Revisiting NIZK-Based Technique for Chosen-Ciphertext Security: Security Analysis and Corrected Proofs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author(s),
Please find below my recommendations regarding your manuscript proposal.

After reading your paper, I think that the semi-generic approach for constructing a CCA-secure key encapsulation mechanism is an  interesting one.
During my initial documentation in order to make this review, I found that in your manuscript in the section "2.1. Notation" (rows 142-148) are very similar to https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10623-020-00794-z.
I suppose that the previous mentioned article is also yours, but I think you should mention this reference so that the reader knows that these notations come from a previous published paper.
The same remark for "3.1.1. Syntax" (rows 227-230)

I also found another article that is intensively used in your manuscript. For example, at page 13 in your proposal, rows 353-358 are cery similar to the paper available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020025519302762?via%3Dihub.
Also, important parts of definitions 5 and 6.

Please take into consideration the above remarks about the similarity with previous published papers and include the appropriate references in your text body.

The title of section 1.1 contains names of some authors.
I recommend you to rename the title in something more general like "1.1. Flaw in Security Proof in previous research literature".

I think that section "1.3. Organization" should appear earlier in the text. At this moment, it appears too late, after a long initial description including concept of corrected proofs and flaw in security proof.

In the Conclusion section you should describe the implications of your research in the field of knowledge.
Also, please present some practical implications: for example, make some relationships with some software tools for messages, image processing and sounds transmission (you can cite here: https://doi.org/10.12948/issn14531305/17.1.2013.05 and http://jucs.org/jucs_25_10/trust_based_cluster_head/jucs_25_10_1221_1239_shankar.pdf and https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2021.014429).
These new references will offer a solid support for the practical implications of your research results. Here is the place where you can "sell" to the readers the results of your research.
Also, in the Conclusion section you should mention the limitations of your research proposal and the further research directions.

Dear Author(s),
Please consider all the above remarks as being constructive recommendations in order to improve the general quality of your manuscript and to increase the impact of your research results on readers.
Kind Regards!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents 'Revisiting NIZK-Based Technique for
Chosen-Ciphertext Security: Security Analysis and
Corrected Proofs '. Some security flaws in a previously proposed method are reported in this paper. The presented analysis is in detail and scientifically sound. However, I have a few suggestions to improve the quality of the draft paper. 

1. Could you please revise the abstract and avoid some terms such as 'their' etc.
2. Please discuss some future directions for interested readers. 
3. Add latest references from 2020 and 2021.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author(s),

I have read the revised version of your manuscript proposal and I have seen that you addressed many of my remarks.

However, as I already recommended you, the Conclusion section must be improved. The revised version is still poor in this section and, to improve this issue, you should present some practical implications by presenting an enumeration of some relationships with some software tools for messages, image processing and sounds transmission (cite here: https://doi.org/10.12948/issn14531305/17.1.2013.05 and http://jucs.org/jucs_25_10/trust_based_cluster_head/jucs_25_10_1221_1239_shankar.pdf and https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2021.014429).

These references that you include in your Conclusion section will convince the reader about the practical utility of your research and will support the proposed future research directions. I consider it is absolutely necessary to include such a paragraph in your Conclusion section.

Kind Regards!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx