Prashant Nalini Vasudevan

Divesh Aggarwal, Rishav Gupta, Hai Hoang Nguyen et al.

The hardness of the Learning Parity with Noise (LPN) problem is a foundational assumption in cryptography, forming the basis of constructions ranging from symmetric-key primitives to public-key encryption and beyond. A central open question is whether the average-case hardness of LPN can be based on worst-case complexity assumptions, as has been achieved for the analogous Learning With Errors (LWE) problem. Existing worst-case-to-average-case reductions for LPN [BLVW19, YZ21] rely on statistical smoothing of linear codes, which inherently limits the resulting average-case hardness to noise rates as large as $1/2 - 1/\mathrm{poly}(n)$, which is insufficient for public-key applications. We explore a new approach towards obtaining such reductions: rather than requiring that random sparse combinations of the rows of the generator matrix of a code be statistically close to uniform, we only require that they be computationally indistinguishable from uniform. This leads to a clean win-win structure: we show that any efficient LPN solver can be transformed into a pair of efficient algorithms $(S, D)$ such that for every matrix $A$ of appropriate dimensions over $\mathbb{F}_2$, either $S$ decodes the code generated by $A$ from random noise, or $D$ distinguishes random noisy codewords of the dual of this code from uniform. By instantiating this reduction with appropriate parameters, we obtain the average-case hardness of LPN with inverse-polynomial noise rate $n^{-α}$ for any constant $α< 1$, assuming the worst-case simultaneous hardness of decoding a code from random noise and distinguishing random noisy codewords of its dual from uniform. In particular, setting $α= 1/2$, our reduction yields LPN hardness in the parameter regime required for Alekhnovich's construction of public-key encryption [Ale03], a regime that was previously inaccessible via worst-case reductions.

Ji Gao, Sanjam Garg, Mohammad Mahmoody et al.

Privacy attacks on machine learning models aim to identify the data that is used to train such models. Such attacks, traditionally, are studied on static models that are trained once and are accessible by the adversary. Motivated to meet new legal requirements, many machine learning methods are recently extended to support machine unlearning, i.e., updating models as if certain examples are removed from their training sets, and meet new legal requirements. However, privacy attacks could potentially become more devastating in this new setting, since an attacker could now access both the original model before deletion and the new model after the deletion. In fact, the very act of deletion might make the deleted record more vulnerable to privacy attacks. Inspired by cryptographic definitions and the differential privacy framework, we formally study privacy implications of machine unlearning. We formalize (various forms of) deletion inference and deletion reconstruction attacks, in which the adversary aims to either identify which record is deleted or to reconstruct (perhaps part of) the deleted records. We then present successful deletion inference and reconstruction attacks for a variety of machine learning models and tasks such as classification, regression, and language models. Finally, we show that our attacks would provably be precluded if the schemes satisfy (variants of) Deletion Compliance (Garg, Goldwasser, and Vasudevan, Eurocrypt' 20).

Sanjam Garg, Shafi Goldwasser, Prashant Nalini Vasudevan

The right of an individual to request the deletion of their personal data by an entity that might be storing it -- referred to as the right to be forgotten -- has been explicitly recognized, legislated, and exercised in several jurisdictions across the world, including the European Union, Argentina, and California. However, much of the discussion surrounding this right offers only an intuitive notion of what it means for it to be fulfilled -- of what it means for such personal data to be deleted. In this work, we provide a formal definitional framework for the right to be forgotten using tools and paradigms from cryptography. In particular, we provide a precise definition of what could be (or should be) expected from an entity that collects individuals' data when a request is made of it to delete some of this data. Our framework captures several, though not all, relevant aspects of typical systems involved in data processing. While it cannot be viewed as expressing the statements of current laws (especially since these are rather vague in this respect), our work offers technically precise definitions that represent possibilities for what the law could reasonably expect, and alternatives for what future versions of the law could explicitly require. Finally, with the goal of demonstrating the applicability of our framework and definitions, we consider various natural and simple scenarios where the right to be forgotten comes up. For each of these scenarios, we highlight the pitfalls that arise even in genuine attempts at implementing systems offering deletion guarantees, and also describe technological solutions that provably satisfy our definitions. These solutions bring together techniques built by various communities.