Ilya Mironov

dblp:19/5860 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
42ranked-venue papers
14as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
0000-0002-2149-1916ORCID · verified

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

Security and privacy · 27 · 10 first-authorTheory of computation · 10 · 5 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2

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
29 papers
Privacy and data protection · 62% Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 15% Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis · 12%
Theoretical computer science
4 papers
Algorithms and data structures · 61% Computational complexity · 21% Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 12%
Artificial intelligence
3 papers
Deep learning architectures and training · 58% Optimization for machine learning · 23% Trustworthy machine learning · 17%

Topics — the 30 heaviest of 63, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Privacy and data protection
differential privacy
3.2142021
Antipodes of Label Differential Privacy: PATE and ALIBI · NeurIPS 2021
Privacy-preserving Data Mining in Industry · WSDM 2019
Amplification by Shuffling: From Local to Central Differential Privacy via Anonymity · SODA 2019
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy › differentially private deep learning
PATE
0.822021
Antipodes of Label Differential Privacy: PATE and ALIBI · NeurIPS 2021
Scalable Private Learning with PATE · ICLR 2018
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy › relaxed differential privacy
label differential privacy
0.512021
Antipodes of Label Differential Privacy: PATE and ALIBI · NeurIPS 2021
Privacy and data protection
privacy-preserving machine learning
0.512021
Antipodes of Label Differential Privacy: PATE and ALIBI · NeurIPS 2021
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › public-key cryptography
public-key encryption
0.522018
Incremental Deterministic Public-Key Encryption · J. Cryptol. 2018
Incremental Deterministic Public-Key Encryption · EUROCRYPT 2012
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › subversion resilience
reverse firewalls
0.522016
Message Transmission with Reverse Firewalls - Secure Communication on Corrupted Machines · CRYPTO (1) 2016
Cryptographic Reverse Firewalls · EUROCRYPT (2) 2015
Security and privacy of machine learning › model stealing
cryptanalytic extraction
0.412020
Cryptanalytic Extraction of Neural Network Models · CRYPTO (3) 2020
Security and privacy of machine learning
model stealing
0.412020
Cryptanalytic Extraction of Neural Network Models · CRYPTO (3) 2020
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy
local differential privacy
0.412019
Amplification by Shuffling: From Local to Central Differential Privacy via Anonymity · SODA 2019
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy
privacy amplification
0.412019
Amplification by Shuffling: From Local to Central Differential Privacy via Anonymity · SODA 2019
Privacy and data protection › privacy-preserving data analysis
privacy-preserving data mining
0.412019
Privacy-preserving Data Mining in Industry · WSDM 2019
Privacy and data protection
privacy-preserving data analysis
0.322017
Prochlo: Strong Privacy for Analytics in the Crowd · SOSP 2017
Our Data, Ourselves: Privacy Via Distributed Noise Generation · EUROCRYPT 2006
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy › privacy amplification
privacy amplification by iteration
0.312018
Privacy Amplification by Iteration · FOCS 2018
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
cryptographic complexity
0.212016
Do Distributed Differentially-Private Protocols Require Oblivious Transfer? · ICALP 2016
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy
differentially private deep learning
0.212016
Deep Learning with Differential Privacy · CCS 2016
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy
distributed differential privacy
0.212016
Do Distributed Differentially-Private Protocols Require Oblivious Transfer? · ICALP 2016
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › post-quantum cryptography
lattice-based cryptography
0.212016
Frodo: Take off the Ring! Practical, Quantum-Secure Key Exchange from LWE · CCS 2016
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
oblivious transfer
0.212016
Do Distributed Differentially-Private Protocols Require Oblivious Transfer? · ICALP 2016
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis
post-quantum cryptography
0.212016
Frodo: Take off the Ring! Practical, Quantum-Secure Key Exchange from LWE · CCS 2016
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
secure messaging
0.212016
Message Transmission with Reverse Firewalls - Secure Communication on Corrupted Machines · CRYPTO (1) 2016
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
secure multiparty computation
0.212016
Do Distributed Differentially-Private Protocols Require Oblivious Transfer? · ICALP 2016
Systems and software security
cloud security
0.212015
Hosting Services on an Untrusted Cloud · EUROCRYPT (2) 2015
Algorithms and data structures
sketching
0.222011
Sketching in Adversarial Environments · SIAM J. Comput. 2011
Sketching in adversarial environments · STOC 2008
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › key management
public key infrastructure
0.212014
