Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Mark Lewko

dblp:03/9698 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Systems, architecture and hardware · 2Security and privacy · 1 · 1 first-authorTheory of computation · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
2 papers
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis · 84% Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 16%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Distributed computing theory · 75% Computational complexity · 25%

Topics — the 10 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › public-key cryptography
RSA
0.212013
Regularity of Lossy RSA on Subdomains and Its Applications · EUROCRYPT 2013
Distributed computing theory › consensus
asynchronous consensus
0.212013
On the complexity of asynchronous agreement against powerful adversaries · PODC 2013
Distributed computing theory
consensus
0.212013
On the complexity of asynchronous agreement against powerful adversaries · PODC 2013
Computational complexity
lower bounds
0.212013
On the complexity of asynchronous agreement against powerful adversaries · PODC 2013
Distributed computing theory › consensus
randomized consensus
0.212013
On the complexity of asynchronous agreement against powerful adversaries · PODC 2013
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › public-key cryptography
digital signatures
0.112011
How to leak on key updates · STOC 2011
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › key management
key update
0.112011
How to leak on key updates · STOC 2011
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › leakage-resilient cryptography
leakage-resilient encryption
0.112011
How to leak on key updates · STOC 2011
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › public-key cryptography › digital signatures › digital signature security
leakage-resilient signatures
0.112011
How to leak on key updates · STOC 2011
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › public-key cryptography
public-key encryption
0.112011
How to leak on key updates · STOC 2011

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

strongly adaptive adversary · 0.2regularity analysis · 0.2crash and byzantine failure models · 0.2subgroup decision assumptions · 0.1bilinear groups · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 On the complexity of asynchronous agreement against powerful adversaries
Allison Bishop, Mark Lewko
Distributed Comput.2
2013 Regularity of Lossy RSA on Subdomains and Its Applications
Mark Lewko, Adam O'Neill, Adam D. Smith 0001
EUROCRYPT1
2013 On the complexity of asynchronous agreement against powerful adversaries
abstract
We introduce new techniques for proving lower bounds on the running time of randomized algorithms for asynchronous agreement against powerful adversaries. In particular, we define a strongly adaptive adversary that is computationally unbounded and has a limited ability to corrupt a dynamic subset of processors by erasing their memories. We demonstrate that the randomized agreement algorithms designed by Ben-Or and Bracha to tolerate crash or Byzantine failures in the asynchronous setting extend to defeat a strongly adaptive adversary. These algorithms have essentially perfect correctness and termination, but at the expense of exponential running time. In the case of the strongly adaptive adversary, we show that this dismally slow running time is inherent: we prove that any algorithm with essentially perfect correctness and termination against the strongly adaptive adversary must have exponential running time. We additionally interpret this result as yielding an enhanced understanding of the tools needed to simultaneously achieving perfect correctness and termination as well as fast running time for randomized algorithms tolerating crash or Byzantine failures.
Allison Bishop, Mark Lewko
PODC2
2011 How to leak on key updates
abstract
In the continual memory leakage model, security against attackers who can repeatedly obtain leakage is achieved by periodically updating the secret key. This is an appealing model which captures a wide class of side-channel attacks, but all previous constructions in this model provide only a very minimal amount of leakage tolerance during secret key updates. Since key updates may happen frequently, improving security guarantees against attackers who obtain leakage during these updates is an important problem. In this work, we present the first cryptographic primitives which are secure against a super-logarithmic amount of leakage during secret key updates. We present signature and public key encryption schemes in the standard model which can tolerate a constant fraction of the secret key to be leaked between updates as well as a constant fraction of the secret key and update randomness to be leaked during updates. Our signature scheme also allows us to leak a constant fraction of the entire secret state during signing. Before this work, it was unknown how to tolerate super-logarithmic leakage during updates even in the random oracle model. We rely on subgroup decision assumptions in composite order bilinear groups.
Allison Bishop, Mark Lewko, Brent Waters
STOC2