EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Steven Goldfeder
dblp:151/5205
· DBLP profile ↗
14ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Security and privacy · 13 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 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
11 papers |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 45% Blockchain and cryptocurrency security · 28% Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis · 23% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers |
Distributed systems · 100% |
Topics — the 30 heaviest of 41, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
secure multiparty computation |
0.8 | 2 | 2021 | MPC-Friendly Symmetric Cryptography from Alternating Moduli: Candidates, Protocols, and Applications · CRYPTO (4) 2021 Fast Multiparty Threshold ECDSA with Fast Trustless Setup · CCS 2018 |
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › public-key cryptography › digital signatures
threshold signature |
0.8 | 2 | 2020 | UC Non-Interactive, Proactive, Threshold ECDSA with Identifiable Aborts · CCS 2020 Fast Multiparty Threshold ECDSA with Fast Trustless Setup · CCS 2018 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › proof systems
zero-knowledge proofs |
0.7 | 2 | 2020 | DECO: Liberating Web Data Using Decentralized Oracles for TLS · CCS 2020 Post-Quantum Zero-Knowledge and Signatures from Symmetric-Key Primitives · CCS 2017 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
threshold cryptography |
0.7 | 2 | 2018 | Threshold Cryptosystems from Threshold Fully Homomorphic Encryption · CRYPTO (1) 2018 Fast Multiparty Threshold ECDSA with Fast Trustless Setup · CCS 2018 |
Distributed systems
consensus |
0.5 | 2 | 2020 | Order-Fairness for Byzantine Consensus · CRYPTO (3) 2020 Arbitrum: Scalable, private smart contracts · USENIX Security Symposium 2018 |
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis
symmetric cryptography |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | MPC-Friendly Symmetric Cryptography from Alternating Moduli: Candidates, Protocols, and Applications · CRYPTO (4) 2021 |
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security
smart contract |
0.5 | 2 | 2020 | Arbitrum: Scalable, private smart contracts · USENIX Security Symposium 2018 DECO: Liberating Web Data Using Decentralized Oracles for TLS · CCS 2020 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › adversarial model
adaptive corruption |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | UC Non-Interactive, Proactive, Threshold ECDSA with Identifiable Aborts · CCS 2020 |
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security
blockchain analysis |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | BlockSci: Design and applications of a blockchain analysis platform · USENIX Security Symposium 2020 |
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security › decentralized finance
decentralized exchange |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning in Decentralized Exchanges, Miner Extractable Value, and Consensus Instability · SP 2020 |
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security › blockchain oracle
decentralized oracle |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | DECO: Liberating Web Data Using Decentralized Oracles for TLS · CCS 2020 |
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security › maximal extractable value
frontrunning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning in Decentralized Exchanges, Miner Extractable Value, and Consensus Instability · SP 2020 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › secure multiparty computation › active security
identifiable abort |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | UC Non-Interactive, Proactive, Threshold ECDSA with Identifiable Aborts · CCS 2020 |
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security
maximal extractable value |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning in Decentralized Exchanges, Miner Extractable Value, and Consensus Instability · SP 2020 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › threshold cryptography
proactive security |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | UC Non-Interactive, Proactive, Threshold ECDSA with Identifiable Aborts · CCS 2020 |
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › public-key cryptography › digital signatures › threshold signature
threshold ECDSA |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | UC Non-Interactive, Proactive, Threshold ECDSA with Identifiable Aborts · CCS 2020 |
Network security › secure communication › secure communication protocol
TLS |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | DECO: Liberating Web Data Using Decentralized Oracles for TLS · CCS 2020 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › composable security
universally composable security |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | UC Non-Interactive, Proactive, Threshold ECDSA with Identifiable Aborts · CCS 2020 |
Distributed systems › consensus
byzantine agreement |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Order-Fairness for Byzantine Consensus · CRYPTO (3) 2020 |
Distributed systems › consensus › byzantine agreement
order-fairness |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Order-Fairness for Byzantine Consensus · CRYPTO (3) 2020 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › key management
distributed key generation |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Fast Multiparty Threshold ECDSA with Fast Trustless Setup · CCS 2018 |
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › homomorphic encryption › fully homomorphic encryption
TFHE |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Threshold Cryptosystems from Threshold Fully Homomorphic Encryption · CRYPTO (1) 2018 |
