{"schema_version":"0.1","map_id":"paper-44-map","publication_id":44,"publication_anchor":"paper-44","slug":"paper-44","canonical_path":"/knowledge/papers/paper-44/","machine_path":"/knowledge/papers/paper-44.json","root_node_id":"paper-44","stage":"mapped_draft","contribution_type_vocabulary_version":"0.1","contribution_types":["protocol"],"title":"Proactive Secure Multiparty Computation with a Dishonest Majority","year":2018,"status":"Published","venue":"11th Conference on Security and Cryptography for Networks (SCN)","topic":"secure-encrypted-computation","labels":["Theory"],"authors":["Karim Eldefrawy","Rafail Ostrovsky","Sunoo Park","Moti Yung"],"keywords":["proactive MPC","dishonest majority","mobile adversary","identifiable abort","mixed corruptions"],"research_question":"Can proactive MPC retain privacy and correctness when a mobile adversary may passively observe a dishonest majority within a refresh period and eventually visit every party?","central_answer":"The exposed primary abstract states a first feasibility construction: a PMPC protocol with near-all-party passive resilience, identifiable-abort security for bounded active faults, and a mixed-corruption tradeoff. The full protocol body and proofs could not be retrieved in this audit, so exact algorithms and proof dependencies remain unmapped rather than inferred.","curation":{"drafted_at":"2026-07-11","drafted_by":[{"actor_type":"ai","name":"OpenAI Codex","role":"bounded primary-source extraction, lineage comparison, and initial assessment"}],"method":"Bounded review of the official Springer record, author-uploaded ResearchGate page and exposed abstract, plus the later machine-checked evaluator's explicit description of this protocol lineage. Direct ResearchGate and Springer PDF downloads were blocked or paywalled on 2026-07-11; the paper body and proofs were not read.","source_scope":"abstract_and_primary_lineage_only","retrieval_note":"The public author-uploaded landing page reports a full-text PDF, but its direct payload returned access-denied code 1020; the official Springer PDF endpoint returned a no-access HTML page. No legitimate alternate public PDF was located in this audit.","approval":{"status":"pending","note":"AI-authored bounded map awaiting full author audit. No body-level claim is certified until the manuscript and proofs are reviewed."}},"sources":[{"id":"source-paper-44-official","type":"official_publication_record","title":"Proactive Secure Multiparty Computation with a Dishonest Majority","url":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98113-0_11","provenance_category":"official"},{"id":"source-paper-44-author-page","type":"author_uploaded_landing_page","title":"ResearchGate author-uploaded publication page","url":"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325722786_Proactive_Secure_Multiparty_Computation_with_a_Dishonest_Majority","provenance_category":"author","access_note":"Full-text download advertised but payload unavailable to this audit."},{"id":"source-paper-44-lineage","type":"later_primary_source","title":"A High-Assurance Evaluator for Machine-Checked Secure Multiparty Computation","url":"/pubs/2019/verif-mpc_ccs2019.pdf","media_type":"application/pdf","sha256":"ab815efb0a8793e59af6f80b848746801dfb25c5dbfa092fbce68a0c8578fce3","page_count":48},{"id":"source-paper-44-citations","type":"citation_index_snapshot","title":"OpenAlex work W2887860185","url":"https://openalex.org/W2887860185","accessed_at":"2026-07-11"}],"source_anchors":[{"id":"anchor-paper-44-abstract","source_id":"source-paper-44-official","label":"Official abstract, stated thresholds, and feasibility claim","locator":"Springer chapter abstract, accessed 2026-07-11","url":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98113-0_11"},{"id":"anchor-paper-44-author-provenance","source_id":"source-paper-44-author-page","label":"Author upload, venue metadata, and public full-text indication","locator":"ResearchGate publication page; content uploaded by Karim Eldefrawy, accessed 2026-07-11","url":"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325722786_Proactive_Secure_Multiparty_Computation_with_a_Dishonest_Majority"},{"id":"anchor-paper-44-lineage","source_id":"source-paper-44-lineage","label":"Later primary-source description of dishonest-majority proactive sharing lineage","locator":"Sections 1.2-1.3, PDF pages 3-5","url":"/pubs/2019/verif-mpc_ccs2019.pdf#page=3"},{"id":"anchor-paper-44-publication","source_id":"source-paper-44-official","label":"Official SCN publication identity","locator":"SCN 2018, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-98113-0_11","url":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98113-0_11"},{"id":"anchor-paper-44-reception","source_id":"source-paper-44-citations","label":"Dated citation-count snapshot","locator":"OpenAlex reported 12 citing works on 2026-07-11","url":"https://openalex.org/W2887860185"}],"nodes":[{"id":"paper-44","kind":"paper","parent_id":null,"order":1,"epistemic_status":"published_body_not_audited","title":"Dishonest-majority proactive MPC","summary":"A published feasibility result for proactive MPC under separate passive, active, and mixed mobile-corruption bounds; this map is intentionally limited to exposed primary claims.