Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Synthesizing Probabilistic Saturating Counters with Differentially Private Formal Guarantees

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that adding one defense parameter to a branch predictor's saturating counter yields pure $\varepsilon$-differential privacy, with $\varepsilon=|\ln(p/(1-p))|$, and that $p^*=1/(1+e^{\varepsilon})$ is the accuracy-optimal…

desk verdict First DP analysis of PSC under Prime+Probe with a plausible synthesis rule, but the main proofs and the utility chain don't hold as printed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10521 v1 pith:EACY4X44 submitted 2026-08-11 cs.CR cs.ARcs.FL

Zhiming Chi , Lutan Zhao , Depeng Liu , Yong Li , Pengfei Yang , Bow-Yaw Wang , Rui Hou , Cheng-Chao Huang
show 3 more authors
Andrea Turrini Lijun Zhang Naijun Zhan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.ARcs.FL
keywords differentialprivacybranchpredictorsidechannelsaturatingcounterPrime+ProbeattackprobabilisticMooremachineparametersynthesismispredictionraterandomizedresponse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that a small hardware change to the branch predictor's saturating counter can come with a formally certified privacy bound. It models probabilistic saturating counters and the Prime+Probe attack as probabilistic Moore machines, proves that the earlier probabilistic counter admits a probe count that leaks the victim's branch direction with certainty, and proves that an enhanced counter with a defense parameter $p$ satisfies pure $(\varepsilon,0)$-differential privacy with $\varepsilon=|\ln(p/(1-p))|$, independent of the update probability $m$. It then proves that among all $p$ achieving a target $\varepsilon$, the choice $p^*=1/(1+e^{\varepsilon})$ minimizes the stationary misprediction rate. If this is right, a hardware designer can set $p$ from a desired privacy budget, tune $m$ separately for convergence speed, and inherit a worst-case bound of $e^{\varepsilon}/(1+e^{\varepsilon})$ on the attacker's inference success for the single-branch Prime+Probe observation model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a probabilistic Moore machine for the counter under attack, augmented with a defense parameter $p$ applied only at the two strong states: from the strong taken state a taken input moves to weak taken with probability $mp$, and the symmetric randomization is applied at strong not-taken. The key identity is $\varepsilon=|\ln(p/(1-p))|$, derived from recurrence relations for the probability that the probe process reaches the strong not-taken absorbing state in exactly $c$ steps under the two possible victim directions. The update probability $m$ appears as a common factor in both likelihoods and cancels, which makes the privacy guarantee independent of $m$. The stationary misprediction rate $r(p,t)$ comes from the stationary distribution of the same machine, and its monotonic increase in $p$ is what makes $p^*=1/(1+e^{\varepsilon})$ the accuracy-optimal choice.

What would settle it

Run an enhanced counter with $p=0.1$, any $m$, and realistic imperfect priming while recording the first-correct-prediction probe count; if any observed count $c$ has empirical ratio $\Pr(c\mid v=T)/\Pr(c\mid v=NT)$ larger than $(1-p)/p=9$, then the pure $\varepsilon=|\ln(p/(1-p))|$ bound does not govern the actual Prime+Probe observation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an enhanced 2-bit probabilistic saturating counter, which randomizes transitions only from the strong taken and strong not-taken states, satisfies pure $\varepsilon$-differential privacy with $\varepsilon=|\ln(p/(1-p))|$, where $p$ is the defense parameter and $p=1/2$ gives perfect privacy. The guarantee does not depend on the update probability $m$ because $m$ scales all non-self-loop transitions equally and cancels in the likelihood ratio that defines the differential privacy condition. The paper further claims that for any target $\varepsilon$, the parameter value $p^*=1/(1+e^{\varepsilon})$ achieves that privacy level with the lowest stationary misprediction rate, and that the same $\varepsilon$-$p$ relation extends to $k$-bit counters. It also claims that the previous probabilistic saturating counter cannot satisfy $(\varepsilon,0)$-differential privacy, because a probe count of one has probability zero when the victim's branch is taken but positive probability when it is not taken.

