You're all very welcome, perhaps you'd like before we begin to do as I did not do it just before we started, switch off your mobile phones in case they go off during the meeting. We're very happy to have Dr. Bovolo here with us again. You were here with us four years ago, I understand, in 2015. Dr. Bovolo is an associate research fellow at the Institut Francais de Relation Internationale, but he tells us that he's based in Brighton, and is a contributor to worthy thoughts on Russia and China and the World Order in a number of other frameworks as well as IFRI. His presentation today, I think, couldn't be more interesting, Russia, China and World Order. I think all of us, and we were talking about it a little over lunch, are struck by the speed of the rise of China as a factor in World Order thinking, and we all ask what we can do about it, and that connection, the relation of China with Russia, is particularly pecan, let's say, which is a reason why we very much look forward to hearing what you have to say. So the floor is yours. Thank you. Let's check this. Yeah. Bodre, thank you very much for this welcome. When I came here four years ago, I have to say it was one of the most delightful visits I've had for many years, and I'm really delighted to be here again. Thank you so much for inviting me. So the title, Russia, China and World Order, the reason I picked this was because there's growing consensus in the West, particularly in the United States, about the threat that Russia and China together pose to World Order, and they're said to form an axis of authoritarianism whose purpose is no less than to destroy the post-World War II international system. But I wanted to ask today, is their partnership quite what it seems? Are Moscow and Beijing engaged in a common nefarious enterprise? Or does the real threat to the World Order come from within? Namely, the failure of Western democracies to live up to its ideals. So in answering these questions, I want to discuss four broad themes. The first is what I see as the state of the World Order. The second is the Sino-Russian partnership. The third theme focuses on what I think are the real threats to global order. And the fourth I want to finish up with is what we in the West should do about the threats to global order. So starting with the state of the world, I think the international environment today is more fluid and unpredictable than at any time since the end of the Cold War. It's clear that the US-led global order is in crisis, but at the same time, there is very little evidence of a post-American or post-Western order to emerge in its place. Instead, what we have, in my view, is a colossal void, a colossal strategic, political, economic, normative void. We don't have, in other words, a world order. What we have is a world disorder. And so what is this disorder? One of the main characteristics of this disorder, although several, the first is it highlights the limitations of great powers. Despite the use of military force, for example, in Syria, the great powers have rarely been weaker in their capacity to make others do their bidding. We've seen this not just in Ukraine, but obviously in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, and many other places. Second characteristic, the de-universalization of international norms. We were talking before over lunch about the rules-based international order. Well, in my view, this no longer exists, this very idea of a rules-based international order has been thoroughly discredited, as has the pretense of so-called universal values. Global governance has become an oxymoron. Narrow self-interest is the dominant ethos of our time. And for many countries, it's not rules or norms or ethics that are the determining forces, it's power and the right to exercise it freely. Third characteristic, which is very closely related to the last one, we are seeing here a profound crisis of leadership in democracies and non-democracies alike. Not since the 1930s has there been such a poor quality of leadership across the world. This is evident in the inability, or is it the unwillingness, to work together to address fundamental collective problems such as climate change, mass migration, arms proliferation. Tactical opportunism abounds at the expense of longer-term strategic thinking. And this, of course, has encouraged xenophobic nationalism, political cynicism, and widespread public disillusionment. Fourth characteristic of this new world disorder, the shortcomings of multilateralism. There have never been so many multilateral organizations, nor a greater need for them, but they have rarely been so ineffective. And the problem is not with traditional institutions like the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, WTO. The problem is also these organizations, which are decaying, have not been replaced by new organizations. The new organizations, BRICS, the G20, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, they're at least as ineffective. They're not capable of filling the growing vacuum of authority. We are witnessing, here's another feature, a new ideological divide. I'm sure there's no communism versus capitalism divide, I agree with that. But there are new ideological conflicts, new schisms, between, on the one hand, conservative authoritarian nationalism and liberal internationalism, between centrism and between immoderation of various kinds. I think the new world disorder is also seeing, has also increased the likelihood of military conflict. Now, I'm not saying that serious military conflict is about to happen. I don't want to exaggerate, but I think conflict between the great powers is more likely today than it has been for, I would say, let's see, 1983, how much is that, sort of, my maths is very poor, 35 years, something like that, but for decades. You often hear about the end of globalization. I think this is a nonsense. Globalization is not ending. If anything, we are more globalized than we've ever been, because despite countries pursuing egoistical approaches to their interests, globalization is continuing at pace. We live in a world where interests and problems cross boundaries, where information is ubiquitous, where culture is global, and where addressing major problems is far beyond the capacity of individual nation-states, no matter how great. Western-led globalization now, I think that's over, but globalization, as a phenomenon, is continuing unrestraint. The only real issue, I think, when we talk about globalization in the 21st century, is on whose terms it will be and on what terms. So now I want