Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outsourced computation presents a risk to the confidentiality of clients’ sensitive data since they have to trust that the service providers will not mishandle this data. Blinded Memory (BliMe) [1] is a set of hardware extensions that addresses this problem by using hardware-based taint tracking to keep track of sensitive client data and enforce a security policy that prevents software from leaking this data, either directly or through side channels. Since programs can leak sensitive data through timing channels and memory access patterns when this data is used in control-flow or memory access instructions, BliMe prohibits such unsafe operations and only allows constant-time code to operate on sensitive data. The question is how a developer can confirm that their code will run correctly on BliMe. While a program can be manually checked to see if it is constant-time, this process is tedious and error-prone.In this paper, we introduce the BliMe linter, a set of compiler extensions built on top of SVF [2] that analyze LLVM bitcode to identify possible BliMe violations. We evaluate the BliMe linter analytically and empirically and show that it is sound.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".