Load-bearing premise

The privacy bound assumes the attacker's priming phase lands the counter in the strong taken state with probability one and that the observed value is the number of probes needed to reach the strong not-taken state, whereas the paper's own attack algorithm returns the first correct prediction, which can occur one state earlier; if real priming is imperfect or the attacker sees the algorithm's true output, the stated $\varepsilon$ is not proven to apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a target privacy budget $\varepsilon$, setting $p^*=1/(1+e^{\varepsilon})$ with any $m\in(0,1]$ enforces pure $(\varepsilon,0)$-differential privacy while keeping the stationary misprediction rate as low as any $p$ that meets the budget.
  • The attacker's success probability on a single probe observation is capped at $e^{\varepsilon}/(1+e^{\varepsilon})$, so $\varepsilon=\ln 9$ bounds it at $0.9$ and $\varepsilon=0$ reduces the attacker to random guessing.
  • The update probability $m$ can be chosen purely for convergence speed; it does not change either the privacy level or the steady-state misprediction rate.
  • The privacy-optimal design scales to arbitrary $k$-bit counters with the same $\varepsilon$-$p$ relationship, so the synthesis recipe is not limited to 2-bit predictors.
  • The earlier probabilistic counter is shown to leak with certainty through the one-probe count, establishing the need for the added defense transitions rather than merely tuning $m$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If differential privacy composes over repeated uses of the same counter, the paper's local bound could be summed over attack rounds to give an end-to-end guarantee for a full execution trace, an extension the authors leave to future work.
  • Because the guarantee is independent of $m$, it is plausibly robust to small timing jitter in the probe phase; the paper does not model physical probe noise, so this robustness is an extrapolation.
  • A natural testable extension is to replace the perfect-priming assumption with a distribution over initial counter states and recompute $\varepsilon$; hardware measurements on real predictors could then confirm whether the bound degrades gracefully as priming becomes imperfect.
  • The design principle of randomizing only at the extreme states of a finite-state machine may transfer to other hardware state machines whose leakage concentrates in hysteresis between strong and weak states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes probabilistic saturating counters (PSCs) for branch predictors under Prime+Probe side-channel attacks, using differential privacy as the security metric. It models PSCs and the attack as probabilistic Moore machines, argues that the existing PSC design leaks information (the c=1 observation), and introduces an enhanced PSC with a defense parameter p. The central theoretical results are Theorem 1, which claims the enhanced PSC satisfies pure (ε,0)-DP with ε=|ln(p/(1-p))| independent of the update probability m, and Proposition 1, which selects the optimal p*=1/(1+e^ε) minimizing the stationary misprediction rate for a target ε. The paper also derives a closed-form stationary misprediction rate, compares the design with randomized response, and reports simulation experiments on MergeSort and SPEC CPU 2017 using Gem5.

Significance. If the formal results can be made fully correct, the paper makes a useful contribution: it gives a closed-form privacy-utility trade-off for a hardware counter primitive, shows the DP budget depends only on the defense parameter and not on the update speed, and provides analytic rather than curve-fitted predictions for the misprediction rate. The authors are appropriately careful about the scope, stating that the guarantee applies to the PSC primitive under the Prime+Probe observation model and not to a full predictor under repeated adaptive attacks. The derivations are analytic and the paper ships no fitted constants for the privacy bound, which is a strength. However, the printed proof of the main DP theorem contains substantive technical gaps, so the formal claim is not yet established as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C, Theorem 5 and Theorem 1 proofs] The first-hitting-time probabilities used in the proofs are computed as binomial probabilities of a fixed number of successes without requiring the final probe to be a success. In the proof of Theorem 5, Pr[out_T=c] is set to binom(c,2^{k-1}) m^{2^{k-1}} (1-m)^{c-2^{k-1}} and Pr[out_NT=c, s_1=WT1] is set to binom(c,g) m^g (1-m)^{c-g}; these count g or 2^{k-1} successes in c trials, not the probability that the first hitting of SN occurs at probe c. The correct terms are binom(c-1,2^{k-1}-1) m^{2^{k-1}} (1-m)^{c-2^{k-1}} and binom(c-1,g-1) m^g (1-m)^{c-g} (with appropriate lower limits). Because the recurrence relating p_c and q_c in the proof of Theorem 1 is built from these a_c terms, the printed derivation of epsilon=|ln(p/(1-p))| is invalid as written.
  2. [Appendix C, proof of Theorem 1] Even after correcting the binomial terms, the proof does not establish the claimed DP inequality. After writing the recurrences for p_c and q_c, the text simply states that 'from the definition 7, if p>=1/2, we can see that D satisfies (ln(p/(1-p)),0)-differential privacy.' The core of the theorem is the per-output ratio bound q_c/p_c <= p/(1-p) (or the reverse for p<1/2) for every c, and this inequality is never derived from the recurrences. The proof needs an explicit induction, generating-function argument, or coupling that delivers the ratio bound.
  3. [Definition 4 vs Definition 7 and Algorithm 1] The output variable analyzed in the proofs does not match the output variable in the DP definition. Definition 4 defines DP with respect to the random output of Algorithm 1, whose counter c starts at 0 and which has a boundary output when no cutoff is found within n probes; Definition 7 defines out as the unbounded hitting time to SN on a path that begins with the victim's direction as the first input. These random variables differ by an indexing shift (for the 2-bit deterministic counter, Algorithm 1 returns 0 or 1 while Definition 7's out takes values 2 or 3), and the probability mass of the boundary output 'no cutoff found within n probes' is never analyzed. No argument is given that an (ε,0)-DP bound for the unbounded hitting time transfers to the finite, shifted output of Algorithm 1; since the theorem statement does not mention n, this transfer is load-bearing for the formal guarantee.
  4. [Figure 5] Figure 5(a) appears to label the transition ST' -> ST with probability 1 in the taken case, omitting the defense randomization that is central to the enhanced PSC: from ST on input T, the counter moves to WT with probability mp and stays in ST with probability 1-mp (Definition 8 and Fig. 4). The attack model diagrams should be corrected to match the formal definitions, since Section 3.2 presents them as the basis for the matrices M_T and M_NT.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1 / Definition 4] The assumption that priming leaves the counter exactly in ST is stated informally as 'in practice negligible'; the theorem statements should list perfect priming as a formal hypothesis, and the paper should discuss the effect of imperfect priming on the ε bound.
  2. [Appendix C, Theorem 1 proof] The proof contains typographical errors: 's_0=SN and s_{c+1}=ST' should read 's_0=ST and s_{c+1}=SN', and the case labels 's_1=SN' and 's_1=WN1' should read 's_1=ST' and 's_1=WT1'.
  3. [Algorithm 1 / Definition 4] The pseudocode returns c=n+1 when no cutoff is found within n probes; this boundary value should be stated explicitly in Definition 4 so that the output space is unambiguous.
  4. [Section 3.3 / Theorem 5] The optimal attack threshold is written as c > 1/m in Eq. (1) before the general k-bit result c > (2^{k-1}-1)/m in Theorem 5; please clarify that Eq. (1) is the 2-bit special case.
  5. [Section 5.2 / Table 2] The validation of the stationary misprediction rate is in-sample: the branch probability t is measured from the same MergeSort runs used to compute P_exp. A cross-validation or synthetic trace with known t would strengthen the claim that P_th is predictive.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the DP bound is analytic in p; only Table 2's in-sample t validation is mildly circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2, Table 2 (validation of theoretical misprediction rates)]
    "we compare P_th with the observed P_exp across four sensitive branches; Table 2 shows close agreement, validating both the stationary analysis and the assumption that this workload reaches stationarity."

