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

Thomas Yurek

dblp:216/8530 · also Tom Yurek · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
7ranked-venue papers
2as first author
5since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Security and privacy · 7 · 2 first-author · 5 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
5 papers
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 57% Hardware security and side channels · 33% Network security · 3%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers
Distributed systems · 100%

Topics — the 18 heaviest of 19, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Hardware security and side channels
microarchitectural side channel
0.812024
SoK: SGX.Fail: How Stuff Gets eXposed · SP 2024
Hardware security and side channels › trusted execution environments
SGX attacks
0.812024
SoK: SGX.Fail: How Stuff Gets eXposed · SP 2024
Hardware security and side channels
trusted execution environments
0.812024
SoK: SGX.Fail: How Stuff Gets eXposed · SP 2024
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › key management › distributed key generation
asynchronous distributed key generation
0.612022
Practical Asynchronous Distributed Key Generation · SP 2022
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › key management
distributed key generation
0.612022
Practical Asynchronous Distributed Key Generation · SP 2022
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › secret sharing
robust secret sharing
0.612022
hbACSS: How to Robustly Share Many Secrets · NDSS 2022
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
secret sharing
0.612022
hbACSS: How to Robustly Share Many Secrets · NDSS 2022
Distributed systems › consensus › fault-tolerant consensus
asynchronous consensus
0.612022
Practical Asynchronous Distributed Key Generation · SP 2022
Distributed systems
consensus
0.612022
Practical Asynchronous Distributed Key Generation · SP 2022
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › secure multiparty computation
asynchronous MPC
0.412019
HoneyBadgerMPC and AsynchroMix: Practical Asynchronous MPC and its Application to Anonymous Communication · CCS 2019
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
secure multiparty computation
0.412019
HoneyBadgerMPC and AsynchroMix: Practical Asynchronous MPC and its Application to Anonymous Communication · CCS 2019
Digital forensics and information hiding
digital rights management
0.212024
SoK: SGX.Fail: How Stuff Gets eXposed · SP 2024
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security › smart contract
privacy-preserving smart contracts
0.212024
SoK: SGX.Fail: How Stuff Gets eXposed · SP 2024
Distributed systems › distributed algorithms › distributed protocols
asynchronous protocol
0.212023
Long Live The Honey Badger: Robust Asynchronous DPSS and its Applications · USENIX Security Symposium 2023
Distributed systems
fault tolerance
0.212023
Long Live The Honey Badger: Robust Asynchronous DPSS and its Applications · USENIX Security Symposium 2023
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
threshold cryptography
0.212022
Practical Asynchronous Distributed Key Generation · SP 2022
Network security › anonymity networks › anonymous communication
anonymous broadcast
0.112019
HoneyBadgerMPC and AsynchroMix: Practical Asynchronous MPC and its Application to Anonymous Communication · CCS 2019
Network security › anonymity networks
anonymous communication
0.112019
HoneyBadgerMPC and AsynchroMix: Practical Asynchronous MPC and its Application to Anonymous Communication · CCS 2019