Web PKI: Closing the Gap between Guidelines and Practices · NDSS 2014
Web and mobile security
web PKI
0.212014
Web PKI: Closing the Gap between Guidelines and Practices · NDSS 2014
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis
encryption
0.212013
Message-Locked Encryption for Lock-Dependent Messages · CRYPTO (1) 2013
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › encryption
message-locked encryption
0.212013
Message-Locked Encryption for Lock-Dependent Messages · CRYPTO (1) 2013
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy
privacy-accuracy tradeoff
0.212013
Accuracy-Privacy Tradeoffs for Two-Party Differentially Private Protocols · CRYPTO (1) 2013
Algorithms and data structures
data streams
0.112011
Sketching in Adversarial Environments · SIAM J. Comput. 2011
Privacy and data protection
anonymization
0.112019
Amplification by Shuffling: From Local to Central Differential Privacy via Anonymity · SODA 2019

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

differential privacy · 1.2shuffling · 1.0privacy composition theorems · 0.7contractive iterations · 0.7semi-supervised learning · 0.5randomized response · 0.5laplace mechanism · 0.5bayesian inference · 0.5permutation-invariant algorithm · 0.4anonymization · 0.4encoding · 0.3privacy accounting · 0.2incremental sketching · 0.1deterministic encoding · 0.1santha-vazirani sources · 0.1lower bound · 0.1deterministic extraction · 0.1multi-agent reinforcement learning · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Antipodes of Label Differential Privacy: PATE and ALIBI
abstract
We consider the privacy-preserving machine learning (ML) setting where the trained model must satisfy differential privacy (DP) with respect to the labels of the training examples. We propose two novel approaches based on, respectively, the Laplace mechanism and the PATE framework, and demonstrate their effectiveness on standard benchmarks.While recent work by Ghazi et al. proposed Label DP schemes based on a randomized response mechanism, we argue that additive Laplace noise coupled with Bayesian inference (ALIBI) is a better fit for typical ML tasks. Moreover, we show how to achieve very strong privacy levels in some regimes, with our adaptation of the PATE framework that builds on recent advances in semi-supervised learning.We complement theoretical analysis of our algorithms' privacy guarantees with empirical evaluation of their memorization properties. Our evaluation suggests that comparing different algorithms according to their provable DP guarantees can be misleading and favor a less private algorithm with a tighter analysis.Code for implementation of algorithms and memorization attacks is available from https://github.com/facebookresearch/labeldpantipodes.
Mani Malek 0001, Ilya Mironov, Karthik Prasad, Igor Shilov, Florian Tramèr
NeurIPS2
2020 Cryptanalytic Extraction of Neural Network Models
Nicholas Carlini, Matthew Jagielski, Ilya Mironov
CRYPTO (3)3
2019 Amplification by Shuffling: From Local to Central Differential Privacy via Anonymity
abstract
Sensitive statistics are often collected across sets of users, with repeated collection of reports done over time. For example, trends in users’ private preferences or software usage may be monitored via such reports. We study the collection of such statistics in the local differential privacy (LDP) model, and describe an algorithm whose privacy cost is polylogarithmic in the number of changes to a user's value. More fundamentally—by building on anonymity of the users’ reports—we also demonstrate how the privacy cost of our LDP algorithm can actually be much lower when viewed in the central model of differential privacy. We show, via a new and general privacy amplification technique, that any permutation-invariant algorithm satisfying ε-local differential privacy will satisfy -central differential privacy. By this, we explain how the high noise and overhead of LDP protocols is a consequence of them being significantly more private in the central model. As a practical corollary, our results imply that several LDP-based industrial deployments may have much lower privacy cost than their advertised ε would indicate—at least if reports are anonymized.
Úlfar Erlingsson, Vitaly Feldman, Ilya Mironov, Ananth Raghunathan, Kunal Talwar, Abhradeep Thakurta
SODA3
2019 Privacy-preserving Data Mining in Industry
abstract
Preserving privacy of users is a key requirement of web-scale data mining applications and systems such as web search, recommender systems, crowdsourced platforms, and analytics applications, and has witnessed a renewed focus in light of recent data breaches and new regulations such as GDPR. In this tutorial, we will first present an overview of privacy breaches over the last two decades and the lessons learned, key regulations and laws, and evolution of privacy techniques leading to differential privacy definition / techniques. Then, we will focus on the application of privacy-preserving data mining techniques in practice, by presenting case studies such as Apple's differential privacy deployment for iOS / macOS, Google's RAPPOR, LinkedIn Salary, and Microsoft's differential privacy deployment for collecting Windows telemetry. We will conclude with open problems and challenges for the data mining / machine learning community, based on our experiences in industry.
Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Ilya Mironov, Abhradeep Thakurta
WSDM2
2018 Privacy Amplification by Iteration
abstract
Many commonly used learning algorithms work by iteratively updating an intermediate solution using one or a few data points in each iteration. Analysis of differential privacy for such algorithms often involves ensuring privacy of each step and then reasoning about the cumulative privacy cost of the algorithm. This is enabled by composition theorems for differential privacy that allow releasing of all the intermediate results. In this work, we demonstrate that for contractive iterations, not releasing the intermediate results strongly amplifies the privacy guarantees. We describe several applications of this new analysis technique to solving convex optimization problems via noisy stochastic gradient descent. For example, we demonstrate that a relatively small number of non-private data points from the same distribution can be used to close the gap between private and non-private convex optimization. In addition, we demonstrate that we can achieve guarantees similar to those obtainable using the privacy-amplification-by-sampling technique in several natural settings where that technique cannot be applied.
Vitaly Feldman, Ilya Mironov, Kunal Talwar, Abhradeep Thakurta
FOCS2
2018 Scalable Private Learning with PATE
Nicolas Papernot, Shuang Song 0001, Ilya Mironov, Ananth Raghunathan, Kunal Talwar, Úlfar Erlingsson
ICLR3
2018 Incremental Deterministic Public-Key Encryption
Ilya Mironov, Omkant Pandey, Omer Reingold, Gil Segev 0001
J. Cryptol.1
2017 On the Protection of Private Information in Machine Learning Systems: Two Recent Approches
abstract
The recent, remarkable growth of machine learning has led to intense interest in the privacy of the data on which machine learning relies, and to new techniques for preserving privacy. However, older ideas about privacy may well remain valid and useful. This note reviews two recent works on privacy in the light of the wisdom of some of the early literature, in particular the principles distilled by Saltzer and Schroeder in the 1970s.
Martín Abadi, Úlfar Erlingsson, Ian J. Goodfellow, H. Brendan McMahan, Ilya Mironov, Nicolas Papernot, Kunal Talwar, Li Zhang 0001
CSF5
2017 Rényi Differential Privacy
abstract
We propose a natural relaxation of differential privacy based on the Rényi divergence. Closely related notions have appeared in several recent papers that analyzed composition of differentially private mechanisms. We argue that the useful analytical tool can be used as a privacy definition, compactly and accurately representing guarantees on the tails of the privacy loss.We demonstrate that the new definition shares many important properties with the standard definition of differential privacy, while additionally allowing tighter analysis of composite heterogeneous mechanisms.
Ilya Mironov
CSF1
2017 Prochlo: Strong Privacy for Analytics in the Crowd
abstract
The large-scale monitoring of computer users' software activities has become commonplace, e.g., for application telemetry, error reporting, or demographic profiling. This paper describes a principled systems architecture---Encode, Shuffle, Analyze (ESA)---for performing such monitoring with high utility while also protecting user privacy. The ESA design, and its Prochlo implementation, are informed by our practical experiences with an existing, large deployment of privacy-preserving software monitoring.
Andrea Bittau, Úlfar Erlingsson, Petros Maniatis, Ilya Mironov, Ananth Raghunathan, David Lie, Mitch Rudominer, Ushasree Kode, Julien Tinnés, Bernhard Seefeld
SOSP4
2017 Strengthening the Security of Encrypted Databases: Non-transitive JOINs
Ilya Mironov, Gil Segev 0001, Ido Shahaf
TCC (2)1
2016 Deep Learning with Differential Privacy
abstract
Machine learning techniques based on neural networks are achieving remarkable results in a wide variety of domains. Often, the training of models requires large, representative datasets, which may be crowdsourced and contain sensitive information. The models should not expose private information in these datasets. Addressing this goal, we develop new algorithmic techniques for learning and a refined analysis of privacy costs within the framework of differential privacy. Our implementation and experiments demonstrate that we can train deep neural networks with non-convex objectives, under a modest privacy budget, and at a manageable cost in software complexity, training efficiency, and model quality.
