<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 Reports</title>
    <link>http://eprint.iacr.org/forum/list.php?7</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Discussion forum for Cryptology ePrint Archive reports posted in 2007.
Please put the report number in the subject.

]]></description>
    <language>EN</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:06:42 -0600</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:06:42 -0600</lastBuildDate>
    <category>2007 Reports</category>
    <generator>Phorum 5.1.22</generator>
    <ttl>600</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>your report on ePrint</title>
      <link>http://eprint.iacr.org/forum/read.php?7,25,25#msg-25</link>
      <author>cryptography</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi, I just happened to look at your report on almost everywhere secure computation on ePrint. Interesting, work...

(1) I looked at your remarks about simulation based definition and KKMO definition and I think you are not understanding that a simulator is just an &quot;abstract mental construct&quot; which does not have to be possessed by the adversary or for the adversary to be even aware that such a simulator at all exists.

  It is just a way (or can be a way) of proving/bounding the amount of knowledge/information that an adversary learns about the inputs/outputs of other parties but other then that it is &quot;hypothetical mental construct&quot;. Your problem seems to be arising from the fact that you are seeing &quot;simulator&quot; as a tangible entity - who is provided inputs from somewhere and who is providing outputs to someone. This is not the case!! There is no simulator out there that is working and producing results - just like there is no ideal case. Its just a way of modelling and proving certain properties of MPC protocols.

  Remember when you show that there exists a simulator (which is given inputs/outputs etc. etc.) by which the entire logs of the adversary could be created, then the claim is that adversary has this much knowledge /information about the I/O of some parties - which essentially conveys that adversary has learnt not one more bit of information about the inputs and outputs of the parties then this! Thats it.

  Its only a way of proving things - that you have understand [Don't start looking out for a real simulator which is given inputs about different variables and parties on the network!]

  My students also initially faced some difficulties in understanding this at first - but now they are understanding that a simulator is just an &quot;abstract mental construct&quot;.

(2) I find it a little funny that you like to claim that you understand the definitions of your co-author. The previous version that you sent to ICALP - without his permission and without infact his approval to send a paper with his name on it [And he has logs of these emails] you mention that you do not understand those definitions [namely you mention that they are too complex], then he sent some draft to Canetti who seem told you inputs are not handled satisfactorially - it seems that too was fixed by the fellow in the new version and in a still new version Canetti seems to have given you an example - but as I tell you - the problem is in your misunderstanding the whole &quot;simulation&quot; thing for which you actually go out looking for real inputs from real life!!

  Have fun doing cryptography!

cheers,
Cryptographer]]></description>
      <category>2007 Reports</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://eprint.iacr.org/forum/read.php?7,25,25#msg-25</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:06:42 -0600</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
