Cited by 242Cryptography and Data SecurityCryptographic Implementations and SecurityCoding theory and cryptography

Overcoming the Hole in the Bucket: Public-Key Cryptography Resilient to Continual Memory Leakage

Brakerski, Zvika, Kalai, Yael Tauman, Katz, Jonathan, Vaikuntanathan, Vinod·2010·2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a major effort to design cryptographic schemes that remain secure even when arbitrary information about the secret key is leaked (e.g., via side-channel attacks). We explore the possibility of achieving security under \emph{continual} leakage from the \emph{entire} secret key by designing schemes in which the secret key is updated over time. In this model, we construct public-key encryption schemes, digital signatures, and identity-based encryption schemes that remain secure even if an attacker can leak a constant fraction of the secret memory (including the secret key) in each time period between key updates. We also consider attackers who may probe the secret memory during the updates themselves. We stress that we allow unrestricted leakage, without the assumption that ``only computation leaks information''. Prior to this work, constructions of public-key encryption schemes secure under continual leakage were not known even under this assumption.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/focs.2010.55

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Shops and families often lack security awareness and protection skills, which makes web cameras and monitors vulnerable.

    “shops and families often lack security awareness and protection skills, which makes web cameras and monitors (most of the time, the monitor is just a normal personal computer) vulnerable [33,34].”

    From Secure Video Surveillance Framework in Smart City (2021) · cites this paper as [33]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brakerski, Z., Kalai, Y. T., Katz, J., & Vaikuntanathan, V.
Affiliations
  • Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
Venue
2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2010-10
Volume
2010
Pages
501-510
ISSN
0272-5428 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1987129710
Cited by
242
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 25
FWCI
20.17
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (publishedVersion)
  • IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptographic Implementations and Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Coding theory and cryptography
Keywords
public-key encryption, digital signatures, identity-based encryption, leakage-resilient cryptography, side-channel attacks, key update, secret key leakage

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review