    P_th is computed from the stationary misprediction formula of Sect. 4.2, whose only program-specific input is t, 'the probability of executing T' for the branch. In Table 2, t is measured from the same MergeSort workloads from which P_exp is obtained, so the 'theoretical prediction' is a deterministic re-description of that same empirical input rather than an out-of-sample prediction. The agreement therefore does not independently confirm the stationary model. This is a utility validation, however, and does not enter the derivation of the DP bound in Thm. 1.

full rationale

The central security claim is not circular. Theorem 1 is derived from the enhanced PSC's Moore-machine transition probabilities, parameterized by p and m, by analyzing the ratio of the output distributions Pr[out_T=c] and Pr[out_NT=c]; it contains no fitted constants and does not invoke a uniqueness theorem from prior work. Proposition 1 is a monotonicity-based optimization over the two p-values that yield a target epsilon, not a fit to data. The paper's self-citations are not load-bearing: the overlapping-author reference [41] is used only as the baseline PSC design and as the m=0.5 experimental default, while the vulnerability analysis and the enhanced mechanism are derived in the present paper. The only mild circular flavor is in Section 5.2, where the theoretical misprediction rates in Table 2 use branch taken probabilities t measured from the same workloads whose experimental rates they are compared against; this makes that particular validation in-sample, but it does not affect the security theorem. I also note two scope/correctness caveats that are outside circularity: the paper explicitly scopes the DP guarantee to the PSC primitive under the Prime+Probe observation model, and the proof of Theorem 1 ends with a short 'we can see' step using an unbounded hitting-time variable, so the finite-n boundary output of Algorithm 1 is not explicitly shown to inherit the bound. These are correctness risks, not instances of fitting or definitional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central security claim depends mainly on the idealized attack model and the definitional identification of the observable. The utility part depends on an empirical branch probability t and on a transition matrix that does not match the stated counter design. No new physical entities are introduced; the enhanced PSC is a new randomized transition scheme rather than a new postulated effect.

