Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Beginnings of Encrypted Computing In the Cloud

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the stormy-weather dept.

Encryption 76

eldavojohn writes "A method of computing from a 2009 paper allows the computing of data without ever decrypting it. With cloud computing on the rise, this may be the holy grail of keeping private data private in the cloud. It's called Fully Homomorphic Encryption, and if you've got the computer science/mathematics chops you can read the thesis (PDF). After reworking it and simplifying it, researchers have moved it away from being true, fully homomorphic encryption, but it is now a little closer to being ready for cloud usage. The problem is that the more operations performed on your encrypted data, the more likely it has become 'dirty' or corrupted. To combat this, Gentry developed a way to periodically clean the data by making it self-correcting. The article notes that although this isn't prepared for use in reliable systems, it is a quick jump to implementation just one year after the paper was published — earlier encryption papers would take as much as half a decade until they were implemented at all."

cancel ×

76 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

encrypt (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32542316)

gjstu qptu

Re:encrypt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32542436)

"First Post" lol

Re:encrypt (1)

MattW (97290) | more than 4 years ago | (#32543524)

svefg cbfg

FYP

Can't come soon enough (1)

capnchicken (664317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32542330)

I never did see the big draw of cloud computing without this. Hopefully this will also provide some needed knowledge to better something like Freenet [freenetproject.org]

Freenet is clever (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32543282)

I am a Freenet user (posting anonymously for obvious reasons) and I use it for Freenet Messaging System (FMS) which is a web forums on top of Freenet. The key thing about Freenet is that it is an anonymous data store. Even if you are offline, someone can fetch the data that is spinning around in the network.

You use a lot of CPU in my experience to retransmit lots of requests from other users, it's not obvious to your node whether or not you actually requested a piece of data. Even better is to make a darknet with people you trust.

Re:Freenet is clever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32545140)

How do you know you trust them, if they are anonymous?

Anonymous != untrustworthy (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549600)

Anonymous does not necessarily mean "has no name", although I can see how slashdotters are being conditioned to think so. Anonymous merely means to keep ones identities separate from and unconnected to one another.

You can have a perfectly anonymous identity with assorted social perks such as a recognizable name and verifiability/accountability; just disconnected from any other identities you might have. The tricky part is *keeping* them separated (plain human sloppiness is what got most old-school hackers caught).

Re:Anonymous != untrustworthy (1)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550618)

Actually anonymous implies no attached name, or name-like construct. If there is an attached name, then it is pseudonymous.

um, no. (4, Interesting)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32542364)

Practical homomorphic encryption is a fantasy, or at the very least it is so far off that it won't impact any of us any time soon.

If you want to cloudsource sensitive information processing, you will need a highly-secured vendor (most aren't even close). Sorry!

Re:um, no. (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32542846)

Practical homomorphic encryption is a fantasy,

So what about impractical, if they can get it to work impractically, isn't it just a matter of resources playing catchup?

Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32542918)

Wait a minute. I'm a manager, and I've been reading a lot of case studies and watching a lot of webcasts about The Cloud. Based on all of this glorious marketing literature, I, as a manager, have absolutely no reason to doubt the safety of any data put in The Cloud.

The case studies all use words like "secure", "MD5", "RSS feeds" and "encryption" to describe the security of The Cloud. I don't know about you, but that sounds damn secure to me! Some Clouds even use SSL and HTTP. That's rock solid in my book.

And don't forget that you have to use Web Services to access The Cloud. Nothing is more secure than SOA and Web Services, with the exception of perhaps SaaS. But I think that Cloud Services 2.0 will combine the tiers into an MVC-compliant stack that uses SaaS to increase the security and partitioning of the data.

My main concern isn't with the security of The Cloud, but rather with getting my Indian team to learn all about it so we can deploy some first-generation The Cloud applications and Web Services to provide the ultimate platform upon which we can layer our business intelligence and reporting, because there are still a few verticals that we need to leverage before we can move to The Cloud 2.0.

Is The Cloud Considered (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32543048)

a botnet ?

Thanks in advance.

Yours In Akademgorodok,
K. Trout

Re:um, no. (1)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32543256)

Practical homomorphic encryption is a fantasy

Anybody else first misread that as "homophobic" then "homoerotic" fantasy? :)

Re:um, no. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32546116)

nope. just you.

awkward, right?

