In the paper "Multiparty Computation Secure Against Continual Memory Leakage" on pg. 1239 the footnote at the bottom points out the difference between $joint$ leakage and $disjoint$ leakage. The authors say the weakly leakage resilient protocol of BGG+11 cannot be directly used because it only applies to $joint$ leakage.

My understanding is the adversary has been made more powerful and is able to perform disjoint leakage (i.e. he can make leakage requests on random modules at any time).

I was wondering if somebody could explain this footnote a bit more clearly. Why does a weakly resilient protocol not apply directly?


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.