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-abstract"]},{"id":"paper-44-question","kind":"question","parent_id":"paper-44","order":1,"epistemic_status":"research_question","title":"Research question","summary":"Can long-lived MPC withstand a mobile adversary whose accumulated corruptions eventually cover all parties and whose within-period passive view may exceed an honest majority?","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-abstract"]},{"id":"paper-44-answer","kind":"contribution","parent_id":"paper-44","order":2,"epistemic_status":"abstract_asserted","title":"Central answer","summary":"The abstract claims the first PMPC feasibility result for a dishonest-majority setting, with robustness only in the passive-only case and identifiable abort under active or mixed faults.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-abstract"]},{"id":"paper-44-model","kind":"threat_model","parent_id":"paper-44","order":3,"epistemic_status":"abstract_defined","title":"Mobile refresh-period adversary","summary":"Corrupted parties may change across refresh periods and all parties may be visited over the computation lifetime; security is conditioned on per-period passive and active thresholds.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-abstract"]},{"id":"paper-44-goals","kind":"definition","parent_id":"paper-44","order":4,"epistemic_status":"abstract_level","title":"Correctness, privacy, robustness, and identifiable abort","summary":"The exposed source distinguishes privacy/correctness security from guaranteed completion: active faults may be detected and attributed while still forcing abort.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-abstract"]},{"id":"paper-44-protocol","kind":"protocol","parent_id":"paper-44","order":5,"epistemic_status":"published_not_body_audited","title":"PMPC construction","summary":"A concrete PMPC protocol is claimed, but its share representation, refresh, recovery, gate evaluation, channels, cryptographic assumptions, and simulators cannot be responsibly reconstructed from the abstract alone.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-abstract","anchor-paper-44-author-provenance"]},{"id":"paper-44-claims","kind":"claim_group","parent_id":"paper-44","order":6,"epistemic_status":"abstract_asserted","title":"Exposed resilience claims","summary":"The abstract reports separate bounds rather than one universal corruption threshold.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-abstract"]},{"id":"paper-44-claim-passive","kind":"claim","parent_id":"paper-44-claims","order":1,"epistemic_status":"abstract_asserted_proof_unread","title":"Passive dishonest-majority case","summary":"With no active corruptions, the abstract states robust security for t < n - 2 passive corruptions per refresh period.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-abstract"]},{"id":"paper-44-claim-active","kind":"claim","parent_id":"paper-44-claims","order":2,"epistemic_status":"abstract_asserted_proof_unread","title":"Active-only case","summary":"With no additional passive corruptions, the abstract states non-robust security with identifiable abort for t < n/2 - 1 active corruptions.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-abstract"]},{"id":"paper-44-claim-mixed","kind":"claim","parent_id":"paper-44-claims","order":3,"epistemic_status":"abstract_asserted_proof_unread","title":"Mixed corruption case","summary":"For k active corruptions, the abstract states identifiable-abort security when total corruptions are fewer than n - k - 1; the full quantification and rounding conventions require body review.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-abstract"]},{"id":"paper-44-evidence","kind":"evidence_group","parent_id":"paper-44","order":7,"epistemic_status":"body_unavailable","title":"Evidence boundary","summary":"Publication and abstract establish that a construction and proofs were presented, but this audit did not inspect protocol pseudocode, formal games, lemmas, reductions, or proof completeness.