1
$\begingroup$

In this paper the last sentence of the first paragraph in the abstract states:

We assume a (necessary) “leak-free” preprocessing stage.

But then later on in section 1.4 they say

Another interesting open question is to construct a leakage- resilient MPC protocol without assuming any leak-free stages,

Why do they say the leak-free stage is necessary but then later on they say it's an interesting open question ? When they say it's necessary doesn't that imply there is no open question (i.e. not debatable) ?

Is there any research done on leak-free stageS?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The "'leak-free' preprocessing stage" is a necessary part of their MPC protocol. $\hspace{1.78 in}$ $\endgroup$
    – user991
    Commented Oct 29, 2013 at 21:10
  • $\begingroup$ @RickyDemer - Yes - if it is necessary then why does it become and open question late on in the paper? I'm still unclear about this. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 29, 2013 at 22:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think they are saying assuming leak free is necessary to prove security for their protocol, but it woul be really cool (thus an open problem) to design a protocol that can tolerate leaks in any stage. $\endgroup$
    – mikeazo
    Commented Oct 29, 2013 at 23:19
  • $\begingroup$ @mikeazo - that makes sense to me. I guess there's no other explanation that makes sense so I'll mark it as correct if you answer the question. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 29, 2013 at 23:33

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

I think they are saying assuming leak free is necessary to prove security for their protocol, but it would be really cool (thus an open problem) to design a protocol that can tolerate leaks in any stage.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.