free parameters (3)
  • defense parameter p = p* = 1/(1+e^ε)
    The central design knob controlling the DP level. It is chosen analytically from a target ε, not fitted to data, but it is a free parameter of the design that the formal guarantee depends on.
  • update probability m = 0.5 default
    Controls convergence speed only according to the paper. It does not affect the claimed DP guarantee or stationary rate, and the paper adopts m=0.5 from prior work.
  • branch taken probability t = Measured per branch, e.g. 0.939, 0.495 in Table 2
    Empirical input used to compute theoretical misprediction rates for validation. It is measured from the same benchmarks used for the comparison, so the validation is in-sample rather than a true out-of-sample prediction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Prime+Probe attack model: attacker primes the counter to ST with probability 1, the victim executes exactly one branch, then the attacker probes with NT only.
    Section 2.2 and Section 3.1. The paper states perfect priming is 'in practice negligible'; the DP guarantee is conditional on this idealized observation model and does not cover multi-branch or adaptive attacks.
  • ad hoc to paper The formal output variable out is the hitting time to the strong not-taken state SN, while Algorithm 1 returns the first correct prediction.
    Definition 4 says out is the Algorithm 1 output, but Definition 7 defines out as the first time the state is SN. For input NT the first correct prediction can occur at WN, so these two random variables are not the same.
  • domain assumption Branch directions are modeled as i.i.d. Bernoulli with taken probability t for the stationary misprediction analysis.
    Section 4.2 and Appendix A. Real branch traces are history-dependent, and the paper acknowledges t is not a full generative model. The stationary rate is an asymptotic long-run reference.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2-bit saturating counter transition graph used in the stationary calculation matches the counter in Fig 4.
    Appendix A uses a transition matrix in which WN under T goes to ST, but the standard 2-bit counter and Fig 4 have WN under T going to WT. The closed-form stationary distribution is derived for a different Markov chain.
  • standard math Markov chain irreducibility, aperiodicity, and existence of a unique stationary distribution.
    Invoked in Section 4.2 and Theorem 3 to justify solving µM=µ. These are standard conditions, though the check that the actual counter is irreducible and aperiodic for all m,p,t is not given in detail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synthesizing Probabilistic Saturating Counters with Differentially Private Formal Guarantees." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EACY4X44

@misc{pith2026260810521,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synthesizing Probabilistic Saturating Counters with Differentially Private Formal Guarantees},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EACY4X44}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10521}
}
read the original abstract

Branch predictors improve instruction-level parallelism in modern processors and are commonly modeled using saturating counters. However, classical saturating counters are deterministic and thus vulnerable to side-channel attacks: an attacker can manipulate the counter state and infer the branch direction of a victim process. Probabilistic saturating counters (PSCs) have been proposed to mitigate this leakage by randomizing counter updates, but existing evaluations are mainly empirical. In this paper, we give a formal analysis based on differential privacy (DP): we model PSCs and the corresponding Prime+Probe attack strategies as probabilistic Moore machines, derive optimal attack strategies, and quantify the attacker's distinguishing power through DP. Our DP guarantee applies to the PSC primitive under the Prime+Probe observation model; end-to-end security for a full branch predictor under repeated or adaptive attacks is an important direction for future work. We then synthesize parameters for an enhanced PSC that satisfies a target pure DP guarantee. To evaluate utility, we derive the stationary misprediction rate and validate the theoretical predictions on benchmark programs. Compared to deterministic and existing probabilistic saturating counters, the synthesized PSCs provide formal security guarantees while preserving competitive prediction performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10521 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A k-bit saturating counter, with a total of 2n = 2k states. Red-striped states output T, while blue-dotted states output NT. based on the actual execution direction. An SC can be formally modeled as a Moore machine. Definition 1. A Moore machine is as a tuple M = (S, s, T, O ¯ ), where S is a finite set of states, s¯ ∈ S is the initial state, T : S × Σ → S is the transition function that maps the current state and t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A 2-bit PSC, shown with initial state ST after the attacker’s priming phase state and input. To defend against such attacks, Zhao et al. [41] proposed to use probabilistic saturating counters. This approach introduces a probabilistic threshold into the counter mechanism: upon a state transition, a random number is generated and compared to the threshold; if the number is below the threshold, the transition proceeds.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The probabilistic Moore machines for the attack algorithm does not take the branch, already indicating a structural asymmetry in the two output distributions. Our goal is to compare Pr[out = c | v = T] and Pr[out = c | v = NT] for each c to derive the optimal strategy. To achieve our goal, we model Alg. 1 for both taken and not-taken scenarios of the victim’s branch execution; the corresponding probabilistic models … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The probabilistic Moore machine for the enhanced PSC v = NT, since reaching SN in one step is impossible when the victim takes the branch. This constitutes a fundamental vulnerability that cannot be mitigated by adjusting the existing parameter m alone. In this section…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The enhanced probabilistic Moore machines for the attack algorithm performance in [41]. Using SageMath [65] for symbolic algebra computation, we obtain p ∈ [0.4899, 0.5017] fulfilling the differential privacy constraints. We also establish a formal relationship between…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The stationary misprediction rate as a function of the defense parameter p and branch taken probability t Worst-case sequences can force deterministic SCs to mispredict every step, but such traces are rare in practice; we therefore use a statistical estimate. For a giv…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The probabilistic Moore machine for the enhanced k-bit PSC; n = 2k−1 The proof (Appendix C) relies on the decomposition M = mB + (1 − m)I, where B is independent of m; solving µM = µ then reduces to µ(B − I) = 0, which is independent of m. In summary, extending the PSC…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The normalised performance overhead for PSCs under different settings of parameters (m, p), where the baseline is the deterministic saturating counter 5.1 Performance evaluation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: Weippl, E.R., Katzenbeisser, S., Kruegel, C., Myers, A.C., Halevi, S