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security › electronic cash
bitcoin |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Zero-Knowledge Contingent Payments Revisited: Attacks and Payments for Services · CCS 2017 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
fair exchange |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Zero-Knowledge Contingent Payments Revisited: Attacks and Payments for Services · CCS 2017 |
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis
post-quantum cryptography |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Post-Quantum Zero-Knowledge and Signatures from Symmetric-Key Primitives · CCS 2017 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › proof systems › zero-knowledge proofs
post-quantum zero-knowledge |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Post-Quantum Zero-Knowledge and Signatures from Symmetric-Key Primitives · CCS 2017 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › fair exchange
zero-knowledge contingent payment |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Zero-Knowledge Contingent Payments Revisited: Attacks and Payments for Services · CCS 2017 |
Graph data management
graph analytics |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | BlockSci: Design and applications of a blockchain analysis platform · USENIX Security Symposium 2020 |
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security
consensus protocol |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Order-Fairness for Byzantine Consensus · CRYPTO (3) 2020 |
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security
cryptocurrency wallet |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | UC Non-Interactive, Proactive, Threshold ECDSA with Identifiable Aborts · CCS 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
graph analysis · 0.9game-theoretic modeling · 0.9empirical measurement · 0.9alternating moduli · 0.5zero-knowledge proofs · 0.4paillier encryption · 0.4non-interactive protocol · 0.4TLS attestation · 0.4Strong RSA · 0.4DDH · 0.4interactive proving · 0.3cryptographic commitment · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | MPC-Friendly Symmetric Cryptography from Alternating Moduli: Candidates, Protocols, and Applications
Itai Dinur, Steven Goldfeder, Tzipora Halevi, Yuval Ishai, Mahimna Kelkar, Gregory M. Zaverucha |
CRYPTO (4) | 2 |
| 2020 | UC Non-Interactive, Proactive, Threshold ECDSA with Identifiable AbortsabstractBuilding on the Gennaro & Goldfeder and Lindell & Nof protocols (CCS '18), we present two threshold ECDSA protocols, for any number of signatories and any threshold, that improve as follows over the state of the art: -- For both protocols, only the last round requires knowledge of the message, and the other rounds can take place in a preprocessing stage, lending to a non-interactive threshold ECDSA protocol. -- Both protocols withstand adaptive corruption of signatories. Furthermore, they include a periodic refresh mechanism and offer full proactive security. -- Both protocols realize an ideal threshold signature functionality within the UC framework, in the global random oracle model, assuming Strong RSA, DDH, semantic security of the Paillier encryption, and a somewhat enhanced variant of existential unforgeability of ECDSA. -- Both protocols achieve accountability by identifying corrupted parties in case of failure to generate a valid signature. The two protocols are distinguished by the round-complexity and the identification process for detecting cheating parties. Namely: -- For the first protocol, signature generation takes only 4 rounds (down from the current state of the art of 8 rounds), but the identification process requires computation and communication that is quadratic in the number of parties. -- For the second protocol, the identification process requires computation and communication that is only linear in the number of parties, but signature generation takes 7 rounds. These properties (low latency, compatibility with cold-wallet architectures, proactive security, identifiable abort and composable security) make the two protocols ideal for threshold wallets for ECDSA-based cryptocurrencies. Ran Canetti, Rosario Gennaro, Steven Goldfeder, Nikolaos Makriyannis, Udi Peled |
CCS | 3 |
| 2020 | DECO: Liberating Web Data Using Decentralized Oracles for TLSabstractThanks to the widespread deployment of TLS, users can access private data over channels with end-to-end confidentiality and integrity. What they cannot do, however, is prove to third parties the provenance of such data, i.e., that it genuinely came from a particular website. Existing approaches either introduce undesirable trust assumptions or require server-side modifications. Users' private data is thus locked up at its point of origin. Users cannot export data in an integrity-protected way to other applications without help and permission from the current data holder. We propose DECO (short for decentralized oracle) to address the above problems. DECO allows users to prove that a piece of data accessed via TLS came from a particular website and optionally prove statements about such data in zero-knowledge, keeping the data itself secret. DECO is the first such system that works without trusted hardware or server-side modifications. DECO can liberate private data from centralized web-service silos, making it accessible to a rich spectrum of applications. To demonstrate the power of DECO, we implement three applications that are hard to achieve without it: a private financial instrument using smart contracts, converting legacy credentials to anonymous credentials, and verifiable claims against price discrimination. Fan Zhang 0022, Sai Krishna Deepak Maram, Harjasleen Malvai, Steven Goldfeder, Ari Juels |
CCS | 4 |
| 2020 | Order-Fairness for Byzantine Consensus
Mahimna Kelkar, Fan Zhang 0022, Steven Goldfeder, Ari Juels |
