EUROCRYPT 2025
EUROCRYPT 2025 Artifacts
Artifacts
Cryptanalysis of rank-2 module-LIP: a single real embedding is all it takes
Bill Allombert, Alice Pellet-Mary, and Wessel van Woerden
New Techniques for Random Probing Security and Application to Raccoon Signature Scheme
Sonia Belaïd, Matthieu Rivain, and Mélissa Rossi
Leap: A Fast, Lattice-based OPRF With Application to Private Set Intersection
Lena Heimberger, Daniel Kales, Riccardo Lolato, Omid Mir, Sebastian Ramacher, and Christian Rechberger
Do Not Disturb a Sleeping Falcon: Floating-Point Error Sensitivity of the Falcon Sampler and Its Consequences
Xiuhan Lin, Mehdi Tibouchi, Yang Yu, and Shiduo Zhang
INDIANA – Verifying (Random) Probing Security through Indistinguishability Analysis
Jan Richter-Brockmann, Pascal Sasdrich, Christof Beierle, Jakob Feldtkeller, Anna Guinet, Gregor Leander, and Tim Güneysu
Committing Authenticated Encryption: Generic Transforms with Hash Functions
Shan Chen and Vukašin Karadžić
The 2Hash OPRF Framework and Efficient Post-Quantum Instantiations
Ward Beullens, Lucas Dodgson, Sebastian Faller, and Julia Hesse
Low-Bandwidth Mixed Arithmetic in VOLE-Based ZK from Low-Degree PRGs
Amit Agarwal, Carsten Baum, Lennart Braun, and Peter Scholl
Hollow LWE: A New Spin: Unbounded Updatable Encryption from LWE and PCE
Martin R. Albrecht, Benjamin Benčina, and Russell W. F. Lai
MPC with Publicly Identifiable Abort from Pseudorandomness and Homomorphic Encryption
Marc Rivinius
Snake-eye Resistant PKE from LWE for Oblivious Message Retrieval and Robust Encryption
Zeyu Liu, Katerina Sotiraki, Eran Tromer, and Yunhao Wang
A Generic Framework for Side-Channel Attacks against LWE-based Cryptosystems
Julius Hermelink, Silvan Streit, Erik Mårtensson, and Richard Petri
Solving Multivariate Coppersmith Problems with Known Moduli
Keegan Ryan
TinyLabels: How to Compress Garbled Circuit Input Labels, Efficiently
Marian Dietz, Hanjun Li, and Huijia Lin
Scope and Aims
The two main goals of the artifact review process are to improve functionality and reusability of artifacts to enable reproduction and extension by the scientific community.
Reproducibility, in the context of computational experiments, means that the scientific results claimed can be obtained by a different team using the original authors’ artifacts. The artifact review process does not include attempting to reproduce the experiment and to verify the scientific claims in the accepted paper. Rather, the artifact review process aims at ensuring sufficient functionality of the artifact to enable a research team to attempt to reproduce the results.
Examples of this in the field of cryptography include:
- Software implementations (performance, formal verification, etc.): The source code of the implementation; a list of all dependencies required; the test harness; instructions on how to build and run the software and the test harness; a description of the platform on which the results in the paper were obtained; and instructions or scripts to process the output of the test harness into appropriate summary statistics.
- Hardware implementations, physical attacks against implementations: A precise description of any physical equipment used in the setup; the source code of any software developed for the experiment; a list of all dependencies required; instructions on how to build the software and run the device or carry out the attack; instructions or scripts to process the output and interpret the results.
- Data or other non-code artifacts: Documents or reports in a widely used non-proprietary format, such as PDF, ODF, HTML, text; data in machine-readable format such as CSV, JSON, XML, with appropriate metadata describing the schema; scripts used to process the data into summary form. Where non-standard data formats cannot be avoided, authors should include suitable viewing software.
Where possible, such as in software-based artifacts relying solely on open-source components, the artifact review process will aim to run the artifact and test harness, and see that it produces outputs that would be required to assess the artifact against results in the paper. For artifacts that depend on commercial tools or specialized physical hardware, the goal of the artifact review process will be to confirm that the artifacts are functional, and could plausibly be used by someone with access to the appropriate tools to reproduce the results.
Reusability means that the artifacts are not just functional, but of sufficient quality that they could be extended and reused by others. Reusable artifacts have clear user and developer documentation, and are well-structured in ways that make them easy to modify or extend.
For more information, please see the EUROCRYPT 2025 Call for Artifacts.
EUROCRYPT 2025 Artifact Review Committee
Artifact Review Chair:
- André Schrottenloher (Inria)
Artifact Review Committee Members:
- Nicolas Aragon (University of Limoges)
- Gustavo Banegas (Inria & École polytechnique)
- Benedikt Bünz (New York University)
- Daniel De Almeida Braga (Université de Rennes 1, CNRS, IRISA)
- Simona Etinski (CWI, the Cryptology Group)
- Kai Hu (Shandong University)
- Fukang Liu (Tokyo Institute of Technology)
- Patrick Longa (Microsoft Research)
- Daniel Page (University of Bristol)
- Monika Trimoska (Eindhoven University of Technology)
- Fernando Virdia (NOVA LINCS, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa)
- Yang Yu (Tsinghua University)