CryptoSecGroup

Cryptography and Security Group Wiki page

---

Group Seminar

The seminar takes place Tuesdays and Thursdays 6-8pm.

List of papers/topics:

• Public Verifiability in the Covert Model (Almost) for Free, https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1067
• DJoin: Differentially Private Join Queries over Distributed Databases, http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~ahae/papers/djoin-osdi2012.pdf
• Authenticated Garbling and Efficient Maliciously Secure Two-Party Computation, https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/030
• Etherium
• Computational Differential Privacy, https://people.seas.harvard.edu/~salil/research/CompDiffPriv-crypto.pdf
• Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol, https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/889
• Scalable Multi-Party Private Set-Intersection, https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/027.pdf

Next Presentations:

• Thursday April 6, 2017, Avi and Ishaq: OT extension
• Tuesday, April 11, 2017, Mike: Papers on ROP
• Thursday, April 13, 2017, Connor: Djoin
• Tuesday, April 18, 2017, Avi: PVC (postponed to Thursday April 27, 2017)
• Tuesday, April 18, 2017, Vassilis: On the cost of low communication in secure MPC
• Tuesday, April 25, 2017, Connor: Scalable private set intersection
• Thursday, April 27, 2017, Avi: PVC
• Tuesday, May 2, 2017, Yun: Ouroboros.

---

Presentation and Reviewing Guidelines

Presentation Guidelines

When presenting a paper, please prepare a presentation (slides or whiteboard) with the following structure.

1. What is the paper’s goal? (What problem does it try to solve?)
2. What is the motivation for this problem. (Why do we need to solve it and what will it give us?)
3. What is the state of the art in the related literature (what do papers that attempt to solve this problem achieve)
4. What is the concrete result and how does it compare/improve over existing approaches.
5. Description of results and proof in a section-by-section manner.

Paper review guidelines:

The following guidelines are useful also when reading a paper for the presentation.

Paper review is a process that takes several days and requires a very deep understanding of the paper. You should first make a pass of the paper and mark along the pass what you do not understand and seems relevant for the statement or proof. At the end of the pass, anything you marked which is not resolved should be resolved by following the paper’s references. You should treat the review process the same way you would want a reviewer to treat your paper submission. Carefully and fair.

The review report should have the following structure:

• Paragraph 1: What is the problem that the paper is solving and why is it important?

• Paragraph 2: What is known about the paper? Is the related literature section informative as to what is the state of the art? How does the paper advance the state of the art?

• Paragraphs 3 - k: (where k is the number of technical sections, i.e., after the Introduction and Preliminaries): For each technical section include (at least) a paragraph which describes your understanding of the paragraph.

• Paragraph k+1: What did I like about the paper (could be more than one paragraph).

• Paragraph k+2: What did I not like about the paper (mistakes, bugs, etc. go here)

• Paragraph k+3: Conclusion and recommendation.

---

Members

VassilisZikas, YunLu, AviWeinstock, IshaqMuhammad, MikeMaccelletti, ConnorHadley, BenShaw, BulentYener

Related topics: AccessControl, WikiGroups