Airtight 发表于 2025-3-26 23:21:24
http://reply.papertrans.cn/25/2406/240574/240574_31.png巧办法 发表于 2025-3-27 04:35:41
http://reply.papertrans.cn/25/2406/240574/240574_32.pngMelanocytes 发表于 2025-3-27 06:38:20
Empty victories, harmless defeats,in particular entirely practical. Our approach is based on universal accumulators, which nicely fit to the underlying paradigm. Thereby, in contrast to existing accumulator-based revocation approaches, we do not require complex zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge (ZKPKs) to demonstrate the possession手榴弹 发表于 2025-3-27 11:56:17
http://reply.papertrans.cn/25/2406/240574/240574_34.png确认 发表于 2025-3-27 16:18:31
Empty victories, harmless defeats,f the algorithm, since neither is there a need to know the noise power variance of the channel, nor to perform complex and costly mathematical operations like exponentiations, quotients and products at that step. This complexity reduction is especially important for practical implementations of theGRIPE 发表于 2025-3-27 18:42:58
http://reply.papertrans.cn/25/2406/240574/240574_36.png伴随而来 发表于 2025-3-28 01:44:34
Rogue Decryption Failures: Reconciling AE Robustness Notionsf decryption leakage from invalid queries. Having tracked the development of AE security games, we provide a single expressive framework allowing us to compare and contrast the previous notions. We find that at their core, the notions are essentially equivalent, with their key differences stemming f江湖郎中 发表于 2025-3-28 02:35:17
http://reply.papertrans.cn/25/2406/240574/240574_38.pngobsolete 发表于 2025-3-28 07:01:35
0302-9743 IMACC 2015, held at Oxford, UK, in December 2015. The 18 papers presented together with 1 invited talk were carefully reviewed and selected from 36 submissions. The scope of the conference was on following topics: authentication, symmetric cryptography, 2-party computation, codes, Boolean functions,法律 发表于 2025-3-28 12:00:52
Is what you ask for what you get?, (with respect to malicious verifiers). Under the assumption that the polynomial hierarchy does not collapse, we also show that . cannot be .. We finally introduce a variant of . over the rationals radicands and provide similar results for this new problem.