Martín Abadi, Andy Chu, Ian J. Goodfellow, H. Brendan McMahan, Ilya Mironov, Kunal Talwar, Li Zhang 0001
CCS5
2016 Frodo: Take off the Ring! Practical, Quantum-Secure Key Exchange from LWE
abstract
Lattice-based cryptography offers some of the most attractive primitives believed to be resistant to quantum computers. Following increasing interest from both companies and government agencies in building quantum computers, a number of works have proposed instantiations of practical post-quantum key exchange protocols based on hard problems in ideal lattices, mainly based on the Ring Learning With Errors (R-LWE) problem. While ideal lattices facilitate major efficiency and storage benefits over their non-ideal counterparts, the additional ring structure that enables these advantages also raises concerns about the assumed difficulty of the underlying problems. Thus, a question of significant interest to cryptographers, and especially to those currently placing bets on primitives that will withstand quantum adversaries, is how much of an advantage the additional ring structure actually gives in practice. Despite conventional wisdom that generic lattices might be too slow and unwieldy, we demonstrate that LWE-based key exchange is quite practical: our constant time implementation requires around 1.3ms computation time for each party; compared to the recent NewHope R-LWE scheme, communication sizes increase by a factor of 4.7x, but remain under 12 KiB in each direction. Our protocol is competitive when used for serving web pages over TLS; when partnered with ECDSA signatures, latencies increase by less than a factor of 1.6x, and (even under heavy load) server throughput only decreases by factors of 1.5x and 1.2x when serving typical 1 KiB and 100 KiB pages, respectively. To achieve these practical results, our protocol takes advantage of several innovations. These include techniques to optimize communication bandwidth, dynamic generation of public parameters (which also offers additional security against backdoors), carefully chosen error distributions, and tight security parameters.
Joppe W. Bos, Craig Costello, Léo Ducas, Ilya Mironov, Michael Naehrig, Valeria Nikolaenko, Ananth Raghunathan, Douglas Stebila
CCS4
2016 Message Transmission with Reverse Firewalls - Secure Communication on Corrupted Machines
Yevgeniy Dodis, Ilya Mironov, Noah Stephens-Davidowitz
CRYPTO (1)2
2016 Do Distributed Differentially-Private Protocols Require Oblivious Transfer?
abstract
We study the cryptographic complexity of two-party differentially-private protocols for a large natural class of boolean functionalities. Information theoretically, McGregor et al. [FOCS 2010] and Goyal et al. [Crypto 2013] demonstrated several functionalities for which the maximal possible accuracy in the distributed setting is significantly lower than that in the client-server setting. Goyal et al. [Crypto 2013] further showed that "highly accurate" protocols in the distributed setting for any non-trivial functionality in fact imply the existence of one-way functions. However, it has remained an open problem to characterize the exact cryptographic complexity of this class. In particular, we know that semi-honest oblivious transfer helps obtain optimally accurate distributed differential privacy. But we do not know whether the reverse is true. We study the following question: Does the existence of optimally accurate distributed differentially private protocols for any class of functionalities imply the existence of oblivious transfer (or equivalently secure multi-party computation)? We resolve this question in the affirmative for the class of boolean functionalities that contain an XOR embedded on adjacent inputs. We give a reduction from oblivious transfer to: - Any distributed optimally accurate epsilon-differentially private protocol with epsilon > 0 computing a functionality with a boolean XOR embedded on adjacent inputs. - Any distributed non-optimally accurate epsilon-differentially private protocol with epsilon > 0, for a constant range of non-optimal accuracies and constant range of values of epsilon, computing a functionality with a boolean XOR embedded on adjacent inputs. Enroute to proving these results, we demonstrate a connection between optimally-accurate twoparty differentially-private protocols for functions with a boolean XOR embedded on adjacent inputs, and noisy channels, which were shown by Crépeau and Kilian [FOCS 1988] to be sufficient for oblivious transfer.
