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

Nicolas Gailly

dblp:176/5570 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0005-0134-3026ORCID · corroborated

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

Security and privacy · 6 · 1 since 2021

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
6 papers
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security · 42% Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 42% Systems and software security · 9%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
5 papers
Distributed systems · 100%

Topics — the 13 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security
blockchain scalability
0.812024
Reckle Trees: Updatable Merkle Batch Proofs with Applications · CCS 2024
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › commitment schemes
vector commitment
0.812024
Reckle Trees: Updatable Merkle Batch Proofs with Applications · CCS 2024
Distributed systems
consensus
0.732018
OmniLedger: A Secure, Scale-Out, Decentralized Ledger via Sharding · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2018
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
Distributed systems › fault tolerance
byzantine fault tolerance
0.622018
OmniLedger: A Secure, Scale-Out, Decentralized Ledger via Sharding · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2018
Scalable Bias-Resistant Distributed Randomness · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2017
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security › blockchain scalability
sharding
0.312018
OmniLedger: A Secure, Scale-Out, Decentralized Ledger via Sharding · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2018
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 › 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

recursive arguments · 0.8merkle tree · 0.8canonical hashing · 0.8sharding · 0.7cross-shard commit protocol · 0.7verified builds · 0.6verifiable random function · 0.6skipchains · 0.6secret sharing · 0.6multisignature aggregation · 0.5signature aggregation · 0.2collective signing · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Reckle Trees: Updatable Merkle Batch Proofs with Applications
abstract
We propose Reckle trees, a new vector commitment based on succinct RECursive arguments and MerKLE trees. Reckle trees' distinguishing feature is their support for succinct batch proofs that are updatable - enabling new applications in the blockchain setting where a proof needs to be computed and efficiently maintained over a moving stream of blocks. Our technical approach is based on embedding the computation of the batch hash inside the recursive Merkle verification via a hash-based accumulator called canonical hashing. Due to this embedding, our batch proofs can be updated in logarithmic time, whenever a Merkle leaf (belonging to the batch or not) changes, by maintaining a data structure that stores previously-computed recursive proofs. Assuming enough parallelism, our batch proofs are also computable in O(log n) parallel time - independent of the size of the batch. As a natural extension of Reckle trees, we also introduce Reckle+ trees. Reckle+ trees provide updatable and succinct proofs for certain types of Map/Reduce computations. In this setting, a prover can commit to a memory M and produce a succinct proof for a Map/Reduce computation over a subset I of M. The proof can be efficiently updated whenever I or M changes.
Charalampos Papamanthou, Shravan Srinivasan, Nicolas Gailly, Ismael Hishon-Rezaizadeh, Andrus Salumets, Stjepan Golemac
CCS3
2018 OmniLedger: A Secure, Scale-Out, Decentralized Ledger via Sharding
abstract
Designing a secure permissionless distributed ledger (blockchain) that performs on par with centralized payment processors, such as Visa, is a challenging task. Most existing distributed ledgers are unable to scale-out, i.e., to grow their total processing capacity with the number of validators; and those that do, compromise security or decentralization. We present OmniLedger, a novel scale-out distributed ledger that preserves longterm security under permissionless operation. It ensures security and correctness by using a bias-resistant public-randomness protocol for choosing large, statistically representative shards that process transactions, and by introducing an efficient cross-shard commit protocol that atomically handles transactions affecting multiple shards. OmniLedger also optimizes performance via parallel intra-shard transaction processing, ledger pruning via collectively-signed state blocks, and low-latency "trust-but-verify" validation for low-value transactions. An evaluation of our experimental prototype shows that OmniLedger's throughput scales linearly in the number of active validators, supporting Visa-level workloads and beyond, while confirming typical transactions in under two seconds.
Eleftherios Kokoris-Kogias, Philipp Jovanovic, Linus Gasser, Nicolas Gailly, Ewa Syta, Bryan Ford
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy4
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 Privacy4
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 Symposium4
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 Privacy7
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 Symposium3