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

threshold cryptography · 1.1secret sharing · 1.1systematization of knowledge · 0.8survey · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 SoK: SGX.Fail: How Stuff Gets eXposed
abstract
Intel’s Software Guard Extensions (SGX) promises an isolated execution environment, protected from all software running on the machine. As such, numerous works have sought to leverage SGX to provide confidentiality and integrity guarantees for code running in adversarial environments. In the past few years however, SGX has come under heavy fire, threatened by numerous hardware attacks. With Intel repeatedly patching SGX to regain security while consistently launching new (micro)architectures, it is increasingly difficult to track the applicability of various attack techniques across the SGX design landscape.Thus, in this paper we set out to survey and categorize various SGX attacks, their applicability to different SGX architectures, as well as the information leaked by them. We then set out to explore the effectiveness of SGX’s update mechanisms in preventing attacks on real-world deployments. Here, we study two commercial SGX applications. First, we investigate the SECRET network, an SGX-backed blockchain aiming to provide privacy-preserving smart contracts. Next, we also consider PowerDVD, a UHD Blu-Ray Digital Rights Management (DRM) software licensed to play discs on PCs. We show that in both cases vendors are unable to meet security goals originally envisioned for their products, presumably due to SGX’s long update timelines and the complexities of a manual update process. This in turn forces vendors to make difficult security/usability trade offs, resulting in security compromises.
Stephan van Schaik, Alexander Seto, Thomas Yurek, Adam Batori, Bader AlBassam, Daniel Genkin, Andrew Miller 0001, Eyal Ronen, Yuval Yarom, Christina Garman
SP3
2024 SGXonerate:Finding (and Partially Fixing) Privacy Flaws in TEE-based Smart Contract Platforms Without Breaking the TEE
abstract
TEE-based smart contracts are an emerging blockchain architecture, offering fully programmable privacy with better performance than alternatives like secure multiparty computation. They can also support compatibility with existing smart contract languages, such that existing (plaintext) applications can be readily ported, picking up privacy enhancements automatically. While previous analysis of TEE-based smart contracts have focused on failures of TEE itself, we asked whether other aspects might be understudied. We focused on state consistency, a concern area highlighted by Li et al., as well as new concerns including access pattern leakage and software upgrade mechanisms. We carried out a code review of a cohort of four TEE-based smart contract platforms. These include Secret Network, the first to market with in-use applications, as well as Oasis, Phala, and Obscuro, which have at least released public test networks. The first and most broadly applicable result is that access pattern leakage occurs when handling persistent contract storage. On Secret Network, its fine-grained access pattern is catastrophic for the transaction privacy of SNIP-20 tokens. If ERC-20 tokens were naively ported to Oasis they would be similarly vulnerable; the others in the cohort leak coarse-grained information at approximately the page level (4 kilobytes). Improving and characterizing this will require adopting techniques from ORAMs or encrypted databases. Second, the importance of state consistency has been underappreciated, in part because exploiting such vulnerabilities is thought to be impractical. We show they are fully practical by building a proof-of-concept tool that breaks all advertised privacy properties of SNIP-20 tokens, able to query the balance of individual accounts and the token amount of each transfer. We additionally demonstrate MEV attacks against the Sienna Swap application. As a final consequence of lacking state consistency, the developers have inadvertently introduced a decryption backdoor through their software upgrade process. We have helped the Secret developers mitigate this through a coordinated vulnerability disclosure, after which their state consistency should be roughly on par with the rest.
Nerla Jean-Louis, Yunqi Li 0002, Yan Ji 0001, Harjasleen Malvai, Thomas Yurek, Sylvain Bellemare, Andrew Miller 0001
Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol.5
2023 Long Live The Honey Badger: Robust Asynchronous DPSS and its Applications
Thomas Yurek, Zhuolun Xiang, Yu Xia 0005, Andrew Miller 0001
USENIX Security Symposium1
2022 hbACSS: How to Robustly Share Many Secrets
Thomas Yurek, Licheng Luo, Jaiden Fairoze, Aniket Kate, Andrew Miller 0001
NDSS1
2022 Practical Asynchronous Distributed Key Generation
abstract
Distributed Key Generation (DKG) is a technique to bootstrap threshold cryptosystems without a trusted third party and is a building block to decentralized protocols such as randomness beacons, threshold signatures, and general multiparty computation. Until recently, DKG protocols have assumed the synchronous model and thus are vulnerable when their underlying network assumptions do not hold. The recent advancements in asynchronous DKG protocols are insufficient as they either have poor efficiency or limited functionality, resulting in a lack of concrete implementations. In this paper, we present a simple and concretely efficient asynchronous DKG (ADKG) protocol. In a network of n nodes, our ADKG protocol can tolerate up to $t\lt n/3$ malicious nodes and have an expected $O(\kappa n^{3})$ communication cost, where $\kappa$ is the security parameter. Our ADKG protocol produces a field element as the secret and is thus compatible with off-the-shelf threshold cryptosystems. We implement our ADKG protocol and evaluate it using a network of up to 128 nodes in geographically distributed AWS instances. Our evaluation shows that our protocol takes as low as 3 and 9.5 seconds to terminate for 32 and 64 nodes, respectively. Also, each node sends only 0.7 Megabytes and 2.9 Megabytes of data during the two experiments, respectively.
Sourav Das 0001, Thomas Yurek, Zhuolun Xiang, Andrew Miller 0001, Eleftherios Kokoris-Kogias, Ling Ren 0001
SP2
2019 HoneyBadgerMPC and AsynchroMix: Practical Asynchronous MPC and its Application to Anonymous Communication
abstract
Multiparty computation as a service (MPSaaS) is a promising approach for building privacy-preserving communication systems. However, in this paper, we argue that existing MPC implementations are inadequate for this application as they do not address fairness, let alone robustness. Even a single malicious server can cause the protocol to abort while seeing the output for itself, which in the context of an anonymous communication service would create a vulnerability to censorship and de-anonymization attacks. To remedy this we propose a new MPC implementation, HoneyBadgerMPC, that combines a robust online phase with an optimistic offline phase that is efficient enough to run continuously alongside the online phase. We use HoneyBadgerMPC to develop an application case study, called AsynchroMix, that provides an anonymous broadcast functionality. AsynchroMix features a novel MPC program that trades off between computation and communication, allowing for low-latency message mixing in varying settings. In a cloud-based distributed benchmark with 100 nodes, we demonstrate mixing a batch of 512 messages in around 20 seconds and up to 4096 messages in around two minutes.
Donghang Lu, Thomas Yurek, Samarth Kulshreshtha, Rahul Govind, Aniket Kate, Andrew Miller 0001
CCS2
2018 Reactive redundancy for data destruction protection (R2D2)
Christopher N. Gutierrez, Eugene H. Spafford, Saurabh Bagchi, Thomas Yurek
Comput. Secur.4