News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) by spockz on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @06:56AM (#27513482)
Couldn’t you just sign the payload to verify authenticity?
Re:Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) by gnull on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @07:44AM (#27513865)
Usual signatures do not allow homomorphic operations on the signed values. You will have to use special fully homomorphic signatures (FHS) for that.

Suppose you did this and encrypted + signed your values with FHE and FHS as Sign(Encrypt(x)) and Sign(Encrypt(y)). Now you want to add x and y. For that, you will have to run the homomorphic addition of Encrypt(·) values using homomorphic operations of Sign(·), i.e. you do Encrypt(x) + Encrypt(y) inside Sign(·), not just x + y.

This means that the overheads introduced by FHE and FHE do not just add up, they get composed (as in composition of functions). This will be a terrible blow-up in performance. I guess, for this reason people try to build authenticated FHE that will have the properties of FHE + FHS but as a one, more efficient block.

Re:Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) by ganafagol on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @07:38AM (#27513810)
Then your input is signed. And now what? How does this authenticate the output?
Re:Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) by spockz on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @11:37AM (#27517006)
I suppose you can just rerun the function? Most cases I know don’t have a large nested set of operations.
Re:Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) by justincormack on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @12:19PM (#27517629)
Then you didnt need to do the remote operation... Some operations are verifiable though in less time than doing the whole computation.
Re:Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) by pessimizer on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @08:08AM (#27514089)
Maybe in the way the operation affects the signature?