IHP “Nexus” Workshop on Privacy and Security: Day 2

Verrrrrry belated blogging on the rest of the workshop, more than a month later. Day 2 had 5 talks instead of the tutorial plus talks, and the topics were a bit more varied (this was partly because of scheduling issues that prevented us from being strictly thematic).

Amos Beimel started out with a talk on secret sharing, which had a very nice tutorial/introduction to the problem, including the connection between Reed-Solomon codes and Shamir’s t-out-of-n scheme. For professional (and perhaps personal) reasons I found myself wondering how much more the connection between secret sharing and coding theory was — after all, this was a workshop about communication between information theory and theoretical CS. Not being a coding theory expert myself, I could only speculate. What I didn’t know about was the more general secret sharing structures and the results of Ito-Saito-Nishizeki scheme (published in Globecom!). Amos also talked about monotone span programs, which were new to me, and how to prove lower bounds. He concluded with more recent work on the related distribution design problem: how can we construct a distribution on n variables given constraints that specify subsets which should have identical marginals and subsets which should have disjoint support? The results appeared in ICTS.

Ye Wang talked about his work on common information and how it appears in privacy and security problems from an information theoretic perspective. In particular he talked about secure sampling, multiparty computation, and data release problems. The MPC and sampling results were pretty technical in terms of notions of completeness of primitives (conditional distributions) and triviality (a way of categorizing sources). For the data release problem he focused on problems where a sanitizer has access to a pair (X,Y) where X is private and Y is “useful” — the goal is to produce a version of the data which reveals less about X (privacy) and more about Y (utility). Since they are correlated, there is a tension. The question he addressed is when having access to Y alone as as good as both X and Y.

Manoj, after giving his part of the tutorial (and covering for Vinod), gave his own talk on what he called “cryptographic complexity,” which is an analogy to computational complexity, but for multiparty functions. This was also a talk about definitions and reductions: if you can build a protocol for securely computing f(\cdot) using a protocol for g(\cdot), then f(\cdot) reduces to g(\cdot). A complete function is one for which everything reduces to it, and a trivial function reduces to everything. So with the concepts you can start to classify and partition out functions like characterizing all complete functions for 2 parties, or finding trivial functions under different security notions. He presented some weird facts, like an n bit XOR doesn’t reduce to an (n-1) bit XOR. It was a pretty interesting talk, and I learned quite a bit!

Elette Boyle gave a great talk on Oblivious RAM, a topic about which I was completely oblivious myself. The basic idea in oblivious RAM is (as I understood it) that an adversary can observe the accesses to a RAM and therefore infer what program is being executed (and the input). To obfuscate that, you introduce a bunch of spurious accesses. So if you have a program $\latex \Pi$ whose access pattern is fixed prior to execution, you can randomize the accesses and gain some security. The overhead is the ratio of the total accesses to the required accesses. After this introduction to the problem, she talked about lower bounds on the overhead (e.g. you need this much overhead) for a case where you have parallel processing. I admit that I didn’t quite understand the arguments, but the problem was pretty interesting.

Hoeteck Wee gave the last (but quite energetic) talk of the afternoon, on what he called “functional encryption.” The ideas is that Alice has (x,M) and Bob has y. They both send messages to a third party, Charlie. There is a 0-1 function (predicate) P(x,y) such that if P(x,y) = 1 then Charlie can decode the message M. Otherwise, they cannot. An example would be the predicate P(x,y) = \mathbf{1}(x = y). In this case, Alice can send h(x) \oplus M and Bob can send h(y) for some 2-wise independent hash function, and then Charlie can recover M if the hashes match. I think there is a question in this scheme about whether Charlie needs to know that they got the right message, but I guess I can read the paper for that. The kinds of questions they want to ask are what kinds of predicates have nice encoding schemes? What is the size of message that Alice and Bob have to send? He made a connection/reduction to a communication complexity problem to get a bound on the message sizes in terms of the communication complexity of computing the predicate P. It really was a very nice talk and pretty understandable even with my own limited background.


