arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.37234

Asynchronous Verifiable and Complete Secret Sharing: From Design Patterns to System-Level Trade-offs

Joachim Bruneau-Queyreix·Martin Zivojinovic·Leo Mendiboure·Tom Claudel·Laurent Réveillère
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Modern secret sharing protocols promise robust secret sharing in fully asynchronous Byzantine systems, but their practical costs remain difficult to compare across papers, assumptions, and workloads. The difficulty is not merely experimental: protocols with similar asymptotic guarantees often place very different work on the critical path through their choices of dissemination, verification, batching, and recovery. This paper turns that fragmented research landscape into a corpus-backed designspace analysis and systems evaluation of asynchronous verifiable and complete secret sharing. We derive a design sieve, select seven representative protocols, and implement them in a common Rust framework. In our experiments on the Grid'5000 platform, we evaluate honest-dealer and faulty-dealer stress executions using latency, throughput, message count, bandwidth, and aggregate CPU-time. The results show that message complexity alone poorly predicts latency, that optimistic paths can be dominated by recovery cost, and that batching or packing helps only when verification stays off the critical path. These findings turn protocol-by-protocol comparisons into design-to-cost guidance for choosing, implementing, and extending asynchronous verifiable and complete sharing protocols.

Explore related subjects

cs.CR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Joachim Bruneau-Queyreix, Martin Zivojinovic, Leo Mendiboure, Tom Claudel, Laurent Réveillère. 2026-10-27. Asynchronous Verifiable and Complete Secret Sharing: From Design Patterns to System-Level Trade-offs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.37234

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

SemDiff: Binary Similarity Detection by Diffing Key-Semantics Graphs

Binary similarity detection is a critical technique that has been applied in many real-world scenarios where source code is not available, e.g., bug search, malware analysis, and code plagiarism detection. Existing works are ineffective in detecting similar binaries in cases where different compiling optimizations, compilers, source code versions, or obfuscation are deployed. We observe that all the cases do not change a binary's key code behaviors although they significantly modify its syntax and structure. With this key observation, we extract a set of key instructions from a binary to capture its key code behaviors. By detecting the similarity between two binaries' key instructions, we can address well the ineffectiveness limitation of existing works. Specifically, we translate each extracted key instruction into a self-defined key expression, generating a key-semantics graph based on the binary's control flow. Each node in the key-semantics graph denotes a key instruction, and the node attribute is the key expression. To quantify the similarity between two given key-semantics graphs, we first serialize each graph into a sequence of key expressions by topological sort. Then, we tokenize and concatenate key expressions to generate token lists. We calculate the locality-sensitive hash value for all token lists and quantify their similarity. %We implement a prototype, called SemDiff, consisting of two modules: graph generation and graph diffing. The first module generates a pair of key-semantics graphs and the second module diffs the graphs. Our evaluation results show that overall, SemDiff outperforms state-of-the-art tools when detecting the similarity of binaries generated from different optimization levels, compilers, and obfuscations. SemDiff is also effective for library version search and finding similar vulnerabilities in firmware.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

DYNASHIELD: A Black-Box Moving Target Defense for LLMs via Dynamic Decoding Customization

Large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks in which adversarial prompts induce harmful outputs. Existing defenses often require access to the model internals or additional training, limiting their applicability for service providers deployed through black-box APIs. In this paper, we propose DYNASHIELD, a moving target defense framework that improves robustness by customizing decoding hyperparameters and system prompts at inference time. DYNASHIELD includes two key steps: (1) it identifies decoding configurations that reduce attack success probability, and (2) it probabilistically samples from a weighted configuration pool to introduce controlled variability in model behavior. We evaluate DYNASHIELD across 7 open-source LLMs under 4 state-of-the-art jailbreak attacks, using adversarial prompts from AdvBench. Results show substantial reductions in attack success rate compared with 7 baseline defenses, while maintaining response quality and incurring minimal inference overhead. Because DYNASHIELD operates solely through exposed runtime controls, it requires no retraining or model-internal access. These results suggest that safety-aware dynamic decoding is a promising and practically lightweight defense mechanism for black-box LLM deployments.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

On the Reliability and Stability of Selective Methods in Malware Classification Tasks

The performance figures of modern drift-adaptive malware classifiers appear promising, but does this translate to genuine operational reliability? The standard evaluation paradigm primarily focuses on baseline performance metrics, neglecting confidence-error alignment and operational stability. While prior works established the importance of temporal evaluation and introduced selective classification in malware classification tasks, we take a complementary direction by investigating whether malware classifiers maintain reliable and stable confidence estimates under distribution shifts and exploring the tensions between scientific advancement and practical impacts when they do not. We propose Aurora, a framework to evaluate malware classifiers based on their confidence quality and operational resilience. Aurora subjects the confidence profile of a given model to verification to assess the reliability of its estimates. Unreliable confidence estimates erode operational trust, waste valuable annotation budgets on non-informative samples for active learning, and leave error-prone instances undetected in selective classification. Aurora is further complemented by a set of metrics designed to go beyond point-in-time performance, striving towards a more holistic assessment of operational stability throughout temporal evaluation periods. The fragility we observe in SOTA frameworks across datasets of varying drift severity suggests it may be time to revisit the underlying assumptions.

cs.CR↗