to move to the Sino-Russian partnership. There's no question that the level of Sino-Russian cooperation is better than it's ever been. You've got to hand it to them. It's been a remarkable success story. Beijing and Moscow agree on many things. They agree that they should restrain the United States. They oppose liberal interventionism. They believe in consolidating regimes in the face of democratic pressures. Their views on many issues are pretty similar, whether it's cyber or missile defense. There are no serious disputes between them. That's important. Nothing to spoil the relationship. And Xi Jinping, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Putin get on very well. I'm a little bit suspicious they get on quite as well as they're portrayed to be, but clearly this is a pretty comfortable relationship between two world leaders. China and Russia also derive considerable comfort from their relationship in the face of pressure from the United States. So for the Russian, the Russians see the Chinese as a really handy geopolitical counterweight, a normative counterweight to the United States. They also benefit from a kind of success by association. Basically, Russia thinks if we're with China, we're with a cool gang. We're with the rising powers as opposed to the clapped out West. That's a really, you know, it's an important part of Russian self-affirmation today. Economic ties are more developed than ever. Russia is Russia's largest country partner. Russia is the largest source of Chinese oil imports as well. They've concluded several major arms agreements and they do joint military exercises. So in many respects, this relationship has emerged as the very model of a modern strategic partnership. An oasis of stability in an otherwise disorderly chaotic world. You know, I'll argue to you that this is not the authoritarian, much less authoritarian entente or authoritarian alliance that it's often portrayed to be, again, particularly in the United States. This relationship between Russia and China, good though it is, is a relationship of strategic convenience. It's formed by individual national priorities, geopolitical calculus and tactical expediency. China and Russia, we make a mistake if we bracket them together. They are independent, separate actors, their perspectives, interests and priorities diverge in key respects. Where do they diverge? I'll name five areas. One, they differ in their perceptions of the international system. They differ in their views of what a future world order might look like. They differ in their attitudes towards cooperation with the United States. They have different priorities and interests in Eurasia and in the Asia Pacific. So just if I tease this out a little bit more, perceptions of the international system. The Chinese have been the prime beneficiary of the Western-led international system over the last four decades. Russia, however, has been the prime loser. So guess what? The Chinese think, well, actually, we quite like to preserve the existing international system. We want to tweak it. We believe we're deserving of more respect within that international system, but we don't want to break it. We want to reform it. Whereas the Russians say, this international system done us wrong. We've been screwed out of everything. They've not given us our rightful place in history.  There's another aspect here, which is that Beijing looks at the world, at this international system and thinks it may not be great, but it's the only international system. It's the only order that exists. If it breaks, then what we're going to have is just horrendous chaos and disorder, and we hate that. That's bad for China, bad for Chinese interests. So that's another incentive. And besides, if it breaks, then everyone's going to look to us to come up with a new order, and we're just not ready for that. They differ when we talk about a new world order, visions of a future world order. I think Putin really, what he wants is a kind of Yalta in 1945, big three, only the big three obviously different. The big three would be Washington, United States, China, and Russia, and they would effectively co-manage the world. The Chinese, however, do not put, much as they flatter the Russians, they do not put Russia at the same level. They see a future world as being essentially determined by the prime interaction between China and the United States. Now, of course, Russia would still be a great power, but it would be a secondary great power, along with the EU, maybe India, Japan, whatever. But China and the United States would be those key players, with Russia definitely occupying a rung or two below that. Now, we in the West have been confused by this, because we see Russia-West relations deteriorating at a fierce rate. But we should be under no illusions. There is a fundamental tension between Putin's vision of the world as the three great powers and the Chinese vision of the future world order being two great powers plus additional bits and pieces, including multilateral institutions. Third aspect where they disagree, they have, strangely enough, contrasting views of the United States. Now, of course, they want to constrain US power. Of course, they see US leadership of a global order as unsatisfactory. However, the Chinese default mode with the Americans is accommodation. Now, that's not a guarantee against a future conflict. But as we've seen with the US-China trade negotiations, for example, the Chinese are desperately looking for a solution. They want to fix this problem. Then they don't want a conflict with the United States, because they see this as fundamentally bad for Chinese interests. There's nothing altruistic about it. It's blatantly self-interested. The Russians, however, because they have a much more meagre and more hostile bilateral relationship with the United States, they have no stake. They think relations are terrible anyway. There is hostility anyway. Why should we, what advantage is there in having cooperation with the United States? What they really, for the Kremlin, the main purpose of the United States is as chief enemy, as a sort of Russia. See how bad the United States is? We are virtuous by comparison. That is the main function of the United States in the Russian worldview. China and Russia have different priorities in the Asia Pacific. China sees itself as the number one power in the Asia Pacific. Russia, however, it has an interest in the Asia Pacific, but it's much more focused on Eastern Europe, on post-Soviet Eurasia, and most of all, the creation of a new global order on Russian