IHP “Nexus” Workshop on Privacy and Security: Day 1

The view from my office at IHP

The view from my office at IHP

I am attending the Nexus of Information and Computation Theories workshop at the Institut Henri Poincaré in Paris this week. It’s the last week of a 10 week program that brought together researchers from information theory and CS theory in workshops around various themes such as distributed computation, inference, lower bounds, inequalities, and security/privacy. The main organizers were Bobak Nazer, Aslan Tchamkerten, Anup Rao, and Mark Braverman. The last two weeks are on Privacy and Security: I helped organize these two weeks with Prakash Narayan, Salil Vadhan, Aaron Roth, and Vinod Vaikuntanathan.

Due to teaching and ICASSP, I missed last week, but am here for this week, for which the sub-topics are security multiparty computation and differential privacy. I’ll try to blog about the workshop since I failed to blog at all about ITA, CISS, or ICASSP. The structure of the workshop was to have 4 tutorials (two per week) and then a set of hopefully related talks. The first week had tutorials on pseudorandomness and information theoretic secrecy.

The second week of the workshop kicked off with a tutorial from Yuval Ishai and Manoj Prabhakaran on secure multiparty computation (MPC). Yuval gave an abbreviated version/update of his tutorial from the Simons Institute (pt1/pt2) that set up the basic framework and language around MPC: k parties with inputs x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_k want to exchange messages to implement a functionality (evaluate a function) f(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_k) over secure point-to-point channels such they successfully learn the output of the function but don’t learn anything additional about each others’ inputs. There is a landscape of definitions within this general framework: some parties could collude, behave dishonestly with respect to the protocol, and so on. The guarantees could be exact (in the real/ideal paradigm in which you compare the real system with an simulated system), statistical (the distribution in the real system is close in total variation distance to an ideal evaluation), or computational (some notion of indistinguishability). The example became a bit clearer when he described a 2-party example with a “trusted dealer” who can give parties some correlated random bits and they could use those to randomly shift the truth table/evaluation of f(x_1, x_2) to guarantee correctness and security.

Manoj, on the other hand talked about some notions of reductions between secure computations: given a protocol which evaluates f, can you simulate/compute g using calls to f? How many do you need? this gives a notion of the complexity rate of one function in terms of another. For example, can Alice and Bob simulate a BEC using calls to an oblivious transfer (OT) protocol? What about vice versa? What about using a BSC? These problems seem sort of like toy channel problems (from an information theory perspective) but seem like fundamental building blocks when thinking about secure computation. As I discussed with Hoeteck Wee today, in information theory we often gain some intuition from continuous alphabets or large/general alphabet settings, whereas cryptography arguments/bounds come from considering circuit complexity: these are ideas that we don’t think about too much in IT since we don’t usually care about computational complexity/implementation.

Huijia (Rachel) Lin gave an introduction to zero-knowledge proofs and proof systems: a verifier wants to know if a statement X is true and can ask queries to a prover P which has some evidence w that it wants to keep secret. For example, the statement might be “the number y is a perfect square” and the evidence might be an \alpha such that y = \alpha^2 \mod n. The prover doesn’t want to reveal w = \alpha, but instead should convince the verifier that such an alpha exists. She gave a protocol for this before turning to a more complicated statement like proving that a graph has a Hamiltonian cycle. She then talked about using commitment schemes, at which point I sort of lost the thread of things since I’m not as familiar with these cryptography constructions. I probably should have asked more questions, so it was my loss.

Daniel Wichs discussed two problems he called “multi-key” and “spooky” fully-homomorphic encryption (FHE). The idea in multi-key FHE is that you have N users who encrypt values \{ x_i : i \in [N] \} with their public key and upload them to a server. Someone with access to the server wants to be able to decode only a function f(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_N) using the combined private keys of all the users. In “spooky” FHE, you have N decoders, each with one of the private keys, but they want to decode values \{y_i : i \in [N]\} which are functions of all of the encoded data. A simple example of this is when y_1 \oplus y_2 = x_1 \wedge x_2: that is, the XOR of the outputs is equal to the AND of the inputs. This generalizes to the XOR of multiple outputs being some function of the inputs, something he called additive function sharing. He then presented schemes for these two problems based on the “learning with errors” from Gentry, Sahai, and Waters, which I would apparently have to read to really understand the scheme. It’s some sort of linear algebra thing over \mathbb{Z}_q. Perhaps there are some connections to linear block codes or network coding to be exploited here.