    Abadi, M., Chu, A., Goodfellow, I.J., McMahan, H.B., Mironov, I., Talwar, K., Zhang, L.: Deep learning with differential privacy. In: Weippl, E.R., Katzenbeisser, S., Kruegel, C., Myers, A.C., Halevi, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2016 ACM 18 SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Vienna, Aus- tria, October 24-28, 2016. pp. 308–318. ACM (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    In: Weippl, E.R., Katzenbeisser, S., Kruegel, C., Myers, A.C., Halevi, S

    Barthe, G., Fong, N., Gaboardi, M., Gr´ egoire, B., Hsu, J., Strub, P.: Advanced probabilistic couplings for differential privacy. In: Weippl, E.R., Katzenbeisser, S., Kruegel, C., Myers, A.C., Halevi, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Vienna, Austria, October 24-28, 2016. pp. 55–67. ACM (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    In: Rajamani, S.K., Walker, D

    Barthe, G., Gaboardi, M., Arias, E.J.G., Hsu, J., Roth, A., Strub, P.: Higher-order approximate relational refinement types for mechanism design and differential pri- vacy. In: Rajamani, S.K., Walker, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 42nd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2015, Mumbai, India, January 15-17, 2015....

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    ACM Trans

    Barthe, G., K¨ opf, B., Olmedo, F., B´ eguelin, S.Z.: Probabilistic relational reasoning for differential privacy. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.35(3), 9:1–9:49 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    ACM SIGARCH computer architecture news39(2), 1–7 (2011)

    Binkert, N., Beckmann, B., Black, G., Reinhardt, S.K., Saidi, A., Basu, A., Hest- ness, J., Hower, D.R., Krishna, T., Sardashti, S., et al.: The gem5 simulator. ACM SIGARCH computer architecture news39(2), 1–7 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    In: Enck, W., Mulliner, C

    Brasser, F., M¨ uller, U., Dmitrienko, A., Kostiainen, K., Capkun, S., Sadeghi, A.: Software grand exposure: SGX cache attacks are practical. In: Enck, W., Mulliner, C. (eds.) 11th USENIX Workshop on Offensive Technologies, WOOT 2017, Van- couver, BC, Canada, August 14-15, 2017. USENIX Association (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    CoRRabs/1911.11607(2019)

    Bu, Z., Dong, J., Long, Q., Su, W.J.: Deep learning with gaussian differential privacy. CoRRabs/1911.11607(2019)

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Kistowski, J.: Spec cpu2017: Next-generation compute benchmark

    Bucek, J., Lange, K.D., v. Kistowski, J.: Spec cpu2017: Next-generation compute benchmark. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering. pp. 41–42 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    In: Kirda, E., Ristenpart, T

    Bulck, J.V., Weichbrodt, N., Kapitza, R., Piessens, F., Strackx, R.: Telling your secrets without page faults: Stealthy page table-based attacks on enclaved exe- cution. In: Kirda, E., Ristenpart, T. (eds.) 26th USENIX Security Symposium, USENIX Security 2017, Vancouver, BC, C...

    2017

  2. [10]

    IEEE Secur

    Chen, G., Chen, S., Xiao, Y., Zhang, Y., Lin, Z., Lai, T.: Sgxpectre: Stealing intel secrets from SGX enclaves via speculative execution. IEEE Secur. Priv.18(3), 28–37 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Cheng, A., Wang, J., Zhang, X.S., Chen, Q., Wang, P., Cheng, J.: DPNAS: neu- ral architecture search for deep learning with differential privacy. In: Thirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2022, Thirty-Fourth Confer- ence on Innovative Applications of Ar...

    2022

  4. [12]

    In: Silva, D.D., Wang, Q., Zhang, L

    Cheng, H., Yu, P., Hu, H., Zawad, S., Yan, F., Li, S., Li, H.H., Chen, Y.: Towards decentralized deep learning with differential privacy. In: Silva, D.D., Wang, Q., Zhang, L. (eds.) Cloud Computing - CLOUD 2019 - 12th International Conference, Held as Part of the Services Conf...

    2019

  5. [13]

    CoRRabs/1910.02578(2019) 19

    Choudhury, O., Gkoulalas-Divanis, A., Salonidis, T., Sylla, I., Park, Y., Hsu, G., Das, A.: Differential privacy-enabled federated learning for sensitive health data. CoRRabs/1910.02578(2019) 19

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Manage- ment of Data

    Cormode, G., Kulkarni, T., Srivastava, D.: Marginal release under local differ- ential privacy. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Manage- ment of Data. p. 131–146. SIGMOD ’18, Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA (2018).https://doi.org...

    2018

  7. [15]

    In: Srivastava, D., Ari, I

    Dankar, F.K., Emam, K.E.: The application of differential privacy to health data. In: Srivastava, D., Ari, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2012 Joint EDBT/ICDT Work- shops, Berlin, Germany, March 30, 2012. pp. 158–166. ACM (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    In: Kirda, E., Ristenpart, T

    Disselkoen, C., Kohlbrenner, D., Porter, L., Tullsen, D.M.: Prime+abort: A timer- free high-precision L3 cache attack using intel TSX. In: Kirda, E., Ristenpart, T. (eds.) 26th USENIX Security Symposium, USENIX Security 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 16-18, 2017. pp. 51–6...

