On the effectiveness of graph matching attacks against privacy-preserving record linkage

PLoS One. 2022 Sep 22;17(9):e0267893. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267893. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

Linking several databases containing information on the same person is an essential step of many data workflows. Due to the potential sensitivity of the data, the identity of the persons should be kept private. Privacy-Preserving Record-Linkage (PPRL) techniques have been developed to link persons despite errors in the identifiers used to link the databases without violating their privacy. The basic approach is to use encoded quasi-identifiers instead of plain quasi-identifiers for making the linkage decision. Ideally, the encoded quasi-identifiers should prevent re-identification but still allow for a good linkage quality. While several PPRL techniques have been proposed so far, Bloom filter-based PPRL schemes (BF-PPRL) are among the most popular due to their scalability. However, a recently proposed attack on BF-PPRL based on graph similarities seems to allow individuals' re-identification from encoded quasi-identifiers. Therefore, the graph matching attack is widely considered a serious threat to many PPRL-approaches and leads to the situation that BF-PPRL schemes are rejected as being insecure. In this work, we argue that this view is not fully justified. We show by experiments that the success of graph matching attacks requires a high overlap between encoded and plain records used for the attack. As soon as this condition is not fulfilled, the success rate sharply decreases and renders the attacks hardly effective. This necessary condition does severely limit the applicability of these attacks in practice and also allows for simple but effective countermeasures.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Computer Security*
  • Confidentiality
  • Databases, Factual
  • Humans
  • Medical Record Linkage / methods
  • Privacy*

Grants and funding

The research reported here is supported by the research grant DFG 407023611 of the German Research Foundation. The funder DFG had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.