Re:um, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32548092)

i'm a mathematician. and i first read it as "holomorphic", then i chuckled a little because that don't really makes sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holomorphic

Re:um, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32543434)

Practical homomorphic encryption is a fantasy, or at the very least it is so far off that it won't impact any of us any time soon.

If you want to cloudsource sensitive information processing, you will need a highly-secured vendor (most aren't even close). Sorry!

OK, so several top cryptography experts say they've made a significant breakthrough in this area, and published a peer reviewed paper detailing their findings.

But Lord Ender says no, so I guess we should definitely ignore this work completely.

Re:um, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32546886)

Well, he is a supergenius who has saved the world, so yeah.

Re:um, no. (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32553316)

I hate to break it to you, Mr. Coward, but we would need a deluge of breakthroughs before it is even remotely interesting from an engineering standpoint.

Re:um, no. (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 4 years ago | (#32543998)

Practical homomorphic encryption is a fantasy,

Not that there is anything wrong with it.

Re:um, no. (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#32544906)

Practical homomorphic encryption is a fantasy, or at the very least it is so far off that it won't impact any of us any time soon.

So how many years to deployment is that? Three? Five? Ten?

Re:um, no. (2, Insightful)

debatem1 (1087307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32545440)

Nitpicking, but homomorphic encryption gets used all the time- both RSA and ElGamal have a multiplicative homomorphic property, and blind signing (an application of that property) is fairly common. It's fully homomorphic cryptosystems which aren't currently used in practice, and I can assure you that interest in it is quickly moving from pure-theory labs into the more practical research communities. It would not at all surprise me to see the first real applications in the next five years, although you're right that large-scale deployment is still probably many years off.

Re:um, no. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32545938)

I'm glad to see that another Slashdotter actually understands what this work is about, because most of the commenters on this thread are clueless.

This work is fascinating because the author's encryption scheme is homomorphic for both multiplicative and additive operations, allowing you to compute arbitrary boolean circuits on the encrypted data!

Unfortunately, the computational complexity of their approach is too slow for this to have any practical applications (due to some astoundingly complicated "gadgets" they had to implement that prevent the encrypted data from losing its meaning after doing too many computations), but it's fascinating from a cryptographic point of view.

Just Use Fusion/OpenCL (1)

sanman2 (928866) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557564)

I thought one of the big uses being touted for the upcoming new CPU-GPU processors like AMD's Fusion, is that they'll be able to do things like virus-checking concurrently on the side. Why not similarly try it for homomorphic encryption on the side, and then the computational complexity won't slow things down too badly.

That's easy. (1)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32548714)

Encrypted data manipulation? Just write the manipulation software in Malbolge.

Law Firms etc now can consider using cloud as opt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32542376)

Fantastic - now we can envisage using the cloud for sensitive documents. Law firms such as ours are look forward to this development. www.1p.com.au

maybe it's just me (4, Insightful)

ihxo (16767) | more than 4 years ago | (#32542502)

The idea that my data is on the "cloud" and I have to pay a monthly fee (or watch some ads) to access it is really not very interesting to me.

Re:maybe it's just me (1)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32542536)

Amen, brotha

maybe it's just you. (0)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32542850)

The idea that my grandmother's data is on her own equipment that she has no idea how to operate and is at risk of becoming a spambot-zombie isn't all that interesting to me either.

Also, are we talking about enterprise cloud or consumer cloud with this article?

Re:maybe it's just you. (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32542944)

by the sound of it, consumer cloud is just enterprise cloud scaled down.

Re:maybe it's just you. (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32546174)

It doesn't matter if it is interesting to you. Is it interesting to her?

Re:maybe it's just you. (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 4 years ago | (#32546790)

I doubt it, but she'll probably end up using it anyway, whether she knows or not.

That's right it's just you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32542996)

Because it threatens your job as someone who programs exclusively for locked down desktops. If cloud computing blows up more, you are out of a job.

Re:That's right it's just you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32545778)

.... and if cloud services blow up or---more likely---lock down, then you're out of a lifetime of data.

what about a happy medium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32546754)

with offline mode in html 5 can users now store all their data offline, basically effectively creating a backup?

Re:maybe it's just me (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32543026)

And I feel exactly the same way about storage places, and yet people pay monthly to store things that they really should be selling or giving away.

Short-term storage I understand. People who have had that storage unit for more than a year just amaze me. You could throw it all away and buy it again for the same price. And if it's -really- precious to you, it shouldn't be in storage in the first place.

Re:maybe it's just me (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#32543534)

As a consumer, sure. As a business, you'll eventually want secure offsite storage for both paper and electronic records, and you'll expect to pay monthly for both. You might want to throw that stuff out, but there are all these annoying laws about record retention.

Re:maybe it's just me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32546914)

you've never had a divorce, have you?

Re:maybe it's just me (1)

404 Clue Not Found (763556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32545798)

The idea that my data is on the "cloud" and I have to pay a monthly fee (or watch some ads) to access it is really not very interesting to me.

The idea that I can access my emails and files from anywhere around the world is very interesting to me. The idea that this all happens automatically behind the scenes with near-enterprise-level reliability and survives through three OS upgrades, as many hardware upgrades, a stolen computer, and four system architectures is pretty damned interesting too. And the idea that I can do so for free thanks to a small paragraph of product blurbs? That's nothing short of astonishing.

Re:maybe it's just me (2, Insightful)

lbates_35476 (901961) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549344)

So I'm guessing you aren't using hosted email in any way. If you are, your email data is "in the cloud". Another excellent use of the cloud is for system backups (note I work for a company that provides secure system backups to our cloud storage). One of the few "reliable" ways of keeping up-to-date point-in-time backups of systems for disaster recovery is by using secure cloud storage. Every other method that I've investigated has serious (and often fatal) flaws to keeping a recoverable image of critical business systems. I gave up on the "take a copy of all my servers/workstations" home method a long time ago because it has become unworkable and people are inherently unreliable.

Re:maybe it's just me (1)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 4 years ago | (#32554440)

The idea that my data is on the "cloud" and I have to pay a monthly fee (or watch some ads) to access it is really not very interesting to me.

I see your point, but it's not like maintaining your own physical computer is free either. Instead of paying service fees, you have to pay money to purchase the computer, spend time and/or money to keep it running, make sure your data is backed up, pay for electricity, deal with it if it gets stolen or damaged, etc.

The trade-offs may be worth it for you, but other people like the freedom of not having to be an amateur sysadmin/hardware wrangler.

Job market time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32542514)

Yet another case of someone's impractical research being posted on Slashdot. Must be seeking fame or a job.

Re:Job market time? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32542642)

They probably just left it on an insecure AT&T server ... it was bound to find its way to the internet before too long ... I'm just sayin'

Re:Job market time? (2, Insightful)

symes (835608) | more than 4 years ago | (#32542752)

While it might be ultimately impractical - there's no harm in researchers getting their work out to intelligent, informed audiences... like, errr, ummmmm... that other place

So, tests are left out in the cold? (1)

Dragoniz3r (992309) | more than 4 years ago | (#32542904)

So, I've got this encrypted data, and I can do these operations to it and it'll still be encrypted blah blah blah. I want to alphabetically sort some data. If I'm reading this right, you're screwed. Not seeing the utility, if that's the case.

Re:So, tests are left out in the cold? (1)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 4 years ago | (#32543378)

We only require a basic set of instructions [wikipedia.org] to build complete programs. Specifically, we only need enough of them to achieve Turing Completeness. [wikipedia.org] Modern processors usually have upwards of 30 basic instructions, most of them simply save time. With this sort of encryption, we can't have those same time saving shortcuts. Further, we are forced into using process visualization [wikipedia.org] , with absolutely no way to utilize a JIT Compiler. [wikipedia.org] Because of this, Fully Homomorphic Encryption it incredibly time consuming. It's akin to writing an Interpreter [wikipedia.org] in an already Interpreted programming language.

Re:So, tests are left out in the cold? (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#32543560)

If I can sort your data alphabetically without the password, it's (as a result of that sorting) not usefully encrypted. I've read through some of this stuff and I just don't get it.

Re:So, tests are left out in the cold? (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#32544716)

I havn't read it yet, but I'd assume you're not actually getting a sort command, you're getting a bunch of low level commands that end up making it sorted.

Re:So, tests are left out in the cold? (2, Insightful)

Dragoniz3r (992309) | more than 4 years ago | (#32545430)

The whole idea behind this is that you'd be able to encrypt your data, upload it to your cloud provider, and use their hardware to do a bunch of work on it, without ever decrypting it. The reason why this is attractive is because you don't want your cloud provider looking at your data. If you can sort your data by plaintext, while still in ciphertext form (ie, without decrypting it on the cloud's hardware AT ALL), then what's stopping your cloud provider from doing it, too? You're leaking information about your data to your provider, and if they wanted to, they could perform a process of elimination and discover your plaintext.

Note, sorting is only ONE example of a class of algorithms that might have to be performed. Pretty much any useful algorithm would in some way leak information about the plaintext, in a way that would be visible to people who don't have your private key. That defeats the whole purpose. Might as well just upload all your data XOR encrypted.

The thing to keep in mind here is that the idea is to make it so your cloud provider has no way to read, or infer information about, your data. I'm in the camp that believes it's not possible, but even if it is possible, known methods (like this one) are neither plausible nor secure.

The computed results don't reveal the inputs! (2, Insightful)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 4 years ago | (#32547456)

If you can sort your data by plaintext, while still in ciphertext form (ie, without decrypting it on the cloud's hardware AT ALL), then what's stopping your cloud provider from doing it, too?

Nothing. The result will be a list of ciphertexts which won't reveal anything about the plaintexts.

See also the thesis, page 5 (5 on paper, 15 in pdf):

At a high-level, the essence of fully homomorphic encryption is simple: given ciphertexts that encrypt pi_1, ..., p_t fully homomorphic encryption should allow anyone (not just the key-holder) to output a ciphertext that encrypts f(pi_1, ..., p_t) for any desired function f, as long as that function can be efficiently computed. No information about pi_1, ..., p_t or
f(pi_1, ..., pi_t), or any intermediate plaintext values, should leak; the inputs, output and intermediate values are always encrypted.

So if I give you pi_1 and pi_2, you'll know that E(min(pi_1, pi_2)) = 42 and E(max(pi_1, pi_2)) = 17. What do their encryptions tell you about pi_1 and pi_2?

You're leaking information about your data to your provider, and if they wanted to, they could perform a process of elimination and discover your plaintext.

I don't think it's possible; I must admit I haven't read Gentry's thesis, but I assume he proves what he advertises---that he has a fully homomorphic encryption scheme. In that case, it is indeed possible to carry out any computation on encrypted values without revealing information about neither the plaintext nor the result of the computation.

Of course, if I'm wrong, I would very much like to see your algorithm for discovering the plaintext.

The thing to keep in mind here is that the idea is to make it so your cloud provider has no way to read, or infer information about, your data. I'm in the camp that believes it's not possible, but even if it is possible, known methods (like this one) are neither plausible nor secure.

Gentry's approach uses lattices; his approach should be secure against people whose computational resources are polynomial in the plaintext size, even (I think we think*) if they have quantum computers.

(* I haven't looked closely, so I'm randomly guessing his use of lattices is of the kind where no publicly known quantum attacks exist).

Security isn't an on/off thing. There's a stricter security property Gentry's system either satisfies or doesn't satisfy---that no one can know anything about the plain texts, even if computing on the ciphertexts "forever".

But in-use technology such as SSL, ssh, PGP/GPG doesn't live up to this standard, yet in practical security it's never the *crypto* that's broken.

To say that Gentry's work is not only wrong (not secure) but not plausible I think implies that the PhD committee at Stanford is doing a piss-poor job. Is that really what you mean?

(This is one of the reasons I'm doing my PhD in cryptography: in algorithms, or languages, or $subfield, when there's something you don't know you just know that you don't know how to do X; in cryptography, when there's stuff you don't know, it seems like magic is possible)

Re:The computed results don't reveal the inputs! (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552474)

If I have a list of cyphertexts in plaintext-sorted-order, and I can choose several such operations to perform, I have more than enough information to decrypt most of it with high confidence.

Basically, if I can see the result of subtracting one plaintext from another (or XORing them together or any other such simple operaiton), I'm a trivial step away from decrypting both. This looks an awful lot like being able to get that information - not quite so neatly packaged, but close enough for government work.

Re:So, tests are left out in the cold? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32550722)

You're misinterpreting what fully-homomorphic encryption achieves. Here's how it plays out:

1) You encrypt your data.
2) You send the encrypted data to the cloud.
3) The cloud performs Encrypted_Sort on your data, and sends you the result.
4) You decrypt the result, and get the sorted version of your data.

No information has been leaked to the cloud provider. In fact, you can set up the protocol such that not only does the provider learn nothing about the data (other than its length), it also learns nothing about the function that was applied (other than its size).

Re:So, tests are left out in the cold? (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551334)

Note, sorting is only ONE example of a class of algorithms that might have to be performed. Pretty much any useful algorithm would in some way leak information about the plaintext, in a way that would be visible to people who don't have your private key. That defeats the whole purpose. Might as well just upload all your data XOR encrypted.

Could you encrypt the algorithm itself? That is, just like you use the key to transform the cleartext to ciphertext, you would use the key to transfer the original algorithm to a "ciphered" algorithm, which operates on that ciphertext, producing more ciphertext, which, when decrypted, will be the same as if you'd run the original algorithm on the original cleartext. Basically, your "cloud provider" would not know either your data or what you're doing to it.

And XOR encryption is just fine, as long as you XOR against a random bit string and keep it to yourself :).

Re:So, tests are left out in the cold? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32547822)

It's purely academic. Kind of like about half of the papers on Theoretical Computer Science conferences these days are about quantum whatever.

Having said that, your objection about sorting alphabetically need not necessarily hold. After all, the point is that in any reasonable cryptosystem, encrypt([a1, a2, ..., an]) != [encrypt(a1), encrypt(a2), ..., encrypt(an)]. For that reason, you won't actually be able to tell the way that the sorting order has changed.

So from a TCS point of view, this homomorphic encryption stuff is really neat and worth investigating, but ultimately it seems pretty useless because it's just so damned inefficient. It's kind of like public-key cryptography: a very neat system, but in practice it is only used to encrypt symmetric keys, which are ridiculously small. Now with homomorphic encryption, you can't do such performance hacks, so it seems doomed to stay in academia. Even quantum computers seem more realistic ;)

Re:So, tests are left out in the cold? (1)

Dragoniz3r (992309) | more than 4 years ago | (#32545364)

No. You're not capturing the magnitude of how few operations we have at our disposal with FHE. We can add, and we can multiply, and we can compare ciphertexts. Those are the three basic operations you can perform. Even if you could somehow divine the proper sorting of plaintexts, based upon their ciphertexts (And I'm even ignoring the fact that that would leak information like a sieve, for now), you'd have to go through god knows how many hundreds of add/multiply/compare iterations to do it. It's just not feasible.

Now, to address that little point I said I was ignoring. If you can discern ANYTHING about the plaintext from the ciphertext, it means your encryption is leaking. However, in order to do anything useful with cloud computation, you HAVE to be able to know about the ciphertext. How many "cloud" operations do you have at your workplace where you process data blindly adding and multiplying? Imagine an actuarial scenario: You've got a bunch of (encrypted) policy data that you've uploaded to the cloud for rating. The premium rate for a policy depends on dozens or hundreds of variables. Everything from where you live to whether your car has power windows. Without being able to discern that information from the ciphertext, you can't properly rate the policy. But if you can discern the information, you've defeated the entire purpose of your encryption.

It's neat math, but I don't see how it can be used to do anything useful, while still protecting your data.

Re:So, tests are left out in the cold? (1)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 4 years ago | (#32558734)

We don't need to discern the information, that's the whole goddamned point. It means we can solve a+b=c, without ever knowing what a, b, or c are.

Servers on sale at Dell.com (1)

Drunkulus (920976) | more than 4 years ago | (#32542946)

Thank God someone has come up with a theoretical method of computing private data on a VM running in an old beige box full of dust bunnies in an Amazon.com datacenter.

1931 called (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32542960)

This is just Gödel numbering using an "encrypting" algorithm.

What about just using encfs and fuse? (2, Interesting)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32543384)

Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't you just use something like Encfs [wikipedia.org] and fuse [wikipedia.org] and just access your encrypted files as if they were a mounted file system right on your local system with all that implies?

Re:What about just using encfs and fuse? (2, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#32543598)

The intent is that the cloud provider, who doesn't have the password, could perform useful operations on your data. I don't see how anything good could come from this.

No that wouldn't allow them to analyze your data. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32543784)

The whole point of cloud computing is to give corporations access to all your files and all your computing behavior so they can analyze it, sell it, broadcast it, trade it, and make it into a product for governments and corporations around the world.

Re:No that wouldn't allow them to analyze your dat (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32544120)

The whole point of cloud computing is to give corporations access to all your files and all your computing behavior so they can analyze it, sell it, broadcast it, trade it, and make it into a product for governments and corporations around the world.

Where do you get that from?

It seems as though you are thinking about the wrong layer of the 'cloud'.
 
This is about high availability, to where the hardware operators can have many servers on standby and seemlessly (via VMotion or similar technologies) change hardware without a hiccup. If a node goes down then just bring up the same resource on an alternate server.

Re:What about just using encfs and fuse? (3, Insightful)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 4 years ago | (#32544142)

Yes, but that would be missing the boat. The whole point of cloud computing is that computations do not happen on your local computer. That's what fully homomorphic encryption offers: for a server to perform computations on encrypted data without decrypting the data.

Homage to Python (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32543798)

Fully Homomorphic Encryption

oooooooooo, oooooOOOooooo, ooooooohhhhhhh....

Not going to work (2, Interesting)

gweihir (88907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32544094)

This has been tried for at least 3 decades. It could never be made to work efficiently and this approach is also not really going to help. It may have some valid crypto application this time (it never got that far before), but you will have to pump in so many more CPU cycles, that it will be a lot cheaper to just spend then directly on you own PC for any non-crypto stuff.

Side note: The things people will claim to make this mostly BS idea of the cloud seem to work never cease to amaze me.

Cloud computing sells crypto research, not vv (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 4 years ago | (#32547308)

Side note: The things people will claim to make this mostly BS idea of the cloud seem to work never cease to amaze me.

If I know anything about \subsection{Motivation}, they're using cloud computing to make fully homomorphic encryption seem* worthwhile.

(* appearances may be true or false but not both).

Academic cryptography has developed the theory necessary for all the important problems people want solved in practice (i.e. public key encryption). That's why we work on the (apparently) less important problems now, and that's why the "motivation" part of our articles are a little... stretched ;-)

You can argue that someone ought to work on building and deploying technology based on the good ol' cryptographic theory (i.e. an internet with end-to-end public key cryptography). I won't argue against you, but I think it requires solving problems of internet governance first.

Encryption is only 1 problem (1)

hsnewman (566865) | more than 4 years ago | (#32544514)

The issue with clouds is for the most part they are using commodity hardware and the method for data reliability is replication. Given the hard error rate of disk drives after about 7 PB of data the failure rate of disk drives will exceed the ability of an OC-48 channel to move the data to replicate failed drives.

Newer Advance / Stop the Botnets (2, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32544594)

There's been some progress [taragana.com] since this paper.

It's not there yet, but there's hope.

The good news is this will eventually stop the botnets. One all that computing power is reliably usable, there's profit motive to defend it.

Re:Newer Advance / Stop the Botnets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32548286)

> The good news is this will eventually stop the botnets. One all that computing power is reliably usable, there's profit motive to defend it.

Wow. I've never seen the free market pipe dream taken to this level before. How is profit motive going to cause people to be less gullible and ignorant? As long as those people exist, there will be successful malware and botnets.

Re:Newer Advance / Stop the Botnets (1)

Explodicle (818405) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550350)

Botnets exist because of rational ignorance [wikipedia.org] . For most people, the benefit of having an efficient computer does not outweigh the cost of learning about malware and proper maintenance. How many times have you heard "It does my email and my internet, I don't care"? If there was a financial incentive to keep your computer running efficiently, more (but not all) people would make that effort. I'm sure you're ignorant about some things that malware victims would consider important. Would you like it if they dismissed you as an inherently ignorant person because you didn't take the time to learn something that doesn't really impact the things you care about?

Re:Newer Advance / Stop the Botnets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32558528)

Botnets exist because of rational ignorance

That's a funny way you've got of misspelling "Windows" there.

Time for an eye exam (1)

Anarchduke (1551707) | more than 4 years ago | (#32545400)

Funny, I read " Fully Homomorphic Encryption" as Fully Homophobic Erections

Re:Time for an eye exam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32547422)

Fully Homogeneous Egyptians?

Old Dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32547340)

Old dupe is old [slashdot.org]

Preprint (2, Interesting)

ljhiller (40044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32547358)

That article says this is possible (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 4 years ago | (#32547530)

Quoting from your linked article:

Single-client private computing is realizable via FHE, as we explain below

FHE is Fully Homomorphic Encryption, exactly what Gentry has shown to exist.

(Note, I haven't read your linked article fully, nor have I read Gentry's thesis fully; I may be wrong, but a first guess would suggest that your linked article isn't in conflict with Gentry).

Experts respond to claims, stating... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32549988)

No homo, at least in our lifetime.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>