"paper-13-boundary-active","to_id":"paper-13-evidence-security"},{"id":"paper-13-relation-limitations-qualify-answer","type":"qualifies","from_id":"paper-13-limitations","to_id":"paper-13-answer"}],"assessment":{"id":"paper-13-assessment-2026-07-11","rubric_version":"0.2","assessed_at":"2026-07-11","status":"ai_draft_author_review_pending","note":"These dimensions describe documented support and process, not truth, correctness, or a universal ranking. No composite score is calculated.","axes":[{"id":"epistemic_evidence","level":"medium","rationale":"The paper defines the primitive and group settings, gives a geometric security argument, and quantifies message savings. The security treatment is conditional and analytical, and no implementation, simulation, or machine-checked proof is supplied.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-passive","anchor-paper-13-performance","anchor-paper-13-security","anchor-paper-13-future"]},{"id":"auditability","level":"high","rationale":"A complete author copy is checked into the site with source route, page count, and SHA-256 identity. Definitions, protocol steps, and analytical arguments are directly inspectable, though there is no executable artifact.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-model","anchor-paper-13-protocol","anchor-paper-13-security"]},{"id":"production_provenance","level":"medium","rationale":"Named authorship, an archived author copy, and a DOI establish baseline provenance. Contributor roles, revision history, analysis scripts, and tool use are not documented.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-question","anchor-paper-13-publication"]},{"id":"external_scrutiny","level":"medium","rationale":"Publication as a TRUST short paper indicates venue review, but review reports, corrections, independent formal analysis, and empirical replication were not located.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-publication"]},{"id":"reception","level":"high","rationale":"ResearchGate displayed 14 citations on 2026-07-11, which meets the rubric's 11-or-more high band. The count is index-specific and may merge related versions.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-citations"]},{"id":"contribution_significance","level":"medium","rationale":"The paper introduces a clear group generalization and a reusable passive primitive, but the short version leaves important trust, synchronization, and implementation questions open.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-13-question","anchor-paper-13-passive","anchor-paper-13-future"]}]},"reception_snapshot":{"as_of":"2026-07-11","method":"researchgate_publication_page","citation_count":14,"source":"ResearchGate publication page","signals":["ResearchGate displayed Citations (14)."],"limitation":"ResearchGate may merge or separate the short paper, arXiv version, and related expanded work differently from other indexes; citing contexts and polarity were not audited."}}