CRYPTO (3) | 3 |
| 2020 | Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning in Decentralized Exchanges, Miner Extractable Value, and Consensus InstabilityabstractBlockchains, and specifically smart contracts, have promised to create fair and transparent trading ecosystems.Unfortunately, we show that this promise has not been met. We document and quantify the widespread and rising deployment of arbitrage bots in blockchain systems, specifically in decentralized exchanges (or "DEXes"). Like high-frequency traders on Wall Street, these bots exploit inefficiencies in DEXes, paying high transaction fees and optimizing network latency to frontrun, i.e., anticipate and exploit, ordinary users' DEX trades.We study the breadth of DEX arbitrage bots in a subset of transactions that yield quantifiable revenue to these bots. We also study bots' profit-making strategies, with a focus on blockchain-specific elements. We observe bots engage in what we call priority gas auctions (PGAs), competitively bidding up transaction fees in order to obtain priority ordering, i.e., early block position and execution, for their transactions. PGAs present an interesting and complex new continuous-time, partial-information, game-theoretic model that we formalize and study. We release an interactive web portal, frontrun.me, to provide the community with real-time data on PGAs. We additionally show that high fees paid for priority transaction ordering poses a systemic risk to consensus-layer security. We explain that such fees are just one form of a general phenomenon in DEXes and beyond-what we call miner extractable value (MEV)-that poses concrete, measurable, consensus-layer security risks. We show empirically that MEV poses a realistic threat to Ethereum today. Our work highlights the large, complex risks created by transaction-ordering dependencies in smart contracts and the ways in which traditional forms of financial-market exploitation are adapting to and penetrating blockchain economies. Philip Daian, Steven Goldfeder, Tyler Kell, Yunqi Li 0002, Xueyuan Zhao, Iddo Bentov, Lorenz Breidenbach, Ari Juels |
SP | 2 |
| 2020 | BlockSci: Design and applications of a blockchain analysis platform
Harry A. Kalodner, Malte Möser, Steven Goldfeder, Martin Plattner, Alishah Chator, Arvind Narayanan |
USENIX Security Symposium | 4 |
| 2018 | Fast Multiparty Threshold ECDSA with Fast Trustless SetupabstractA threshold signature scheme enables distributed signing among n players such that any subgroup of size $t+1$ can sign, whereas any group with t or fewer players cannot. While there exist previous threshold schemes for the ECDSA signature scheme, we are the first protocol that supports multiparty signatures for any $t łeq n$ with an efficient dealerless key generation. Our protocol is faster than previous solutions and significantly reduces the communication complexity as well. We prove our scheme secure against malicious adversaries with a dishonest majority. We implemented our protocol, demonstrating its efficiency and suitability to be deployed in practice. Rosario Gennaro, Steven Goldfeder |
CCS | 2 |
| 2018 | Threshold Cryptosystems from Threshold Fully Homomorphic Encryption
Dan Boneh, Rosario Gennaro, Steven Goldfeder, Aayush Jain, Sam Kim, Peter M. R. Rasmussen, Amit Sahai |
CRYPTO (1) | 3 |
| 2018 | Arbitrum: Scalable, private smart contracts
Harry A. Kalodner, Steven Goldfeder, S. Matthew Weinberg, Edward W. Felten |
USENIX Security Symposium | 2 |
| 2018 | When the cookie meets the blockchain: Privacy risks of web payments via cryptocurrenciesabstractAbstract We show how third-party web trackers can deanonymize users of cryptocurrencies. We present two distinct but complementary attacks. On most shopping websites, third party trackers receive information about user purchases for purposes of advertising and analytics. We show that, if the user pays using a cryptocurrency, trackers typically possess enough information about the purchase to uniquely identify the transaction on the blockchain, link it to the user’s cookie, and further to the user’s real identity. Our second attack shows that if the tracker is able to link two purchases of the same user to the blockchain in this manner, it can identify the user’s cluster of addresses and transactions on the blockchain, even if the user employs blockchain anonymity techniques such as CoinJoin. The attacks are passive and hence can be retroactively applied to past purchases. We discuss several mitigations, but none are perfect. Steven Goldfeder, Harry A. Kalodner, Dillon Reisman, Arvind Narayanan |
Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol. | 1 |
| 2017 | Zero-Knowledge Contingent Payments Revisited: Attacks and Payments for ServicesabstractZero Knowledge Contingent Payment (ZKCP) protocols allow fair exchange of sold goods and payments over the Bitcoin network. In this paper we point out two main shortcomings of current proposals for ZKCP, and propose ways to address them. Matteo Campanelli, Rosario Gennaro, Steven Goldfeder, Luca Nizzardo |
CCS | 3 |
| 2017 | Post-Quantum Zero-Knowledge and Signatures from Symmetric-Key PrimitivesabstractWe propose a new class of post-quantum digital signature schemes that: (a) derive their security entirely from the security of symmetric-key primitives, believed to be quantum-secure, and (b) have extremely small keypairs, and, (c) are highly parameterizable. Melissa Chase, David Derler, Steven Goldfeder, Claudio Orlandi, Sebastian Ramacher, Christian Rechberger, Daniel Slamanig, Gregory M. Zaverucha |
CCS | 3 |
| 2016 | Threshold-Optimal DSA/ECDSA Signatures and an Application to Bitcoin Wallet Security
Rosario Gennaro, Steven Goldfeder, Arvind Narayanan |
ACNS | 2 |
| 2013 | Elastic Ring Search for Ad Hoc Networks
Simon Shamoun, David Sarne, Steven Goldfeder |
MobiQuitous | 3 |