MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412373339 · doi:10.56553/popets-2025-0119

TEEMS: A Trusted Execution Environment based Metadata-protected Messaging System

2025· article· en· W4412373339 on OpenAlexaff
Sajin Sasy, Aaron Johnson, Ian Goldberg

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity and Verification in Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataComputer scienceDirect Anonymous AttestationWorld Wide WebDatabaseOperating systemTrusted Computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ensuring privacy of online messaging remains a challenge. While the contents or data of online communications are often protected by end-to-end encryption, the metadata of communications are not. Metadata such as who is communicating with whom, how much, and how often, are leaked by popular messaging systems today. In the last four decades we have witnessed a rich literature of designs towards metadata-protecting communications systems (MPCS). While recent MPCS works often target metadata-protected messaging systems, no existing construction simultaneously attains four desirable properties for messaging systems, namely (i) low latency, (ii) high throughput, (iii) horizontal scalability, and (iv) asynchronicity. Existing designs often capture disjoint subsets of these properties. For example, PIR-based approaches achieve low latency and asynchronicity but have low throughput and lack horizontal scalability, mixnet-based approaches achieve high throughput and horizontal scalability but lack asynchronicity, and approaches based on trusted execution environments (TEEs) achieve high throughput and asynchronicity but lack horizontal scalability. In this work, we present TEEMS, the first MPCS designed for metadata-protected messaging that simultaneously achieves all four desirable properties. Our distributed TEE-based system uses an oblivious mailbox design to provide metadata-protected messaging. TEEMS presents novel oblivious routing protocols that adapt prior work on oblivious distributed sorting. Moreover, we introduce the notion of ID and token channels to circumvent shortcomings of prior designs. We empirically demonstrate TEEMS' ability to support 2^20 clients engaged in metadata-protected conversations in under 1 s, with 205 cores, achieving an 18× improvement over prior work for latency and throughput, while supporting significantly better scalability and asynchronicity properties.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings on Privacy Enhancing TechnologiesSame topicSecurity and Verification in ComputingFrench-language works237,207