Vipul Goyal, Dakshita Khurana, Ilya Mironov, Omkant Pandey, Amit Sahai
ICALP3
2015 Hosting Services on an Untrusted Cloud
Dan Boneh, Divya Gupta 0001, Ilya Mironov, Amit Sahai
EUROCRYPT (2)3
2015 Cryptographic Reverse Firewalls
Ilya Mironov, Noah Stephens-Davidowitz
EUROCRYPT (2)1
2014 Web PKI: Closing the Gap between Guidelines and Practices
Antoine Delignat-Lavaud, Martín Abadi, Andrew Birrell, Ilya Mironov, Ted Wobber, Yinglian Xie
NDSS4
2013 Message-Locked Encryption for Lock-Dependent Messages
Martín Abadi, Dan Boneh, Ilya Mironov, Ananth Raghunathan, Gil Segev 0001
CRYPTO (1)3
2013 Accuracy-Privacy Tradeoffs for Two-Party Differentially Private Protocols
Vipul Goyal, Ilya Mironov, Omkant Pandey, Amit Sahai
CRYPTO (1)2
2013 Global Authentication in an Untrustworthy World
Martín Abadi, Andrew Birrell, Ilya Mironov, Ted Wobber, Yinglian Xie
HotOS3
2012 On significance of the least significant bits for differential privacy
abstract
We describe a new type of vulnerability present in many implementations of differentially private mechanisms. In particular, all four publicly available general purpose systems for differentially private computations are susceptible to our attack.
Ilya Mironov
CCS1
2012 Differential Privacy with Imperfect Randomness
Yevgeniy Dodis, Adriana López-Alt, Ilya Mironov, Salil P. Vadhan
CRYPTO3
2012 Incremental Deterministic Public-Key Encryption
Ilya Mironov, Omkant Pandey, Omer Reingold, Gil Segev 0001
EUROCRYPT1
2012 Differential privacy as a protocol constraint
abstract
Differential privacy, introduced in 2006, has become a standard definition of privacy for statistical computations. Most of the research on differential privacy has explored questions arising in the client-server setting, where privacy guarantees are one-sided and cover data held by just one of the protocol participants. We observe that differential privacy complements the classic definition of secure multi-party computations by allowing one to quantify information leaked through the output of the computation. This view leads to a number of interesting questions, where differential privacy is treated as a constraint on the protocol. We survey the state-of-the-art of differential privacy in a multi-party setting and formulate several open problems.
Ilya Mironov
ITW1
2011 Sketching in Adversarial Environments
abstract
We formalize a realistic model for computations over massive data sets. The model, referred to as the adversarial sketch model, unifies the well-studied sketch and data stream models together with a cryptographic flavor that considers the execution of protocols in “hostile environments,” and provides a framework for studying the complexity of tasks involving massive data sets. In the adversarial sketch model several parties are interested in computing a joint function in the presence of an adversary that dynamically chooses their inputs. These inputs are provided to the parties in an on-line manner, and each party incrementally updates a compressed sketch of its input. The parties are not allowed to communicate, they do not share any secret information, and any public information they share is known to the adversary in advance. Then, the parties engage in a protocol in order to evaluate the function on their current inputs using only their sketches. In this paper we settle the complexity of two fundamental problems in this model: testing whether two massive data sets are equal, and approximating the size of their symmetric difference. For these problems we construct explicit protocols that are optimal up to polylogarithmic factors. Our main technical contribution is an explicit and deterministic encoding scheme that enjoys two seemingly conflicting properties: incrementality and high distance, which may be of independent interest.
Ilya Mironov, Moni Naor, Gil Segev 0001
SIAM J. Comput.1
2010 The Limits of Two-Party Differential Privacy
abstract
We study differential privacy in a distributed setting where two parties would like to perform analysis of their joint data while preserving privacy for both datasets. Our results imply almost tight lower bounds on the accuracy of such data analyses, both for specific natural functions (such as Hamming distance) and in general. Our bounds expose a sharp contrast between the two-party setting and the simpler client-server setting (where privacy guarantees are one-sided). In addition, those bounds demonstrate a dramatic gap between the accuracy that can be obtained by differentially private data analysis versus the accuracy obtainable when privacy is relaxed to a computational variant of differential privacy. The first proof technique we develop demonstrates a connection between differential privacy and deterministic extraction from Santha-Vazirani sources. A second connection we expose indicates that the ability to approximate a function by a low-error differentially private protocol is strongly related to the ability to approximate it by a low communication protocol. (The connection goes in both directions).
