Ideal Tightly Couple (t,m,n) Secret Sharing

As a fundamental cryptographic tool, (t,n)-threshold secret sharing ((t,n)-SS) divides a secret among n shareholders and requires at least t, (t<=n), of them to reconstruct the secret. Ideal (t,n)-SSs are most desirable in security and efficiency among basic (t,n)-SSs. However, an adversary, even without any valid share, may mount Illegal Participant (IP) attack or t/2-Private Channel Cracking (t/2-PCC) attack to obtain the secret in most (t,n)-SSs.To secure ideal (t,n)-SSs against the 2 attacks, 1) the paper introduces the notion of Ideal Tightly cOupled (t,m,n) Secret Sharing (or (t,m,n)-ITOSS ) to thwart IP attack without Verifiable SS; (t,m,n)-ITOSS binds all m, (m>=t), participants into a tightly coupled group and requires all participants to be legal shareholders before recovering the secret. 2) As an example, the paper presents a polynomial-based (t,m,n)-ITOSS scheme, in which the proposed k-round Random Number Selection (RNS) guarantees that adversaries have to crack at least symmetrical private channels among participants before obtaining the secret. Therefore, k-round RNS enhances the robustness of (t,m,n)-ITOSS against t/2-PCC attack to the utmost. 3) The paper finally presents a generalized method of converting an ideal (t,n)-SS into a (t,m,n)-ITOSS, which helps an ideal (t,n)-SS substantially improve the robustness against the above 2 attacks

Empirical Evaluation of Test Coverage for Functional Programs

The correlation between test coverage and test effectiveness is important to justify the use of coverage in practice. Existing results on imperative programs mostly show that test coverage predicates effectiveness. However, since functional programs are usually structurally different from imperative ones, it is unclear whether the same result may be derived and coverage can be used as a prediction of effectiveness on functional programs. In this paper we report the first empirical study on the correlation between test coverage and test effectiveness on functional programs. We consider four types of coverage: as input coverages, statement/branch coverage and expression coverage, and as oracle coverages, count of assertions and checked coverage. We also consider two types of effectiveness: raw effectiveness and normalized effectiveness. Our results are twofold. (1) In general the findings on imperative programs still hold on functional programs, warranting the use of coverage in practice. (2) On specific coverage criteria, the results may be unexpected or different from the imperative ones, calling for further studies on functional programs