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

Ismail Khoffi

dblp:176/5341 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none

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

Security and privacy · 4

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
4 papers
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 38% Blockchain and cryptocurrency security · 24% Systems and software security · 20%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
4 papers
Distributed systems · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Distributed systems
consensus
0.322017
Enhancing Bitcoin Security and Performance with Strong Consistency via Collective Signing · USENIX Security Symposium 2016
CHAINIAC: Proactive Software-Update Transparency via Collectively Signed Skipchains and Verified Builds · USENIX Security Symposium 2017
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
distributed randomness
0.312017
Scalable Bias-Resistant Distributed Randomness · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2017
Systems and software security › software supply chain security
software update security
0.312017
CHAINIAC: Proactive Software-Update Transparency via Collectively Signed Skipchains and Verified Builds · USENIX Security Symposium 2017
Distributed systems › fault tolerance
byzantine fault tolerance
0.312017
Scalable Bias-Resistant Distributed Randomness · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2017
Distributed systems › distributed algorithms › distributed randomness
distributed randomness beacon
0.312017
Scalable Bias-Resistant Distributed Randomness · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2017
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › public-key cryptography
digital signatures
0.212016
Keeping Authorities "Honest or Bust" with Decentralized Witness Cosigning · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2016
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › authenticated data structure
transparency log
0.212016
Keeping Authorities "Honest or Bust" with Decentralized Witness Cosigning · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2016
Distributed systems › consistency models
strong consistency
0.212016
Enhancing Bitcoin Security and Performance with Strong Consistency via Collective Signing · USENIX Security Symposium 2016
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security
decentralized systems
0.112017
Scalable Bias-Resistant Distributed Randomness · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2017
Distributed systems › consensus
scalable consensus
0.112016
Keeping Authorities "Honest or Bust" with Decentralized Witness Cosigning · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2016

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

verified builds · 0.6verifiable random function · 0.6skipchains · 0.6secret sharing · 0.6signature aggregation · 0.5multisignature aggregation · 0.5collective signing · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 Scalable Bias-Resistant Distributed Randomness
abstract
Bias-resistant public randomness is a critical component in many (distributed) protocols. Generating public randomness is hard, however, because active adversaries may behave dishonestly to bias public random choices toward their advantage. Existing solutions do not scale to hundreds or thousands of participants, as is needed in many decentralized systems. We propose two large-scale distributed protocols, RandHound and RandHerd, which provide publicly-verifiable, unpredictable, and unbiasable randomness against Byzantine adversaries. RandHound relies on an untrusted client to divide a set of randomness servers into groups for scalability, and it depends on the pigeonhole principle to ensure output integrity, even for non-random, adversarial group choices. RandHerd implements an efficient, decentralized randomness beacon. RandHerd is structurally similar to a BFT protocol, but uses RandHound in a one-time setup to arrange participants into verifiably unbiased random secret-sharing groups, which then repeatedly produce random output at predefined intervals. Our prototype demonstrates that RandHound and RandHerd achieve good performance across hundreds of participants while retaining a low failure probability by properly selecting protocol parameters, such as a group size and secret-sharing threshold. For example, when sharding 512 nodes into groups of 32, our experiments show that RandHound can produce fresh random output after 240 seconds. RandHerd, after a setup phase of 260 seconds, is able to generate fresh random output in intervals of approximately 6 seconds. For this configuration, both protocols operate at a failure probability of at most 0.08% against a Byzantine adversary.
Ewa Syta, Philipp Jovanovic, Eleftherios Kokoris-Kogias, Nicolas Gailly, Linus Gasser, Ismail Khoffi, Michael J. Fischer, Bryan Ford
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy6
2017 CHAINIAC: Proactive Software-Update Transparency via Collectively Signed Skipchains and Verified Builds
Kirill Nikitin 0001, Eleftherios Kokoris-Kogias, Philipp Jovanovic, Nicolas Gailly, Linus Gasser, Ismail Khoffi, Justin Cappos, Bryan Ford
USENIX Security Symposium6
2016 Keeping Authorities "Honest or Bust" with Decentralized Witness Cosigning
abstract
The secret keys of critical network authorities -- such as time, name, certificate, and software update services -- represent high-value targets for hackers, criminals, and spy agencies wishing to use these keys secretly to compromise other hosts. To protect authorities and their clients proactively from undetected exploits and misuse, we introduce CoSi, a scalable witness cosigning protocol ensuring that every authoritative statement is validated and publicly logged by a diverse group of witnesses before any client will accept it. A statement S collectively signed by W witnesses assures clients that S has been seen, and not immediately found erroneous, by those W observers. Even if S is compromised in a fashion not readily detectable by the witnesses, CoSi still guarantees S's exposure to public scrutiny, forcing secrecy-minded attackers to risk that the compromise will soon be detected by one of the W witnesses. Because clients can verify collective signatures efficiently without communication, CoSi protects clients' privacy, and offers the first transparency mechanism effective against persistent man-in-the-middle attackers who control a victim's Internet access, the authority's secret key, and several witnesses' secret keys. CoSi builds on existing cryptographic multisignature methods, scaling them to support thousands of witnesses via signature aggregation over efficient communication trees. A working prototype demonstrates CoSi in the context of timestamping and logging authorities, enabling groups of over 8,000 distributed witnesses to cosign authoritative statements in under two seconds.
Ewa Syta, Iulia Tamas, Dylan Visher, David Wolinsky, Philipp Jovanovic, Linus Gasser, Nicolas Gailly, Ismail Khoffi, Bryan Ford
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy8
2016 Enhancing Bitcoin Security and Performance with Strong Consistency via Collective Signing
Eleftherios Kokoris-Kogias, Philipp Jovanovic, Nicolas Gailly, Ismail Khoffi, Linus Gasser, Bryan Ford
USENIX Security Symposium4