MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193505954

On Protecting Cryptographic Keys Against Continual Leakage.

2010· preprint· en· W3193505954 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Juma, Yevgeniy Vahlis

Bibliographic record

VenueIACR Cryptology ePrint Archive · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAdversaryCryptographyInformation leakageHomomorphic encryptionComputer securityComputationSide channel attackEncryptionSecurity tokenTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Side-channel attacks have often proven to have a devastating effect on the security of cryptographic schemes. In this paper, we address the problem of storing cryptographic keys and computing on them in a manner that preserves security even when the adversary is able to obtain information leakage during the computation on the key. Using the recently achieved fully homomorphic encryption, we show how to encapsulate a key and repeatedly evaluate arbitrary functions on it so that no adversary can gain any useful information from a large class of side-channel attacks. We work in the model of Micali and Reyzin, assuming that only the active part of memory during computation leaks information. Similarly to previous works, our construc-tion makes use of a single “leak-free ” hardware token that samples from a globally-fixed distribution that does not depend on the key. Our construction is the first general compiler to achieve resilience against polytime leakage functions without performing any leak-free computation on the underlying secret key. Furthermore, the amount of computation our construction must perform does not grow with the amount of leakage the adver-sary is able to obtain; instead, it suffices to make a stronger assumption about the security of the fully homomorphic encryption. 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0010.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIACR Cryptology ePrint ArchiveSame topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207