    2017

  9. [17]

    Founda- tions and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science9(3–4), 211–407 (2014)

    Dwork, C., Roth, A.: The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Founda- tions and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science9(3–4), 211–407 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    In: Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., Wegener, I

    Dwork, C.: Differential privacy. In: Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., Wegener, I. (eds.) Automata, Languages and Programming, 33rd International Colloquium, ICALP 2006, Venice, Italy, July 10-14, 2006, Proceedings, Part II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4052, ...

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    In: Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., Wegener, I

    Dwork, C.: Differential privacy. In: Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., Wegener, I. (eds.) ICALP. LNCS, vol. 4052, pp. 1–12. Springer (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Patterns2(12), 100366 (2021)

    Dyda, A., Purcell, M., Curtis, S., Field, E., Pillai, P., Ricardo, K., Weng, H., Moore, J.C., Hewett, M., Williams, G., Lau, C.L.: Differential privacy for public health data: An innovative tool to optimize information sharing while protecting data confidentiality. Patterns2(1...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Procedia Computer Science62, 650–653 (2015)

    Elkhouly, R., El-Mahdy, A., Elmasry, A.: 2-bit branch predictor modeling using markov model. Procedia Computer Science62, 650–653 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    Erlingsson, U., Pihur, V., Korolova, A.: Rappor: Randomized aggregatable privacy- preserving ordinal response. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. p. 1054–1067. CCS ’14, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, U...

    2014

  15. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference on Architectural Support for Pro- gramming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS ’18)

    Evtyushkin, D., Riley, R., Abu-Ghazaleh, N.C., ECE, Ponomarev, D.: Branch- Scope: A new side-channel attack on directional branch predictor. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference on Architectural Support for Pro- gramming Languages and Operating Systems ...

    2018

  16. [24]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Theory62(2), 925–951 (2016).https: //doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2015.2504967

    Geng, Q., Viswanath, P.: The optimal noise-adding mechanism in differential pri- vacy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory62(2), 925–951 (2016).https: //doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2015.2504967

    2016

  17. [25]

    In: Ranzato, M., Beygelzimer, A., Dauphin, Y.N., Liang, P., Vaughan, J.W

    Ghazi, B., Golowich, N., Kumar, R., Manurangsi, P., Zhang, C.: Deep learning with label differential privacy. In: Ranzato, M., Beygelzimer, A., Dauphin, Y.N., Liang, P., Vaughan, J.W. (eds.) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Info...

    2021

  18. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing

    Ghosh, A., Roughgarden, T., Sundararajan, M.: Universally utility-maximizing pri- vacy mechanisms. In: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. p. 351–360. STOC ’09, Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA (2009).https://doi....

    2009

  19. [27]

    In: Giuffrida, C., Stavrou, A

    G¨ otzfried, J., Eckert, M., Schinzel, S., M¨ uller, T.: Cache attacks on intel SGX. In: Giuffrida, C., Stavrou, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th European Workshop on Systems Security, EUROSEC 2017, Belgrade, Serbia, April 23, 2017. pp. 2:1–2:6. ACM (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    In: 2020 ACM/IEEE 47th Annual Inter- national Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA)

    Grayson, B., Rupley, J., Zuraski, G.Z., Quinnell, E., Jim´ enez, D.A., Nakra, T., Kitchin, P., Hensley, R., Brekelbaum, E., Sinha, V., Ghiya, A.: Evolution of the samsung exynos cpu microarchitecture. In: 2020 ACM/IEEE 47th Annual Inter- national Symposium on Computer Architec...

    2020

  21. [29]

    In: Caballero, J., Zurutuza, U., Rodr´ ıguez, R.J

    Gruss, D., Maurice, C., Wagner, K., Mangard, S.: Flush+flush: A fast and stealthy cache attack. In: Caballero, J., Zurutuza, U., Rodr´ ıguez, R.J. (eds.) Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment - 13th International Con- ference, DIMVA 2016, San Sebast...

    2016

  22. [30]

    In: Silva, D.D., Ford, B

    H¨ ahnel, M., Cui, W., Peinado, M.: High-resolution side channels for untrusted operating systems. In: Silva, D.D., Ford, B. (eds.) 2017 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, USENIX ATC 2017, Santa Clara, CA, USA, July 12-14, 2017. pp. 299–312. USENIX Association (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    IACR Trans

    Huo, T., Meng, X., Wang, W., Hao, C., Zhao, P., Zhai, J., Li, M.: Bluethunder: A 2-level directional predictor based side-channel attack against sgx. IACR Trans. Cryptogr. Hardw. Embed. Syst.2020, 321–347 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    In: Bach, F., Blei, D

    Kairouz, P., Oh, S., Viswanath, P.: The composition theorem for differential pri- vacy. In: Bach, F., Blei, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd International Con- ference on Machine Learning. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 37, pp. 1376–1385. PMLR, Lille, France (...

