a785236

6 ms·

1.
by a785236 1y ago
It's 17% heavier than the iphone 13 mini. Source: https://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/?modelList=iphone-13-mi...
2.
Best Papers – Usenix Security 2022(usenix.org)
65 points by a785236 4y ago|4 comments
3.
Reconstruction Attacks in Practice(differentialprivacy.org)
2 points by a785236 5y ago|0 comments
4.
by a785236 5y ago
A minor but important correction. Krebs wrote that the Gov claimed that “fixing the flaw could cost the state $50 million.” That’s not quite right. In the press conference linked in Kreb's post, the Governor actually claims that the “i
5.
by a785236 7y ago
No, it isn't. > ... this algorithm replaces the data with a random value that has no relation to the original. Based on that sentence, I assume that when you write "the data" you mean "the part of a picture correspond
6.
by a785236 7y ago
I wish the authors wouldn't oversell the privacy claim: > Github: "The DeepPrivacy GAN never sees any privacy sensitive information, ensuring a fully anonymized image." > Abstract: "We ensure total anonymization of
7.
Fundamentals of Fully Homomorphic Encryption – A Survey(eccc.weizmann.ac.il)
2 points by a785236 8y ago|0 comments
8.
by a785236 8y ago
You're certainly right that formal definitions are important. However, on this forum, I think informality can be appropriate. Though there are variations and inconsistencies, in the theoretical cryptography community, second preimage r
9.
by a785236 8y ago
It's true as long as the function f is sufficiently "shrinking." The domain of the function (where the x's live) must be sufficiently larger than its range (where the f(x)'s live). For example, if the domain is size
10.
by a785236 9y ago
K-anonymity provides very little protection, if any. A few brief points: 1. I've never seen a formal definition of security that k-anon supposedly satisfies. While I personally really like formal guarantees, maybe one might argue this