Timeline for Can a fully homomorphic encryption be used for oblivious code execution?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 13, 2010 at 17:10 | vote | accept | Alex ten Brink | ||
| Nov 12, 2010 at 22:42 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Ross,Sadeq: Some of the authors visit the site from time to time, hopefully they will notice the tag. Having the question on the featured questions pages might also help. | |
| Nov 12, 2010 at 7:59 | comment | added | Sadeq Dousti | @Ross: Yeah, I would like other researchers in the field to comment as well... | |
| Nov 12, 2010 at 5:08 | comment | added | Ross Snider | Could a researcher in the field (or one of the impressive names from the authors list) comment? | |
| Nov 12, 2010 at 5:06 | comment | added | Ross Snider | It's my understanding that these results only apply to the "old" (unsuccessful) model of obfuscation using virtual black boxes, and that now the researchers in the field are looking to adopt a weaker notion of obfuscation with the hope some guarantees can be had. One of the research directions is to adopt Fully Homomorphic Encryption, and so I would say that the question is open. I remember sitting in on a talk from Microsoft Research this summer about fixed point obfuscators and virtual black boxes where the researcher made exactly this point. | |
| Nov 12, 2010 at 0:29 | comment | added | Alex ten Brink | Well, that kind of puts a dampener on things. I just read how they proved their results: I was particularly baffled when I read that the obfuscator is assumed to have access to the source code of the adversarial program! (though I could just have misunderstood the paper) | |
| Nov 11, 2010 at 11:29 | history | answered | Sadeq Dousti | CC BY-SA 2.5 |