    2015

  25. [33]

    In: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Design Automation Conference, DAC 2016, Austin, TX, USA, June 5-9, 2016

    Kayaalp, M., Abu-Ghazaleh, N.B., Ponomarev, D.V., Jaleel, A.: A high-resolution side-channel attack on last-level cache. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Design Automation Conference, DAC 2016, Austin, TX, USA, June 5-9, 2016. pp. 72:1– 72:6. ACM (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    international symposium on mi- croarchitecture19(2), 24–36 (1999)

    Kessler, R.E.: The alpha 21264 microprocessor. international symposium on mi- croarchitecture19(2), 24–36 (1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    Kocher, P., Horn, J., Fogh, A., Genkin, D., Gruss, D., Haas, W., Hamburg, M., Lipp, M., Mangard, S., Prescher, T., Schwarz, M., Yarom, Y.: Spectre attacks: exploiting speculative execution. Commun. ACM63(7), 93–101 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S

    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: PRISM 4.0: Verification of probabilistic real-time systems. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 585–591. Springer (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    In: 26th{USENIX} Security Symposium ({USENIX}Security 17)

    Lee, S., Shih, M.W., Gera, P., Kim, T., Kim, H., Peinado, M.: Inferring fine-grained control flow inside{SGX}enclaves with branch shadowing. In: 26th{USENIX} Security Symposium ({USENIX}Security 17). pp. 557–574 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    In: Kirda, E., Ristenpart, T

    Lee, S., Shih, M., Gera, P., Kim, T., Kim, H., Peinado, M.: Inferring fine-grained control flow inside SGX enclaves with branch shadowing. In: Kirda, E., Ristenpart, T. (eds.) 26th USENIX Security Symposium, USENIX Security 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 16-18, 2017. pp. ...

    2017

  31. [39]

    Liu, D., Wang, B., Fu, C., Zhang, L.: Model checking differentially private prop- erties. Theor. Comput. Sci.943, 153–170 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    In: Finkbeiner, B., Wies, T

    Liu, D., Wang, B., Zhang, L.: Verifying pufferfish privacy in hidden markov models. In: Finkbeiner, B., Wies, T. (eds.) Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation - 23rd International Conference, VMCAI 2022, Philadelphia, PA, USA, January 16-18, 2022, Proceeding...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Journal of computer science and technology36(5), 1022 (2021)

    Lu-Tan Zhao, Rui Hou, K.W., Su, Y.L., Li, P.N., Meng, D.: A novel probabilistic saturating counter design. Journal of computer science and technology36(5), 1022 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    In: Lie, D., Mannan, M., Backes, M., Wang, X

    Maisuradze, G., Rossow, C.: ret2spec: Speculative execution using return stack buffers. In: Lie, D., Mannan, M., Backes, M., Wang, X. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2018, Toronto, ON, Canada, October 15-19, 201...

    2018

  35. [43]

    McFarling, S.: Combining branch predictors. Tech. rep., Technical Report TN-36, Digital Western Research Laboratory (1993)

    1993

  36. [44]

    In: 48th An- nual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2007), Octo- ber 20-23, 2007, Providence, RI, USA, Proceedings

    McSherry, F., Talwar, K.: Mechanism design via differential privacy. In: 48th An- nual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2007), Octo- ber 20-23, 2007, Providence, RI, USA, Proceedings. pp. 94–103. IEEE Computer Society (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    CoRRabs/2007.11524(2020)

    Nasr, M., Shokri, R., Houmansadr, A.: Improving deep learning with differential privacy using gradient encoding and denoising. CoRRabs/2007.11524(2020)

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing

    Nissim, K., Raskhodnikova, S., Smith, A.: Smooth sensitivity and sampling in pri- vate data analysis. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. p. 75–84. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    In: Goldwasser, S

    Nissim, K., Smorodinsky, R., Tennenholtz, M.: Approximately optimal mechanism design via differential privacy. In: Goldwasser, S. (ed.) Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science 2012, Cambridge, MA, USA, January 8-10, 2012. pp. 203–213. ACM (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Information and control6(3), 230–245 (1963)

    Rabin, M.O.: Probabilistic automata. Information and control6(3), 230–245 (1963)

    1963

  41. [49]

    In: Polychronakis, M., Meier, M

    Schwarz, M., Weiser, S., Gruss, D., Maurice, C., Mangard, S.: Malware guard ex- tension: Using SGX to conceal cache attacks. In: Polychronakis, M., Meier, M. (eds.) Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment - 14th International Conference, DIMVA 2017, B...