Andrew McGregor 0001, Ilya Mironov, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, Kunal Talwar, Salil P. Vadhan
FOCS2
2010 Domain Extension for Enhanced Target Collision-Resistant Hash Functions
Ilya Mironov
FSE1
2009 Computational Differential Privacy
Ilya Mironov, Omkant Pandey, Omer Reingold, Salil P. Vadhan
CRYPTO1
2009 Differentially Private Recommender Systems: Building Privacy into the Netflix Prize Contenders
abstract
We consider the problem of producing recommendations from collective user behavior while simultaneously providing guarantees of privacy for these users. Specifically, we consider the Netflix Prize data set, and its leading algorithms, adapted to the framework of differential privacy.
Frank McSherry, Ilya Mironov
KDD2
2008 Sketching in adversarial environments
abstract
We formalize a realistic model for computations over massive data sets. The model, referred to as the {\em adversarial sketch model}, unifies the well-studied sketch and data stream models together with a cryptographic flavor that considers the execution of protocols in "hostile environments", and provides a framework for studying the complexity of many tasks involving massive data sets.
Ilya Mironov, Moni Naor, Gil Segev 0001
STOC1
2008 Data Collection with Self-Enforcing Privacy
abstract
Consider a pollster who wishes to collect private, sensitive data from a number of distrustful individuals. How might the pollster convince the respondents that it is trustworthy? Alternately, what mechanism could the respondents insist upon to ensure that mismanagement of their data is detectable and publicly demonstrable? We detail this problem, and provide simple data submission protocols with the properties that a) leakage of private data by the pollster results in evidence of the transgression and b) the evidence cannot be fabricated without breaking cryptographic assumptions. With such guarantees, a responsible pollster could post a “privacy-bond,” forfeited to anyone who can provide evidence of leakage. The respondents are assured that appropriate penalties are applied to a leaky pollster, while the protection from spurious indictment ensures that any honest pollster has no disincentive to participate in such a scheme.
Philippe Golle, Frank McSherry, Ilya Mironov
ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur.3
2007 MV3: A New Word Based Stream Cipher Using Rapid Mixing and Revolving Buffers
Nathan Keller, Stephen D. Miller, Ilya Mironov, Ramarathnam Venkatesan
CT-RSA3
2006 Data collection with self-enforcing privacy
abstract
Consider a pollster who wishes to collect private, sensitive data from a number of distrustful individuals. How might the pollster convince the respondents that it is trustworthy? Alternately, what mechanism could the respondents insist upon to ensure that mismanagement of their data is detectable and publicly demonstrable?We detail this problem, and provide simple data submission protocols with the properties that a) leakage of private data by the pollster results in evidence of the transgression and b) the evidence cannot be fabricated without breaking cryptographic assumptions. With such guarantees, a responsible pollster could post a "privacy-bond", forfeited to anyone who can provide evidence of leakage. The respondents are assured that appropriate penalties are applied to a leaky pollster, while the protection from spurious indictment ensures that any honest pollster has no disincentive to participate in such a scheme.
Philippe Golle, Frank McSherry, Ilya Mironov
CCS3
2006 Cache-Collision Timing Attacks Against AES
Joseph Bonneau, Ilya Mironov
CHES2
2006 Our Data, Ourselves: Privacy Via Distributed Noise Generation
Cynthia Dwork, Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Frank McSherry, Ilya Mironov, Moni Naor
EUROCRYPT4
2006 Applications of SAT Solvers to Cryptanalysis of Hash Functions
Ilya Mironov
SAT1
2003 A Secure Signature Scheme from Bilinear Maps
Dan Boneh, Ilya Mironov, Victor Shoup
CT-RSA2
2002 (Not So) Random Shuffles of RC4
Ilya Mironov
CRYPTO1
2001 Uncheatable Distributed Computations
Philippe Golle, Ilya Mironov
CT-RSA2
2001 Hash Functions: From Merkle-Damgård to Shoup
Ilya Mironov
EUROCRYPT1
2001 Incentives for sharing in peer-to-peer networks
abstract
We consider the free-rider problem that arises in peer-to-peer file sharing networks such as Napster: the problem that individual users are provided with no incentive for adding value to the network. We examine the design implications of the assumption that users will selfishly act to maximize their own rewards, by constructing a formal game theoretic model of the system and analyzing equilibria of user strategies under several novel payment mechanisms. We support and extend upon our theoretical predictions with experimental results from a multi-agent reinforcement learning model.
Philippe Golle, Kevin Leyton-Brown, Ilya Mironov
EC3