Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 64 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 50 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 30 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 35 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 77 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 174 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 457 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 37 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Efficient Verifiable Differential Privacy with Input Authenticity in the Local and Shuffle Model (2406.18940v2)

Published 27 Jun 2024 in cs.CR

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.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-Up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.