Mind the Gap: Ceremonies for Applied Secret Sharing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Secret sharing schemes are desirable across a variety of real-world settings due to the security and privacy properties they can provide, such as availability and separation of privilege. However, transitioning secret sharing schemes from theoretical research to practical use must account for gaps in achieving these properties that arise due to the realities of concrete implementations, threat models, and use cases. We present a formalization and analysis, using Ellison’s notion of ceremonies, that demonstrates how simple variations in use cases of secret sharing schemes result in the potential loss of some security properties, a result that cannot be derived from the analysis of the underlying cryptographic protocol alone. Our framework accounts for such variations in the design and analysis of secret sharing implementations by presenting a more detailed user-focused process and defining previously overlooked assumptions about user roles and actions within the scheme to support analysis when designing such ceremonies. We identify existing mechanisms that, when applied to an appropriate implementation, close the security gaps we identified. We present our implementation including these mechanisms and a corresponding security assessment using our framework.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 it