Efficient Verifiable Differential Privacy with Input Authenticity in the Local and Shuffle Model
June 27, 2024 Β· Declared Dead Β· π IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Tariq Bontekoe, Hassan Jameel Asghar, Fatih Turkmen
arXiv ID
2406.18940
Category
cs.CR: Cryptography & Security
Citations
7
Venue
IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Local differential privacy (LDP) enables the efficient release of aggregate statistics without having to trust the central server (aggregator), as in the central model of differential privacy, and simultaneously protects a client's sensitive data. The shuffle model with LDP provides an additional layer of privacy, by disconnecting the link between clients and the aggregator. However, LDP has been shown to be vulnerable to malicious clients who can perform both input and output manipulation attacks, i.e., before and after applying the LDP mechanism, to skew the aggregator's results. In this work, we show how to prevent malicious clients from compromising LDP schemes. Our only realistic assumption is that the initial raw input is authenticated; the rest of the processing pipeline, e.g., formatting the input and applying the LDP mechanism, may be under adversarial control. We give several real-world examples where this assumption is justified. Our proposed schemes for verifiable LDP (VLDP), prevent both input and output manipulation attacks against generic LDP mechanisms, requiring only one-time interaction between client and server, unlike existing alternatives [37, 43]. Most importantly, we are the first to provide an efficient scheme for VLDP in the shuffle model. We describe, and prove security of, two schemes for VLDP in the local model, and one in the shuffle model. We show that all schemes are highly practical, with client run times of less than 2 seconds, and server run times of 5-7 milliseconds per client.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Cryptography & Security
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settings
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Distillation as a Defense to Adversarial Perturbations against Deep Neural Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Spectre Attacks: Exploiting Speculative Execution
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
How To Backdoor Federated Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Time
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted