sen-material: comparison handouts/ho99-zkp.tex

equal deleted inserted replaced

-:280e057558b8
+:7a6e8f603e08
+\documentclass{article}
+\usepackage{../style}
+\begin{document}
+\fnote{\copyright{} Christian Urban, King's College London, 2014, 2015}
+\section*{Handout 6 (Zero-Knowledge Proofs)}
+Zero-knowledge proofs (short ZKP) solve a paradoxical puzzle:
+How to convince somebody else that one knows a secret, without
+revealing what the secret actually is? This sounds like a
+problem the Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland would occupy
+himself with, but actually there some serious and not so
+serious applications of it. For example, if you solve
+crosswords with your friend, say Bob, you might want to
+convince him that you found a solution for one question, but
+of course you do not want to reveal the solution, as this
+might give Bob an advantage somewhere else in the crossword.
+So how to convince Bob that you know the answer (or a secret)?
+One way would be to come up with the following protocol:
+Suppose the answer is \textit{folio}. Then look up the
+definition of \textit{folio} in a dictionary. Say you find:
+\begin{quote}
+``an \textit{individual} leaf of paper or parchment, either
+loose as one of a series or forming part of a bound volume,
+which is numbered on the recto or front side only.''
+\end{quote}
+\noindent
+Take the first non-small word\footnote{Let's say the, a, an,
+or, and \ldots fall into the category of small words.} in this definition,
+in this case \textit{individual}, and look up the definition
+of this word, say
+\begin{quote}
+``a single \textit{human} being as distinct from a group''
+\end{quote}
+\noindent
+In this definition take the second non-small word, that
+is \textit{human}, and again look up the definition of this
+word. This will yield
+\begin{quote}
+``relating to or \textit{characteristic} of humankind''
+\end{quote}
+\noindent
+You could go on looking up the definition of the third
+non-small word in this definition and so on. But let us assume
+you agreed with Bob to stop after three iterations with the
+third non-article word in the last definition, that is
+\textit{or}. Now, instead of sending to Bob the solution
+\textit{folio}, you send to him \textit{characteristic}.
+How can Bob verify that you know the solution? Well, once he
+solved it himself, he can use the dictionary and follow the
+same ``trail'' as you did. If the final word agrees with what
+you had sent him, he must infer you knew the solution earlier
+than him. This protocol works like a one-way hash function
+because \textit{characteristic} does not give any hint as to
+what was the first word was. I leave you to think why this
+protocol avoids small words?
+After Bob found his solution and verified that according to
+the protocol it ``maps'' also to \textit{characteristic}, can
+he be entirely sure no cheating is going on? Not with 100\%
+certainty. It could have been possible that he was given
+\textit{characteristic} as the word, but it derived from a
+different word. This might seem very unlikely, but at least
+theoretical it is a possibility. Protocols based on
+zero-knowledge proofs will produce a similar result---they
+give an answer that might be erroneous in a very small number
+of cases. The point is to iterate them long enough so that the
+theoretical possibility of cheating is negligibly small.
+By the way, the authors of the paper ``Dismantling Megamos
+Crypto: Wirelessly Lockpicking a Vehicle Immobilizer'' who
+were barred from publishing their results used also a hash to
+prove they did the work and (presumably) managed to get into
+cars without a key; see Figure~\ref{paper}. This is very
+similar to the method above about crosswords: They like to
+prove that they did the work, but not giving out the
+``solution''. But this also shows what the problem with such a
+method is: yes, we can hide the secret temporarily, but if
+somebody else wants to verify it, then the secret has to be
+made public. Bob needs to know that \textit{folio} is the
+solution before he can verify the claim of Alice that she had
+the solution first. Similarly with the car-crypto paper: we
+needed to wait until September 2015 when the authors were
+finally able to publish their findings in order to verify the
+hash. Zero-knowledge proofs, in contrast, can be immediately
+checked, even if the secret is not public yet and perhaps
+never will be.
+\begin{figure}
+\begin{center}
+\addtolength{\fboxsep}{4mm}
+\fbox{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{../pics/Dismantling_Megamos_Crypto.png}}
+\end{center}
+\caption{The authors of this paper used a hash in order to prove
+later that they have managed to break into cars.\label{paper}}
+\end{figure}
+\subsubsection*{ZKP: An Illustrative Example}
+The idea behind zero-knowledge proofs is not very obvious and
+will surely take some time for you to digest. Therefore let us
+start with a simple illustrative example. The example will not
+be perfect, but hopefully explain the gist of the idea. The
+example is called Alibaba's cave, which graphically looks as
+follows:\footnote{The example is taken from an
+article titled ``How to Explain Zero-Knowledge Protocols
+to Your Children'' available from
+\url{http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~mkowalcz/628.pdf}.}
+\begin{center}
+\begin{tabular}{c@{\hspace{8mm}}c@{\hspace{8mm}}c}
+\includegraphics[scale=0.1]{../pics/alibaba1.png} &
+\includegraphics[scale=0.1]{../pics/alibaba2.png} &
+\includegraphics[scale=0.1]{../pics/alibaba3.png} \\
+Step 1 & Step 2 & Step 3
+\end{tabular}
+\end{center}
+\noindent Let us take a closer look at the picture in Step 1:
+The cave has a tunnel which forks at some point. Both forks
+are connected in a loop. At the deep end of the loop is a
+magic wand. The point of the magic wand is that Alice knows
+the secret word for how to open it. She wants to keep the word
+secret, but wants to convince Bob that she knows it.
+One way of course would be to let Bob follow her, but then he
+would also find out the secret. So this does not work. To find
+a solution, let us first fix the rules: At the beginning Alice
+and Bob are outside the cave. Alice goes in alone and takes
+either tunnel labelled $A$ in the picture, or the other tunnel
+labelled $B$. She waits at the magic wand for the instructions
+from Bob, who also goes into the gave and observes what
+happens at the fork. He has no knowledge which tunnel Alice
+took and calls out (in Step 2) that she should emerge from tunnel
+$A$, for example. If she knows the secret for opening the
+wand, this will not be a problem for Alice. If she was already
+in the $A$-segment of the tunnel, then she just comes back. If
+she was in the $B$-segment of the tunnel she will say the magic
+word and goes through the wand to emerge from $A$ as requested
+by Bob.
+Let us have a look at the case where Alice cheats, that is not
+knows the secret. She would still go into the cave and use,
+for example the $B$-segment of the tunnel. If now Bob says she
+should emerge from $B$, she is lucky. But if he says she
+should emerge from $A$ then Alice is in trouble: Bob will find
+out she does not actually know the secret. So in order to fool
+Bob she needs to anticipate his call, and already go into the
+corresponding tunnel. This of course also does not work, since
+Bob can make any call he wants. Consequently in order to find
+out whether Alice cheats, Bob just needs to repeat this
+protocol many times. Each time Alice has a chance of
+$\frac{1}{2}$ to be lucky or being found out. Iterating this
+$n$ times means she must be right every time and when
+cheating: the probability for this is $\frac{1}{2}^n$, number
+that for already relatively small $n$, say 10, is incredibly
+small.
+There are some interesting observations we can make about
+Alibaba's cave and the ZKP protocol between Alice and Bob:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item {\bf Completeness} If Alice knows the secret, Bob
+accepts Alice ``proof'' for sure. There is no error
+possible in that Bob thinks Alice cheats when she
+actually knows the secret.
+\item {\bf Soundness} If Alice does not know the secret,
+Bob accepts her ``proof'' with a very small probability.
+If, as in the example above, the probability of being
+able to hide cheating is $\frac{1}{2}$ in each round
+it will be $\frac{1}{2}^n$ after $n$-rounds, which even
+for small $n$ say $> 10$ is very small indeed.
+\item {\bf Zero-Knowledge} Even if Bob accepts
+the proof by Alice, he cannot convince anybody else.
+\end{itemize}
+\noindent The last property is the most interesting one.
+Assume Alice has convinced Bob that she knows the secret and
+Bob filmed the whole protocol with a camera. Can he use the
+video to convince anybody else? After a moment of thought, you
+will agree that this is not the case. Alice and Bob might have
+just made it all up and colluded by Bob telling Alice
+beforehand which tunnel he will call. In this way it appears
+as if all iterations of the protocol were successful, but they
+prove nothing. If another person wants to find out whether
+Alice knows the secret, he or she would have to conduct the
+protocol again. This is actually the formal definition of a
+zero-knowledge proof: an independent observer cannot
+distinguish between a real protocol (where Alice knows the
+secret) and a fake one (where Bob and Alice colluded).
+\subsubsection*{Using an Graph-Isomorphism Problem for ZKPs}
+Now the question is how can we translate Alibaba's cave into a
+computer science solution? It turns out we need an NP problem
+for that. The main feature of an NP problem is that it is
+computational very hard to generate a solution, but it is very
+easy to check whether a given solution indeed solves the
+problem at hand.\footnote{The question whether $P = NP$ or not,
+we leave to others to speculate about.}
+One NP problem is the \emph{graph isomorphism problem}. It
+essentially determines whether the following two graphs, say
+$G_1$ and $G_2$, can be moved and stretched so that they look
+exactly the same.
+\begin{center}
+\begin{tabular}{c@{\hspace{8mm}}c@{\hspace{8mm}}c}
+$G_1$ & $G_2$\\
+\raisebox{-13mm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{../pics/simple.png}} &
+\raisebox{-13mm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{../pics/simple-b.png}}&
+\footnotesize
+\begin{tabular}{rl}
+Graph $G_1$	& Graph $G_2$\\
+a  & 1\\
+b  & 6\\
+c  & 8\\
+d  & 3\\
+g  & 5\\
+h  & 2\\
+i  & 4\\
+j  & 7\\
+\end{tabular}
+\end{tabular}
+\end{center}
+\noindent The table on the right gives a mapping of the nodes
+of the first graph to the nodes of the second. With this
+mapping we can check: node $a$ is connected in $G_1$ with $g$,
+$h$ and $i$. Node $a$ maps to node $1$ in $G_2$, which is
+connected to $2$, $4$ and $5$, which again correspond via the
+mapping to $h$, $i$ and $g$ respectively. Let us write
+$\sigma$ for such a table and let us write
+\[G_1 = \sigma(G_2)\]
+\noindent for two isomorphic graphs ($\sigma$ being the
+isomorphism). It is actually very easy to construct two
+isomorphic graphs: Start with an arbitrary graph, re-label the
+nodes consistently. Alice will need to do this frequently
+for the protocol below. In order to be useful, we therefore
+would need to consider substantially larger graphs, like
+with thousand nodes.
+Now the secret which Alice tries to hide is the knowledge of
+such an isomorphism $\sigma$ between two such graphs. But she
+can convince Bob whether she knows such an isomorphism for two
+graphs, say $G_1$ and $G_2$, using the same idea as in the
+example with Alibaba's cave. For this Alice and Bob must
+follow the following protocol:
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item Alice generates an isomorphic graph $H$ which she sends
+to Bob (in each iteration she needs to generate a
+different $H$).
+\item
+After receiving $H$, Bob asks Alice either for an
+isomorphism between $G_1$ and $H$, or $G_2$ and $H$.
+\item Alice and Bob repeat this procedure $n$ times.
+\end{enumerate}
+\noindent In Step 1 it is important that Alice always
+generates a fresh isomorphic graph. I let you think what
+would happen if Alice sends out twice the same graph $H$.
+As said before, this is relatively easy to generate by
+consistently relabelling nodes. If she started from $G_1$,
+Alice will have generated
+\begin{equation}
+H = \sigma'(G_1)\label{hiso}
+\end{equation}
+\noindent where $\sigma'$ is the isomorphism between $H$ and
+$G_1$. But she could equally have started from $G_2$. In the
+case where $G_1$ and $G_2$ are isomorphic, if $H$ is
+isomorphic with $G_1$, it will also be isomorphic with
+$G_2$, and vice versa.
+After generating $H$, Alice sends it to Bob. The important
+point is that she needs to ``commit'' to this $H$, therefore
+this kind of zero-knowledge protocols are called
+\emph{commitment protocols}. Only after receiving $H$, Bob
+will make up his mind about which isomorphism he asks
+for---whether between $H$ and $G_1$ or $H$ and $G_2$. For this
+he could flip a coin, since the choice should be as
+unpredictable for Alice as possible. Once Alice receives the
+request, she has to produce an isomorphism. If she generated
+$H$ as shown in \eqref{hiso} and is asked for an isomorphism
+between $H$ and $G_1$, she just sends $\sigma'$. If she had
+been asked for an isomorphism between $H$ and $G_2$, she just
+has to compose her secret isomorphism $\sigma$ and $\sigma'$.
+The main point for the protocol is that even knowing the
+isomorphism between $H$ and $G_1$ or $H$ and $G_2$, will not
+make the task easier to find the isomorphism between $G_1$ and
+$G_2$, which is the secret Alice tries to protect.
+In order to make it crystal clear how this protocol proceeds,
+let us give a version using our more formal notation for
+protocols:
+\begin{center}
+\begin{tabular}{lrl}
+0)  & $A \to B:$ & $G_1$ and $G_2$\\
+1a) & $A \to B:$ & $H_1$ \\
+1b) & $B \to A:$ & produce isomorphism $G_1 \leftrightarrow H_1$?
+\quad(or $G_2 \leftrightarrow H_1$)\\
+1c) & $A \to B:$ & requested isomorphism\\
+2a) & $A \to B:$ & $H_2$\\
+2b) & $B \to A:$ & produce isomorphism $G_1 \leftrightarrow H_2$?
+\quad(or $G_2 \leftrightarrow H_2$)\\
+2c) & $A \to B:$ & requested isomorphism\\
+& \ldots\\
+\end{tabular}
+\end{center}
+\noindent As can be seen the protocol runs for some
+agreed number of iterations. The $H_i$ Alice needs to
+produce, need to be all distinct. I hope you now know
+why?
+It is also crucial that in each iteration, Alice first sends
+$H_i$ and then Bob can decide which isomorphism he wants:
+either $G_1 \leftrightarrow H_i$ or $G_2 \leftrightarrow H_i$.
+If somehow Alice can find out before she committed to $H_i$,
+she can cheat. For this assume Alice does \emph{not} know an
+isomorphism between $G_1$ and $G_2$. If she knows which
+isomorphism Bob will ask for she can craft $H$ in such a way
+that it is isomorphism with either $G_1$ or $G_2$ (but it
+cannot with both). Then in each case she would send Bob
+a correct answer and he would come to the conclusion that
+all is well. I let you also answer the question whether
+such a protocol run between Alice and Bob would convince
+a third person, say Pete.
+Since the interactive nature of the above PKZ protocol and the
+correct ordering of the messages is so important for the
+``correctness'' of the protocol, it might look surprising that
+the same goal can also me achieved in a completely offline
+manner. By this I mean Alice can publish all data at once, and
+then at a later time, Bob can inspect the data and come to the
+conclusion whether or not Alice knows the secret (again
+without actually learning about the secret). For this
+Alice has to do the following:
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item Alice generates $n$ isomorphic graphs
+$H_{1..n}$ (they need to be all distinct)
+\item she feeds the $H_{1..n}$ into a hashing function
+(for example encoded as as matrix)
+\item she takes the first $n$ bits of the output of the hashing
+function:
+whenever the output is $0$, she shows an isomorphism
+with $G_1$; for $1$ she shows an isomorphism
+with $G_2$
+\end{enumerate}
+\noindent The reason why this works and achieves the same
+goal as the interactive variant is that Alice has no
+control over the hashing function. It would be
+computationally just too hard to assemble a set of
+$H_{1..n}$ such that she can force where $0$s and $1$s
+in the hash values are such that it would pass an external
+test. The point is that Alice can publish all this data
+on the comfort of her own web-page, for example, and
+in this way convince everybody who bothers to check.
+The virtue of the use of graphs and isomorphism for a
+zero-knowledge protocol is that the idea why it works
+are relatively straightforward. The disadvantage is
+that encoding any secret into a graph-isomorphism, while
+possible, is awkward. The good news is that in fact
+any NP problem can be used as part of a ZKP protocol.
+\subsubsection*{Using Modular Logarithms for ZKP Protocols}
+While information can be encoded into graph isomorphisms, it
+is not the most convenient carrier of information. Clearly it
+is much easier to encode information into numbers. Let us look
+at zero-knowledge proofs that use numbers as secrets. For this
+the underlying NP-problem is to calculate discrete logarithms.
+It can be used by choosing public numbers $A$, $B$, $p$, and
+private $x$ such that
+\begin{center}
+$A^x \equiv B\; mod\; p$
+\end{center}
+\noindent holds. The secret Alice tries to keep secret is $x$.
+The point of the modular logarithm is that it is very hard
+from the public data to calculate $x$ (for large primes).
+Now the protocol proceeds in three stages:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item {\bf Commitment Stage}
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item Alice generates $z$ random numbers $r_1, \ldots, r_z$,
+all less than $p - 1$. Alice then sends Bob for all
+$i = 1,\ldots, z$:
+\[ h_i = A^{r_i}\; mod\; p\]
+\item Bob generates $z$ random bits, say $b_1,\ldots, b_z$. He can do this
+by flipping $z$ times a coin, for example.
+\item For each bit $b_i$, Alice sends Bob an $s_i$ where
+\begin{center}
+\begin{tabular}{ll}
+if $b_i = 0$: & $s_i = r_i$\\
+if $b_i = 1$: & $s_i = (r_i - r_j) \;mod\; (p -1)$\\
+\end{tabular}
+\end{center}
+where $r_j$ is the lowest $j$ where $b_j = 1$.
+\end{enumerate}
+\end{itemize}
+\noindent For understanding the last step, let $z$ be just 4.
+We have four random values $r_i$ chosen by Alice and four
+random bits $b_i$ chosen subsequently by Bob, for example
+\begin{center}
+\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
+$r_i$:\; & 4 & 9 & 1 & 3\\
+$b_i$:\; & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
+& & $\uparrow$ \\
+& & $j$
+\end{tabular}
+\end{center}
+\noindent The highlighted column is the lowest where $b_i =
+1$ (counted from the left). That means $r_j = 9$. The reason
+for letting Alice choose the random numbers $r_1, \ldots, r_z$
+will become clear shortly. Next is the confirmation
+phase where Bob essentially checks whether Alice has sent
+him ``correct'' $s_i$ and $h_i$.
+\begin{itemize}
+\item {\bf Confirmation Stage}
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item For each $b_i$ Bob checks whether $s_i$
+conform to the protocol
+\begin{center}
+\begin{tabular}{ll}
+if $b_i = 0$: & $A^{s_i} \stackrel{?}{\equiv} h_i\;mod\;p$\\
+if $b_i = 1$: & $A^{s_i} \stackrel{?}{\equiv} h_i * h_j^{-1}  \;mod\; p$\\
+\end{tabular}
+\end{center}
+\end{enumerate}
+\end{itemize}
+\noindent To understand the case for $b_i = 1$, you have
+to do the following calculation:
+\begin{center}
+\begin{tabular}{r@{\hspace{1mm}}c@{\hspace{1mm}}l}
+$A^{s_i}$ & $=$ & $A^{r_i - r_j}$\\
+& $=$ & $A^{r_i} * A^{-r_j}$\\
+& $=$ & $h_{r_i} * h_{r_j}^{-1}\;mod\;p$
+\end{tabular}
+\end{center}
+\noindent What is interesting that so far nothing has been
+sent about $x$, which is the secret Alice has. Also notice
+that Bob does not know $r_j$. He received
+\begin{center}
+$r_j - r_j$,  $r_m - r_j$, \ldots, $r_p - r_j \;mod \;p - 1$
+\end{center}
+\noindent whenever his corresponding bits were $1$. So Bob
+does not know $r_j$ and also does not know any $r_i$ where the
+bit was $1$. Information about the $x$ is sent in the next
+stage (obviously not revealing $x$).
+\begin{itemize}
+\item {\bf Proving Stage}
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item Alice proves she knows $x$, the discrete log of $B$,
+by sending
+\begin{center}
+$s_{z+1} = x - r_j\;mod\;p-1$
+\end{center}
+\item Bob confirms
+\begin{center}
+$A^{s_{z+1}} \stackrel{?}{\equiv} B * h_j^{-1} \;mod \; p$
+\end{center}
+\end{enumerate}
+\end{itemize}
+\noindent To understand the last step, you have to do the trick
+again that
+\[A^{s_{z+1}} = A^{x-r_j} = \ldots
+\]
+\noindent
+which I leave to you.
+Now the question is how can Alice cheat? In order to cheat she
+has to coordinate what she sends as $h_i$ in step 1 and $s_i$
+in step 3 of the commitment stage, and also what to send as
+$s_{z+1}$ in the proving stage. For the latter of course
+Alice does not know $x$, so she just chooses some random
+number for $s_{z+1}$ and calculates
+\[A^{s_{z+1}}\]
+\noindent
+and then solves the equation
+\[A^{s_{z+1}} \equiv B * y \;mod\;p\]
+\noindent for $y$. This is easy since no logarithm needs to be
+computed. If Alice can guess the $j$ where the first 1 will
+appear in Bob's bit vector, then she sends the inverse of $y$
+as $h_j$ and 0 as $s_j$. However, notice that when she
+calculates a solution for $y$ she does not know $r_j$. For this she
+would need to calculate the modular logarithm
+\[y \equiv A^{r_j}\;mod\;p\]
+\noindent which is hard (see step 1 in the commitment stage).
+Having settled on what $h_j$ should be, now what should Alice
+send as the other $h_i$ and other $s_i$? If the $b_i$ happens
+to be a 1, then the $h_i$ and other $s_i$ need to satisfy the
+test
+\[A^{s_i} \stackrel{?}{\equiv} h_i * h_j^{-1}  \;mod\; p\]
+\noindent where she has already settled on the value of
+$h_j^{-1}$. Lets say she choses $s_i$ at random, then she just
+needs to solve
+\[A^{s_i} \equiv z * h_j^{-1}  \;mod\; p\]
+\noindent for $z$. Again that is easy, but it does not allow
+us to know $r_i$, because then we would again need to solve
+a modular logarithm problem. Let us call an $h_i$ which was
+solved the easy way as \emph{bogus}. Alice has to produce
+bogus $h_i$ for all bits that are going to be $1$ in advance!
+This means she has to guess all the bits correctly. (Yes?
+I let you think about this.)
+Let us see what happens if she guesses wrongly: Suppose the
+bit $b_i = 1$ where she thought she will get a 0. Then she has
+already sent an $h_i$ and $h_j$ and now must find an $s_i$
+such that
+\[A^{s_i} \equiv h_i * h_j^{-1}  \;mod\; p\]
+\noindent holds. For this remember in calculating $h_i$, she
+just chose a random $s_i$. Now she has to send a genuine one.
+But this is of course too hard. If she knew the genuine $r_i$
+and $r_j$ for $h_i$ and $h_j$, it would be easy (in this case
+$s_i = r_i - r_j$). But she does not. So she will be found
+out. If $b_i = 0$, but she thought she will get a 1, then
+she has to send a $s_i$ which satisfies
+\[A^{s_i} \equiv h_i\;mod\;p\]
+\noindent Again she does not know $r_i$. So it is a too hard
+task and she will be found out again.
+To sum up, in order for Alice to successfully cheat Bob, she
+needs to guess \emph{all} bits correctly. She has only a
+$\frac{1}{2^z}$ chance of doing this.
+\subsubsection*{Further Reading}
+Make sure you understand what NP problems
+are.\footnote{\url{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP_(complexity)}}
+They are the building blocks for zero-knowledge proofs.
+Zero-Knowldege proofs are not yet widely used in production
+systems, but it is slowly gaining ground. One area of application
+where they pop up is crypto currencies (for example Zerocoins
+or how to make sure a Bitcoin exchange is solvent without
+revealing its assets).
+If you want to brush up on the modular logarithm problem,
+the Khan Academy has a nice video:
+\begin{center}
+\url{https://www.khanacademy.org/video/discrete-logarithm-problem}
+\end{center}
+\end{document}
+http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2014/11/zero-knowledge-proofs-illustrated-primer.html
+http://btravers.weebly.com/uploads/6/7/2/9/6729909/zero_knowledge_technique.pdf
+http://zk-ssh.cms.ac/docs/Zero_Knowledge_Prinzipien.pdf
+http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~oded/PS/zk-tut02v4.ps
+socialist millionares problem
+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_millionaire
+http://twistedoakstudios.com/blog/Post3724_explain-it-like-im-five-the-socialist-millionaire-problem-and-secure-multi-party-computation
+%%% Local Variables:
+%%% mode: latex
+%%% TeX-master: t
+%%% End:

changeset 523	7a6e8f603e08
parent 495	f5172bb6cf45