Progress in Cryptology - INDOCRYPT 2001

Second International Conference on Cryptology in India, Chennai, India, December 16-20, 2001

By: C. Pandu Rangan, ?Cunsheng Ding

Write A Review

eText | 1 January 2001 | Edition Number 1

At a Glance

Format
PDF

eText

$84.99

or 4 interest-free payments of $21.25 with

Instant online reading in your Booktopia eTextbook Library *

Why choose an eTextbook?

Instant Access *

Purchase and read your book immediately

Read Aloud

Listen and follow along as Bookshelf reads to you

Study Tools

Built-in study tools like highlights and more

* eTextbooks are not downloadable to your eReader or an app and can be accessed via web browsers only. You must be connected to the internet and have no technical issues with your device or browser that could prevent the eTextbook from operating.

INDOCRYPT 2001, the Second Annual Crypto Conference, is proof of the s- ni?cant amount of enthusiasm generated among Indian as well as International crypto communities. INDOCRYPT 2001 was organized by the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, also located in Madras (now Chennai). This event was enthusiastically co-sponsored by eAl- traz ConsultingPrivate Ltd, Chennai, Odyssey Technologies Ltd, Chennai, and Shanmuga Arts Science Technology and Research Academy (SASTRA), Th- javur. The Program Committee Co-chair, Prof.C.Pandu Rangan was responsible for local organization and registration. The Program Committee considered 77 papers and selected 31 papers for presentation. These papers were selected on the basis of perceived originality, quality, and relevance to the ?eld of cryptography. The proceedings include the revised version of the accepted papers. Revisions were not checked as to their contents and authors bear full responsibility for the contents of their submissions. The selection of papers is a very challengingand demandingtask. We wish to thank the Program Committee members who did an excellent job in reviewing the submissions in spite of severe time constraints imposed by the tight p- cessingschedule. Each submission was reviewed by at least three referees (only a few by two). The Program Committee was ably assisted by a large number of reviewers in their area of expertise. The list of reviewers has been provided separately. Our thanks go to all of them.