Non-interactive conference key distribution and its applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. A non-interactive conference key distribution system (or, a NICKDS for short) allows conference members to calculate a shared key without interacting with each other. NICKDSs have been studied in unconditional and computational settings. In both cases security has been evaluated against an adversary who can corrupt participants. In this paper we consider an adaptive adversary who can both corrupt participants and also access the keys of conference of his choice. We revisit security of a number of known NICKDSs in this new model and present characterizations and conditions that guarantee security of the system in the new model. We also give a generic construction for computationally secure (in the new model) NICKDSs, from unconditionally secure ones in corruption only model. To show the usefulness of the new security model, we consider two composition constructions. First, we compose a secure NICKDS with a secure MAC by using the key obtained from the NICKDS as the MAC key, and show that this results in a ring authentication that guarantees authenticity of the received message while the sender remains anonymous and this anonymity is unconditional. The security theorem for the composition guarantees security for unconditional and computational settings, both. We also consider composition of a NICKDS with a secure (CCA2 secure) encryption system and show this results in a broadcast encryption system (BES) that is CCA2 secure. This is the first CCA2 secure BES in symmetric key setting. We discuss future works and open problems. 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".