    2017

  42. [50]

    In: 5th JILP Workshop on Computer Architecture Competitions (JWAC-5): Championship Branch Predic- tion (CBP-5)

    Seznec, A.: TAGE-SC-L Branch Predictors Again. In: 5th JILP Workshop on Computer Architecture Competitions (JWAC-5): Championship Branch Predic- tion (CBP-5). Seoul, South Korea (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    IBM Journal of Research and Development59(1), 2:1–2:21 (2015)

    Sinharoy, B., Van Norstrand, J.A., Eickemeyer, R.J., Le, H.Q., Leenstra, J., Nguyen, D.Q., Konigsburg, B., Ward, K., Brown, M.D., Moreira, J.E., Levitan, D., Tung, S., Hrusecky, D., Bishop, J.W., Gschwind, M., Boersma, M., Kroener, M., Kaltenbach, M., Karkhanis, T., Fernsler, ...

    2015

  44. [52]

    In: de Alfaro, L

    Smith, G.: On the foundations of quantitative information flow. In: de Alfaro, L. (ed.) Foundations of Software Science and Computational Structures, 12th Inter- national Conference, FOSSACS 2009, Held as Part of the Joint European Con- ferences on Theory and Practice of Softw...

    2009

  45. [53]

    CoRRabs/2202.05089 (2022)

    Stevens, T., Ngong, I.C., Darais, D., Hirsch, C., Slater, D., Near, J.P.: Backpropa- gation clipping for deep learning with differential privacy. CoRRabs/2202.05089 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    IEEE Micro 40(2), 45–52 (2020)

    Suggs, D., Subramony, M., Bouvier, D.: The amd “zen 2” processor. IEEE Micro 40(2), 45–52 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Tang, J., Korolova, A., Bai, X., Wang, X., Wang, X.: Privacy loss in apple’s im- plementation of differential privacy on macos 10.12 (2017),https://arxiv.org/ abs/1709.02753 22

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    In: IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, HPCA 2024, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, March 2-6, 2024

    Wang, Q., Tang, M., Xu, K., Wang, H.: Modeling, derivation, and automated anal- ysis of branch predictor security vulnerabilities. In: IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, HPCA 2024, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, March 2-6, 2024. pp. 409–423. IE...

    2024

  49. [57]

    In: Ligatti, J., Ou, X., Katz, J., Vigna, G

    Wang, Y., Ding, Z., Kifer, D., Zhang, D.: Checkdp: An automated and integrated approach for proving differential privacy or finding precise counterexamples. In: Ligatti, J., Ou, X., Katz, J., Vigna, G. (eds.) CCS ’20: 2020 ACM SIGSAC Confer- ence on Computer and Communications...

    2020

  50. [58]

    In: McKinley, K.S., Fisher, K

    Wang, Y., Ding, Z., Wang, G., Kifer, D., Zhang, D.: Proving differential privacy with shadow execution. In: McKinley, K.S., Fisher, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Imple- mentation, PLDI 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 2...

    2019

  51. [59]

    Journal of the American Statistical Association60(309), 63–69 (1965), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2283137

    Warner, S.L.: Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association60(309), 63–69 (1965), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2283137

    1965

  52. [60]

    Journal of the American Statistical Association105(489), 375–389 (2010).https://doi

    Wasserman, L., Zhou, S.: A statistical framework for differential privacy. Journal of the American Statistical Association105(489), 375–389 (2010).https://doi. org/10.1198/jasa.2009.tm08651

    2010 doi

  53. [61]

    Wikichip: Sunny cove (2019),https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/ microarchitectures/sunny_cove

    2019

  54. [62]

    In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2015, San Jose, CA, USA, May 17-21, 2015

    Xu, Y., Cui, W., Peinado, M.: Controlled-channel attacks: Deterministic side chan- nels for untrusted operating systems. In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2015, San Jose, CA, USA, May 17-21, 2015. pp. 640–656. IEEE Com- puter Society (2015)

    2015

  55. [63]

    In: Castagna, G., Gordon, A.D

    Zhang, D., Kifer, D.: Lightdp: towards automating differential privacy proofs. In: Castagna, G., Gordon, A.D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 44th ACM SIGPLAN Sym- posium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2017, Paris, France, Jan- uary 18-20, 2017. pp. 888–901. ACM (2017)

    2017

  56. [64]

    ACM Comput

    Zhang, L., Zhu, T., Xiong, P., Zhou, W., Yu, P.S.: More than privacy: Adopt- ing differential privacy in game-theoretic mechanism design. ACM Comput. Surv. 54(7), 136:1–136:37 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    SIAM (2018) 23 A Calculation of the Misprediction Rate in the Stationary Distribution Lets= 1−tandq= 1−p; we write the transition matrixMof the PSC in Fig

    Zimmermann, P., Casamayou, A., Cohen, N., Connan, G., Dumont, T., Fousse, L., Maltey, F., Meulien, M., Mezzarobba, M., Pernet, C., et al.: Computational mathematics with SageMath. SIAM (2018) 23 A Calculation of the Misprediction Rate in the Stationary Distribution Lets= 1−tan...

    2018

  58. [1056]

    USENIX Association (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.