Review this prior art and click on the thumbs up (or down) to indicate whether this submission should be forwarded to IP Australia.
If you login then you can add an annotation by typing in the box at the bottom of the screen to comment on the relevance of the prior art to the claims of the patent application.
| Summary / Description | Under the assumption that each pair of participants can communcate secretly, we show that any reasonable multiparty protocol can be achieved if at least Q of the Participants are honest. The secrecy achieved is unconditional. It does not rely on any assumption about computational intractability. |
| Type of Prior Art | Print Publication |
| Publication Title * | 1988 ACM-O-89791-264-0/88/0005/0011 |
| Author | Chaum, D |
| ISBN | |
| Page Range | 11-19 |
| Medium | Journal article |
| Publication Date * | January 1, 1988 |
| URL | |
| Notes | |
Excerpt In this paper, we show that essentially anygeneral multiparty protocol problem can be solved, in such a way that each party’s secrets is unconditionally secure, assuming the existence of authenticated secrecy channels between each pair of participants. In general, an input value Xi is unconditionally secure if gaining information about Xi is impossible beyond that available from z (so long as no more than + of the participants cheat, in our model). |
A money transfer system, comprising:
an input adapted to receive biometric samples;
a storage arrangement configured to store the biometric samples or derivatives thereof, and
a processor;
wherein the processor comprises instructions to:
use a first biometric sample to select a MTCN (money transfer control number) from a pool of predetermined MTCNs; and
link the first biometric sample to the MTCN.
| Relevance | This is relevant to the method by which the biometric parameter is converted to a unique identifier for later use. |
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor further comprises instructions to respond to a request to settle a transaction using the MTCN by receiving a second biometric sample and comparing the second biometric sample to the first biometric sample.
| Relevance | The settlement requires comparison of entries in a table whereby that table consists of one-time data elements. |
A method of transferring funds from a sender to a recipient, comprising:
receiving a request to transfer the funds from the sender;
creating a transaction record having a transaction identifier;
providing the transaction identifier to the sender;
receiving the transaction identifier from a recipient;
obtaining a first biometric sample from the recipient;
using the biometric sample to select a MTCN (Money Transfer Control Number) from a pool of predetermined MTCNs;
associating the MTCN with the first biometric sample and the transaction record;
providing the MTCN to the recipient;
thereafter, receiving a request from the recipient to receive the funds;
obtaining the MTCN from the recipient;
obtaining a second biometric sample from the recipient;
using the MTCN and/or the second biometric sample to locate the transaction record;
comparing the second biometric sample to the first biometric sample; and
determining whether to provide the funds based on the comparison.
| Relevance | The claim is one of basic enhancement to security and as such the method becomes subservient to this requirement. The "protocol" used is thus critical and prior art has existed in this area for some time. |
The method of claim 6, wherein determining whether to provide the funds based on the comparison comprises determining whether the funds have been paid out.
| Relevance | Table comparison is a fundamental part of "one-time" transaction security protocols. |
United States