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-abstract","anchor-paper-44-author-provenance"]},{"id":"paper-44-boundaries","kind":"limitation_group","parent_id":"paper-44","order":8,"epistemic_status":"audit_limitation","title":"Unresolved audit obligations","summary":"Exact network/setup assumptions, adaptive versus static corruption details, erasure model, computation class, communication cost, security assumptions, and theorem statements remain unknown from the accessible primary material.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-author-provenance"]},{"id":"paper-44-artifacts","kind":"artifact_group","parent_id":"paper-44","order":9,"epistemic_status":"inaccessible_full_text_route","title":"Publication resources","summary":"DOI and author-uploaded landing page are public, but no locally fixed full text, code, proof artifact, or independently accessible archive copy was obtained.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-author-provenance","anchor-paper-44-publication"]},{"id":"paper-44-scrutiny","kind":"scrutiny","parent_id":"paper-44","order":10,"epistemic_status":"venue_reviewed","title":"External scrutiny","summary":"SCN publication indicates venue review. Review reports, artifact evaluation, independent proof checking, and reproduction are not represented.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-publication"]},{"id":"paper-44-lineage-node","kind":"lineage","parent_id":"paper-44","order":11,"epistemic_status":"documented_by_later_primary_source","title":"Later machine-checked lineage","summary":"Paper","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-lineage"]}],"relations":[{"id":"paper-44-relation-answer-question","type":"addresses","from_id":"paper-44-answer","to_id":"paper-44-question"},{"id":"paper-44-relation-model-claims","type":"qualifies","from_id":"paper-44-model","to_id":"paper-44-claims"},{"id":"paper-44-relation-goals-claims","type":"defines","from_id":"paper-44-goals","to_id":"paper-44-claims"},{"id":"paper-44-relation-protocol-answer","type":"realizes","from_id":"paper-44-protocol","to_id":"paper-44-answer"},{"id":"paper-44-relation-evidence-claims","type":"qualifies","from_id":"paper-44-evidence","to_id":"paper-44-claims"},{"id":"paper-44-relation-boundaries-claims","type":"limits","from_id":"paper-44-boundaries","to_id":"paper-44-claims"},{"id":"paper-44-relation-lineage-paper","type":"contextualizes","from_id":"paper-44-lineage-node","to_id":"paper-44"}],"assessment":{"id":"paper-44-assessment-2026-07-11","rubric_version":"0.2","assessed_at":"2026-07-11","status":"ai_draft_author_review_pending","note":"These dimensions describe documented support and process, not truth, correctness, or a universal ranking. No composite score is calculated.","axes":[{"id":"epistemic_evidence","level":"medium","rationale":"The official abstract exposes a substantive construction and precise resilience claims, and a later primary source confirms the research lineage, but the protocol body and proofs were not available for audit.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-abstract","anchor-paper-44-lineage"]},{"id":"auditability","level":"high","rationale":"The resource record includes a public author-uploaded full-text route in addition to the official DOI, which satisfies the site's author-copy rule for High auditability. The route was blocked to this audit client, so source_scope remains bounded and no body-level claim is treated as inspected.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-author-provenance","anchor-paper-44-publication"]},{"id":"production_provenance","level":"medium","rationale":"Authors, venue, date, DOI, and author-upload provenance are documented; revision history, contributor roles, and manuscript fixity are not.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-author-provenance","anchor-paper-44-publication"]},{"id":"external_scrutiny","level":"medium","rationale":"SCN publication establishes venue scrutiny, but public reviews, proof audits, and reproduction were not located.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-publication"]},{"id":"reception","level":"high","rationale":"OpenAlex reported 12 citations on 2026-07-11; under the finalized rubric, 11 or more located citations is High.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-reception"]},{"id":"contribution_significance","level":"medium","rationale":"The abstract claims a first feasibility result across an important resilience barrier, but priority and technical scope could not be fully assessed without the paper body.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-44-abstract"]}]},"reception_snapshot":{"as_of":"2026-07-11","method":"OpenAlex DOI lookup","citation_count":12,"source_url":"https://openalex.org/W2887860185","signals":["OpenAlex reported 12 works citing the SCN chapter."],"limitation":"The count is index- and date-dependent, may include self-citations, and does not validate the unpublished-to-this-map proof details."}}