terms. And if it has an agenda for the Asia Pacific, it's for a regional environment that is multipolar. It doesn't want to see the United States be the dominant power in the Asia Pacific, but nor does it want to see China replace the United States as that dominant power. That would be terrible. And different visions for Eurasia. There's been a lot of talk in the last two years, particularly about Putin's concept of a greater Eurasia. And this greater Eurasia would be centered on the Sino-Russian partnership. But in fact, this vision is aspirational rather than realistic. People talk about our so-called division of labor, where Russia is the primary security and political actor, whereas China does the sort of the money stuff. But in fact, China's Belt and Road Initiative isn't just about economics and trade. Because this idea that somehow you can neatly divide economic influence from geopolitical weight is laughable. Because when economic influence grows to such an extent, it automatically has geopolitical, broader strategic consequences. So that if ever a greater Eurasia does materialize, it will be on Chinese, not Russian terms. So where is this all going with the Sino-Russian partnership? Well, I think it's basically a pretty stable relationship. And if anything, Trump's shenanigans have reinforced it. Because people look at the United States and look at Trump's behavior and thinking, well, actually, let's hold on to stuff that is relatively stable. And the Sino-Russian partnership is at least that. On the other hand, this is not going to be an alliance in any time soon. Because neither side entirely trusts the other to behave rationally. The Chinese are particularly worried about Putin's foreign policy adventurism. And the Russians certainly don't want to get involved into a Sino-American conflict, say, in the Western Pacific. Putin wants to position Russia as an independent power, as I mentioned before. And she wants to ensure that China's rise is as smooth and trouble-free as possible. So I don't see an alliance. And in fact, I see problems arising in the future. Because although both sides have a strong interest in maintaining stability, predictability in their relationship, the growing inequality of that relationship and more ambitious and globalizing Chinese foreign policy, strategic tensions in Eurasia, arising from China's expanding influence there, and contrasting visions of global governance, I think these are going to pose real challenges to the relationship. And I think the biggest challenge of all in that Sino-Russian relationship is how both sides, particularly Russia, manage the dynamics of a partnership that is increasingly favoring China. This is a tricky one for particularly Moscow to deal with. So the third aspect is a real threat to global order. Now, let me say that some of Russia's and China's activities do pose a real threat to both Western interests and global order, cyber, political interference, territorial annexation, provocative military behavior. I'm not going to sugarcoat it. Many Russian and Chinese actions have been unhelpful and downright harmful. However, it is wrong to see Russia and China as partners in crime. Because although their bilateral cooperation is flourishing, they have shown little capacity or will in coordinating on grand strategy or trying to establish so-called post-Western norms and institutions. Each country pursues its own selfish agenda. Now, sometimes their interests coincide. Of course they do. But at other times, they do not. And disruption of the existing global order is one area where they do not have a shared aspiration. And I would argue that the real threats to the liberal order come from within. And I would say they're twofold. The first threat to the liberal order is the failure of Western democracies to live up to the principles of an international rules based system. The United States in particular has been a serial rule breaker under the administrations of George W. Bush, some extent under Obama, but particularly, as you well know, under Donald Trump. The second real danger to the liberal world order comes from the domestic policy failings of Western governments, of Western countries. And these failings, which are so well-documented, which you've experienced, I'm sure, yourself, have effectively severed the long-time association, the long-time nexus between liberal democracy and good governance. The 2008 financial crisis dealt not only a savage blow to the economic credibility of the West, but also to its political and moral credibility. And so what Russia and China have done, as you would expect them to do, is exploit the failings of the West. But they did not cause them. And this is really important. In 2016, it was not Moscow's interference that got Trump elected or that decided the outcome of the Brexit referendum. These were self-harming acts made at home reflecting widespread popular disillusionment with mainstream political parties, norms, and institutions. So this brings me to the sort of final part of my address. How the West should respond? What are we going to do about this situation? If we're going to salvage something of the liberal world order from the current mess, I think we must grasp several realities. First, we are moving into a post-American era. Now, the United States will remain the leading power for at least the next decade, probably several decades. But the time of unalloyed American global leadership is over. The only viable future is a collective one. Internationally, Western decision makers must address the fundamental disconnect between liberal internationalist rhetoric rules, this international system, international community, and so on. And what's actually happening on the ground, which is narrow nationalism and real politic. The survival of the liberal order depends not just on regurgitation of platitudes, but on concrete actions. How we address problems such as climate change, global poverty, migration, food and water security, we will be judged. The liberal world order will stand all four on actions, not these sort of flowery, pious sentiments that we hear from all the time. And at home, we need to demonstrate to ourselves and others that liberal democracy is not merely virtuous, but actually the most effective form of governments. We must confront full on xenophobia, social and economic injustice, and the erosion of the rule of law, which leads me to my bottom line. We cannot get our own house in order. We have no hope of persuading others. The future of the liberal world order begins and ends at home. Thank you.


All right. Hello So welcome to chess. I have the pleasure of chairing the first session and in this session will have three talks on masking and I'll read all the author names because I was told I have to do that The first presentation is by Sebastian Faust, Vincent Grosso, Santos, Mirino del Pozo, Clara Paglia-Longa and Fronsa Xavier Standard and if X will give the talk about composable masking schemes in the presence of physical defaults and the robust probing model Okay so Thanks for the introduction and good afternoon everybody I would say in brief this is a paper about masking physical defaults and composability So I will first take some time to introduce these notions and then try to explain What is the main contribution of the paper and why I believe it's interesting? So starting with masking Probably most of you know that but masking is a counter-major against such an analysis and the idea is that If you have a leaking device you are going to split any sensitive variable in the leaking device into D shares and Do all the computations in the device on those shares only And ultimately what we want with masking is something called noisy leakage Security represented at the bottom of the slide and in this model we give the adversary a leakage trace or a measurement trace that could be for example the power consumption of your implementation and In this trace we are going to find some leakage samples about the manipulation of each and every share In this model it's well known that the number of traces that you need to recover the key or to recover sensitive information is inversely proportional to the mutual information between the sensitive value X and the leakage vector L and Ideally the goal of masking is to bound this mutual information Such that it's lower than the mutual information between one single share and the corresponding leakage samples Waste to a power D and this power D of course gives Exponential security increase So this is what we want to ultimately sometimes. It's not very convenient to do proofs or analysis in so concrete models So we also have more abstract models and I will mention two of them One is what we call bounded moment security Which is easily explained with an example here on the left So the idea is that rather than looking at the full distribution of the leakages We are going just to look at the statistical moments of the distribution So this for example is the distribution of a single bit that we encoded with two shares So we have the green and the purple distribution And it's quite easy to see that the mean vector of these two distribution is exactly the same and In general what we want with bounded moment security is that any statistical moment of the leakage distribution up to the order D minus one is independent of the secrets. That's the best thing that we can have and And Eventually even more abstract is of course what we call probing security and in this case We directly allow the adversary to probe wires within the implementation And in this case what what we can hope at best is to have any set of D minus probe independent of the secret and This means we have a quite large variety of model Ranging from the noise leakage model where we have a kind of physical and quantitative view of the security and probing security which is abstract and qualitative and What's nice and very interesting is that we have connections between these models and in particular. There's a very important result by Duke Jambovsky and first at your crypt four years ago Which showed that if you have probing security and that on the top of it You can guarantee that your leakage samples have some kind of independence condition and are sufficiently noisy Then this implies noisy leakage security And this is nice because it means when you want to reason about masking implementation You can start reasoning in this abstract model and you will actually have consequences in the real world So that that's all for masking and and then the next step or what we are really interested in in this paper is What can go wrong when we mask? And in particular when we do computation, so I will take the example of multiplication between two values a and b And then a first issue that can that can happen is that we have a lack of randomness which can break this independence condition This is easy to explain with an example again So if we want to multiply two shared secrets and let's say we play with three chairs We need to compute all these partial products. So a 1b1 a 1b2 and so on and Then we do a compression stage because we don't want to blow up the number of shares So for example c1 is the sum over the first line and then it's easy to see that if you probe just c1 This equals a1 times b1 plus b2 plus b3. Let's say we work in gf2 Then we have directly information on b because if c1 equals to 1 we know that both a1 and b have to be equal to 1 Which is a problem. So this breaks probing security The way we mitigate this in practice most of the time is by adding randomness or what we are going to call refreshing gadgets and This of course is a quite abstract problem. So this we can analyze in the probing model and Then the next problem we want or the next issue we want to look at is something called physical default So it's a quite general problem. I will be specific to one example here And again the problem is that we can break the independence condition due to that So let's take the example here on the right We have a function a combinatorial function f that is manipulating three shares x1 x2 and x3 And in this case in certain technologies or in fact in most technologies It happens that we don't compute instantaneously this combinatorial function So for example transient values or what we call glitches many times it can recombine the shares and as a result a Single leakage sample this li here is going to leak about all the shares at once or for example About the product of the shares So this is a physical problem that will be easily detected in this bounded moment model And the way we avoid it or we can avoid it in the literature is to add one more property and for example In a threshold implementation what was proposed is to use an uncompletedness property The idea is that we will share the function as well in such a way that no function is manipulating all the three shares So we can never leak completely the secrets And that's interesting because despite the problem is physical the property that we need to prevent it is quite abstract And that means we can also reason about this in this probing model Okay, so next I have to say a few words about security definitions and composability or scalability So what we want to do is to guarantee some security level for masking the first thing that we can do in the probing model is to have Q probing security and In this case as I said already We need that any Q tuple of shares in the implementation or in the protected circuit is independent of any sensitive variable So that's a minimum requirement The problem is if you know increase the size of your circuit Or if you increase the number of shares that that you would like to have in the implementation because you want to increase security Then testing probing security increases very fast Because essentially you have many many tuples that you have to try and and at some point it becomes impossible to test a full implementation So in order to mitigate that Different peoples and I will use the notations of Bart and co-authors at CCS two years two years ago introduced stronger security definitions or so stronger security notions for masking Which allows some kind of composability and the idea essentially is that we can now just look at the top part of the figure so the f1 function we will split the number of shares or the number of probes that the Adversary is using in two parts first you one which are on internal probes then q2 that are on output probes and We can say that a circuit is for example non-interference If any set of q1 plus q2 probes can be simulated with at most q1 plus q2 shares of each input and By simulated or by being simulatable what I mean is that if you take the distribution of the input shares and the probes This is supposed to be hard to distinguish from the distribution of the input shares and the simulation So that that's interesting even more relevant for what I'm going to discuss There's the notion of strong non-interference and in this case It's essentially the same except that we need to simulate Any set of q1 plus q2 probes with only q1 shares of each input And that gives you the flavor or the intuition that we have some kind of composability because what this definition Definition requires is that the simulation that you have to to build to the simulator that you have to build is Independent of the number of output wires that the adversary is observing So that creates a level of independence between the inputs and the outputs and that means if we satisfy this Definition for the top gadget we can combine it with the bottom gadget and there should be no problems with randomness Okay, so that's that's all for the background and now I can Define the problem that we wanted to tackle if I Simplify a little bit or quite a bit I would say on the one hand at this stage we had in the literature composable masking schemes That's most of the time in your physical defaults such as glitches and on the other hand We had threshold implementations or in general hardware oriented masking schemes They mitigate glitches But they were only proven uniform and uniformity is a property that's in nature is quite similar to probing security So the problem here is like with probing security that testing scales badly And What we wanted to do is essentially to design and prove masked implementations that are jointly robust again glitches and composable so In order to do that we had to refine the model and the security definitions a little bit So what we did and it's quite natural extensions I would say is to consider glitch extended probes and Here with the example the idea is that if you probe any value or in any output of a combinatorial circuit You will give the adversary all the input probes So for example here the probe P1 would give the adversary the values a b and c and There's an important technical remark which is despite we have these glitch extended probes We also need non extended probes on the the registers values right because we also have in the circuits memory elements, so registers And if if the adversary probes this one there will be no extension and since these two things are In the in the circuit they will be needed for the simulation too Based on that we can define a gadget as being glitch robust QS&I Quite naturally as well if it's QS&I in this glitch extended probing model And what's what's nice is that directly from this definition We can find some some intuitions that are well known in the hardware masking literature. So the first one is If you want to have robust gadgets against glitches We need essentially to minimize the shares fan in and for example if we take this example and the tree inputs were actually three shares That would be a very bad idea because a single probe would give you the three shares so this is typically something to avoid and Maybe something a bit less known is because more related to SNI This strongly suggests that if we want to guarantee this SNI security notion We will need that every output is stored in a register And if you remember the definition of SNI, this is because in SNI security You need the simulation to be independent of the number of wires that the adversary observes as outputs But if these outputs are extended it's going to be very difficult to satisfy and I will give an example of that Okay, so Yeah, there's many things that we can do with with this type of modeling What we did in the paper is a first step which was trying to prove an algorithm that would be Glitch robust and QSNI and Since we focus on hardware implementation. We were interested in circuits with a limited latency. So we looked at this Circuit which is the ISW multiplication in two cycles So it's very natural way to implement it. We have all the partial products on the right We have random values we saw that together and this is the partial products or the multiply and refresh stage What's very important is these registers in the middle. So that's an example with three shares We really need to store all these nine refreshed partial products into nine different registers And then in a second cycle we can do the compression step Yeah, that's it. So in this case what the adversary can do is Observe 12 glitch extended probes so he can observe any of the nine Uijs here just before they are stored in the register. So probing the the combinatorial logic He can do exactly the same with the the CI values So probing the wires here and finally he can probe the three stable output wires Which are called C0, C1 and sorry C1, C2, C3 in this case And in order to prove that this is to SNI what we need to do is to describe Simulator that's using only Q1 shares per input So the proof is a bit tedious I will just give two examples of simulation to Try convincing you that this is feasible and of course the interesting examples are the examples with these extended probes So what we can do is an example with two extended probes one is on this U12 value So just before the register and then did give these give the three inputs to the adversary So A1, B2 and R12 and For example, you can put another probe here That's also extended on the the outputs here one before it's in the register and this gives the three Values U11, U21 and U31 that are in blue And so these are two internal probes, right? So if we want to prove that this is to SNI we need to simulate with two shares per input This can be done as follows. So for example A1 and B2 for this We can use the first share of A and B because we have two shares a load For R12 it's random and untouched so we can assign a random value For U11 it essentially depends on A1, B1 it's written here So we can use a second share of B because we have it available U21 we use a second share of A and finally U31 It's protected by R13 which is a random value and it's untouched so we can also assign to random value So that's that's feasible for this example one thing that's maybe nice to look at is what happens if The C1 probes becomes an output probe and not an extended one So in this case the beginning doesn't change so we have a 1, B2, R12 and C1 is now non-extended So there's no extension of the probe and since this becomes an output probe We need to simulate with one share per input This is also feasible the beginning of the simulation is exactly the same C1 we can assign it to a random value because there's this bit R13 and Most interestingly what it shows is that simulation with one share per input would not be possible With an extended probe on C1 because if it was extended we would need a second share of A or B to do the simulation And in this case with only one extended probe or only one internal probe we need to simulate with one share per input So that's that's pretty much it based on that I will shortly explain what does it mean to be composable the idea is that once we have these similar these composable Multiplications we can take any implementation that we want we represent it as a combination of multiplications and additions or linear operations that would say every multiplication is going to be implemented as a qsnI multiplication with one input refreshed In an SNI manner or robust SNI manner of course and for all the linear operations We are going to perform their share by share and That was proposed in a paper by good as in Rivaan this year at your crypto It's a very simple way to compose and and then nothing can happen. We proved that recently And it allows you to build arbitrary circuits You can multiply dependent values and and you should not have any problem with glitches nor composition issues And of course what's very important is that this is a sufficient condition. It's not a necessary necessary one Right, so in order to have these very simple composition rules We ask a lot of randomness. We don't have the most optimized implementation But we can have something that scales at any order that we want Okay, so that leaves me time to conclude I would say the main contribution of Contributions of the paper are first this robust probing model Which allows analyzing formally and confirming the relevance of many design IDs in in this hardware masking literature I would like to insist that it's it's not only a theoretical concern despite it's using a bit of theory And for example, we show in a recent heat-print report that there are many higher order flows in Published designs so they are not very critical But they really show that despite the design IDs of these hardware masking schemes were quite good and most of the time correct at low Orders when you move to higher orders at some point Abstraction and then theories probably he needed to gain confidence and in answer to that We proposed first multiplication algorithm and implementation that we can prove robust against glitches and composable and this holds at any order And there's actually quite some other paper results in the paper I had no time to discuss so we'll just list them and we can discuss them as questions So there's something called glitch locality principle which shows that glitches do not do not go further than than the registers We describe actually a much more general model that doesn't only capture glitches But also transition-based linkages and couplings We also discuss what happens when when these different defaults can be combined together. How about does it get? We have an empirical validation for two-share and three-share designs and we have quite some results on threshold implementations Probably the most interesting ones is this discussion of pseudo composability Which shows or key which tries to explain why threshold implementations can succeed to Compose or nearly compose with very minimum randomness requirements That's it. Thank you Thank you All right So we have roughly a minute for questions and I'm really really curious who's gonna be the first one Who dares to raise the arm and get one of these microphones thrown at I? Have questions, but I have a microphone already you will be that's that's not funny. Ah, that's too close I Just throw it you can't talk with you. You are me. Okay. Yep. Yeah, that's what you see So in the robust in your robust Model probing model you assume that the adversary gets When you probe a variable it gets all the inputs Which are involved in this variable, right? Could that be a bit relaxed maybe depending on the expression of the variable? Or is it like tight in the sense that you could design a depending on the glitches Could occur each time that the adversary can get everything I Think it could be a bit relaxed, but probably it is risky. So we we find the paper to Two other papers one by Martin Lely one old paper by Fisher and Gamal who tried Sorry, strange noise who tried that to to have glitch invariant circuits And it seems that it's more or less. I mean this worst case that we consider here happens more or less all the time If you just do plain CMOS and then you can try to design other implementations Would be different Can we show that's for CMOS the the worst case happens most most of the time or all the time I think that's done in in this paper at space last year by Martin alien co-authors. Yeah Thank you More questions Okay, I have a quick question On your slide seven you showed the circuit with extended probes and normal probes. Yeah, and but my question is Why would anyone put a normal probe on C1 if I can just put an extended probe on the wire that enters C1 And that gives me more information. Yeah as an adversary I guess it doesn't make too much sense here, but in order to what it shows mostly is that When you want to prove SNI these output wires You can they are not counted as as the number of input shares that you can use to simulate So here we need to to simulate with only one share per input here We can simulate with two shares per input So we still need to show that there's a way to satisfy that and Essentially the only solution we found for that and I think this is tight is to put the output in a register So mostly this shows that the output should be stored in the registers if you want to compose and you have glitches Okay, thanks again. Thank you


Following the proposed nationwide ban on commercial motorcycles, popularly known as Okada, the governorship candidate of the People's Democratic Party in Oregon State, Olladi Kukpo Adebutu, is calling on the federal government to create a balance amongst all parties, as well as provide alternatives, such as tricycles for the operators. Adebutu notes that motorcycles play an integral role in community service. Speaking on his aspiration, the PDP governorship candidate says, with his experience, he will invite investors to the state to boost its economy and create more employment for the people. Law, like that, needs very, very deep thoughts and deep consultation, and for sure, to arrive at anything, you have to think about alternatives. I have often thought of this myself, that to go in that direction, we should not be made for alternatives such as tricycles. I have thought of that myself. Before you take motorcycles on the streets of Oregon State, you would have made a lot of provision and alternatives such as tricycles to make sure our people don't suffer, but definitely, most accepted funds, that in the security architecture, motorcycles being very, very big. Very big.


Ukrainian Special Forces fighters use drones to destable Russian electronic warfare. Soldiers of the Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Bakhmut, the Donetsk region, have disabled a means of electronic warfare of the Russian invaders. The command of the Special Operations Forces reported this on Facebook. The enemy is actively using electronic warfare means on the front line, but Ukrainian defenders know how to counteract them. For example, in Bakhmut, operators of the 8th Regiment of the Special Forces discovered an antenna used by the enemy as a directed energy electronic warfare device. They disabled it with the help of an attack drone. The statement said, As reported earlier, Special Forces of the Cyber Security Department of the Security Service of Ukraine showed how they destroyed five newest video surveillance systems and won Pol-21 electronic warfare system of the Russians using attack drones. Ukraine is on the march with a motley mix of weapons from 70 tonne Leopard 2 tanks to 2 pound mini drones. And while the war has been a brutal proving ground for a wide range of technology and tactics, arguably nothing has defined the Ukrainian conflict more than the ubiquity of drones.


How's it going everybody forced here ripping 2022 flawless baseball hobby A two box full case number five random team style check out the results right here And anytime of late in supports cards calm. Thanks for joining everybody and good luck. Let's get started here Tend to go on immaculate basketball to your random team style case number 21 And again if you're a youtube member check the community tab There's a coupon a one-use coupon code in there for you. Thank you youtube members If you'd like to become a member it's a dollar nine nine a month and uh The coupons you get you can save a lot more than that We don't really take we don't really profit off of that. You know what I mean? Just Have a community But you join by clicking the membership tab I don't have a win-loss Rainey johnson just objectively a better pitcher. I think there were a lot of great pitchers before instance All right guys first box here Yeah, he did beat up poor Robin Ventura That was awesome. They're gonna see everything So you think that me saying that no one rides on a topic pitchers of all time is is a bad Opinion uh patch card seph beer six of 20 rookie for the diamond backs Yo d-backs That's where I leave the conversation auto nick alan a's 10 of 10 RPA crazy logo patch there auto lopez blue jays 11 of 20 That's what i'm saying greg That's what I said greg. That's what I said now. We've got a won. Yep has rpa 10 of 15 for the cardinals chat's just been crazy the past couple days, man People all up in arms about certain things Nice. Yep has rpa great patch there Hey guys go go look up the numbers for yourself Got a patch auto 10 of 10 south frailic signature prime materials Brewer's there prospect patch auto Player worn should all be player worn some of the vets are uh game views Exactly carlson. Exactly. What's up bronx? Most expert in historian lists will back up that as well Get asleep on top of it. We got a fredwin red sox auto number five out of 20 Red Sox freddy lin mullin iron out a third base goat I mean defensively He's He's crazy, man Mato's great Trey turner patch auto eight of 10 Dodgers now Trey turner that's a nationals patch for sure It is game warren. So yeah, that'll be a nationals patch on the Dodgers card here Or dell stewart. That's what's up. Come on, man easy j You know, it's funny.   Oh, sorry mark. Sorry mark require Look at this thing Look at this thing. You got a clean relic Ali ruchman orials four of 14 Yep, love that there you go o's Is this player worn? I have to hold it this way. Hang on. I don't want to like tilt it Yeah, it's player worn player worn on the ali ruchman cleat relic There's the shoe is just not with joe jackson. It's with ali ruchman Oh my god We're so close you guys. You're so close We're so close Let's see best picture of all time pidgeon martinez one of one now. I have player worn. He probably put it on and then Yeah, I mean It's how they do it for the that's how they get so many jerseys for like products for like player worn These are 1650 a box right now joe schoen adley's card I think we I don't think they had cleats that looked like that In the era that uh, you know what I mean, though, uh showcase quad patch riley green tigers 17 to 20 That's why I was shoeless because they put all they cut all the shoes. I put them in cards. I think I judge spike. That's pretty cool Yeah, it's a cleat relic. It's a spike. We'll call a spike. I think it is called spikes anyway Nice riley green player worn quad patch tigers Does he is is riley green? I have rookie the year eligibility this year. Is he rookie this next season?  This is pretty cool tim reins and vladimir guerrero Dual patch card expos that goes to the nationals That's pretty fire right there Congrats on that one. Those are game worn tim reins and vlad guerrero three of three That's a really cool partial logo too. Got the re and montreal Are you go nationals? That's sick, dude Dual patch auto daniel lynch jackson koa royals 16 of 25 Would I tell you the value of each card I pull please? No Got rpa nationals riley adams 20 of 20 A spot in this break. So random team style full case 28 spots two combos was 1 14 99 28 spots in a full case two combo spots That's rpa riley adams. We've got eight tigers jackson joe button ralic auto No, not yet guys. I'm studying though And another thing is if I did learn them this morning, it could be different by now. So Player worn button ralic auto jackson joe Tigers and prospect hits premium ink twins josh donaldson six of ten Yes, illegal we do We put two lesser teams together to Make a little more fair It's like they have fewer fewer heads or the value of the hits isn't isn't as good It's like combo teams here.  So was was was the what's the breaking equivalent? What would I have to do as a breaker for walk off world series homer status?  I don't a logo man, but like You call your shot at the same time. I have no idea A personal start. I mean that these are forest cards Oh, no, not a legal and shame at it now All angles right now, man all angles I see my guard up Diamond guarantee card here Mackenzie gore on the rookie canary diamond five of ten nationals on the mackenzie gore Man last hit is an rpa of wander franco two of 15 for the rays Tampa Bay rpa wander on the back two of 15 I'm not sure bleak Not sure There you go. That's gonna do it for the case everybody you're empty again We do appreciate it. We are on two more baseball up next


First, I say equality is a choice and unconscious bias is an excuse. If you say the word unconscious, you're conscious. Hello, and welcome to Top of Mind. We are here with Shelly Zollis, who is the CEO of the Female Pochette. We're here at the FQ Lounge, Home of Quality, Shelly High, and welcome to Top of Mind. Thank you for being here. Very exciting. What are the things that are most exciting for you, and then also then let's talk about what's a little bit challenging still? You know, I think what's the most exciting is getting all of us to work together. You know, we talk a lot about the power of collaboration, and there are so many companies doing the same thing separately in silos, which is why, in my opinion, we've been going backwards. And the best way to go forward faster, further is together. And if we could share the good, bad, and the ugly, things that work, things that don't work, if we can curate case studies, tools, experts, measurement, that's how we all can impact change. And most importantly, one of the things about equality is we are all uniting now for equality. There's still some challenges in, you know, we've been talking about this for how many years now, and yet you said we're still going backwards. Why do you think that is? Well, we have clear facts. I mean, you look at the McKinsey data and it says it'll take over 202 years to close the wage gap, and over 117 years to realize gender parity in the C-suite. When we look at equality in the world, the World Economic Forum measures 144 countries on gender equality. The United States, three years ago, was 28, last year, 51. So we can keep talking about what we want to do. We can keep saying we're trying. We can keep saying we're shrinking the wage gap, but trying isn't doing. And shrinking isn't closing. And so when you look at equality in the workplace, policies can truly help attract and retain the best talent and help us get women to move past the messy middle or what, you know, middle management, what we call the messy middle. Let's call it low-hanging fruit, where if somebody is a leader or even an individual and they say, I want to just make a difference. I want to do something different today that I didn't do yesterday that's going to help in this cause. What would you suggest? First, I say equality is a choice, and unconscious bias is an excuse. If you say the word unconscious, you're conscious.  You have had phenomenal career success yourself. You were incredibly passionate about all the things that you were doing, especially in the market research space, and then decided at one point in your career, nope, I'm going to do something different and I'm going to focus on equality. Tell me about that pivotal point in your life and a career tip you would give to somebody else. I always follow my heart, and I call them heartbeat moments, and starting the female potion four years ago was not intentional, and it was not in a textbook. It was something that happened by accident, and I always say we went from a moment to a movement, and I was the only female CEO in the top 25 my whole career. I knew I thought differently than the men in business. I was always told that I was wrong or it wasn't the right time, and you wake up one day and you kind of say, but why? That's what I want to do, and so I became the chief troublemaker and decided to break all the rules that made no sense, and just to follow my heart, and my heart, you can always think with your head, those cognitive aha moments, they're rational decisions. You rationalize a decision. Your heartbeat, you have to follow it, boop, boop, boop, boop, boop, wherever it's going to go, you're going to go there, and it's really been purpose and passion that has propelled me to keep going, and bringing all of us together. This is not my lounge or yours, it's ours collectively, because while it is important to bring women supporting women together, very important, and we've created a community of over 20,000 women globally in business, now it's time to start activating the solutions for change inside of corporations, rewriting the rules that were written a hundred years ago by men for men. Time to break them, write the new ones so that all of us can thrive and bring our best selves to the table. Yeah, wow, okay, so if you're not inspired now, I don't know what will inspire you, but you've inspired me, and as always you've always inspired me, so thank you so much for joining us today, I appreciate you being here. Thank you for leading the pack, Nadine. Thank you so much for joining us today on Top of Mind.


All right, my name is Jordan Newport. I live in Lake Charles, Louisiana, which is about About a half hour from the Gulf of Mexico about a half hour from Texas and I work at the Calcutta Sheriff's Prison for the Sheriff's Office down here.  I'm better at meeting people particularly girls Well, I was a little skeptical at first just because it seemed You seem like it doesn't make a big change in me and that it promised a lot so And I was just jumping into meeting a whole bunch of new people that I never met before and it turned out that I learned a lot of great things was able to Learn a lot about myself and how I can change my personality too and the way that I react to Having effects in the way that I meet people I Had a blast man LA was awesome There there's a lot of great people to learn from a lot of cool guys to chill with and I had some fun Now out on the strip and meeting some nice young ladies. I Say the thing I probably got best at a program where the video Trials of what when we get to watch ourselves on what we and how we actually interact with someone like hot girls and What we look like when we're doing that and how we can correct on ourselves. I think that introduced a lot that and I Live in a small town myself going out to LA and I ever see those people again. So When I mess something up, I don't have to worry about it Coming back on me or having an awkward interaction later so probably those two things of video trials and Getting in a practice in a different area I use what I've learned on a daily basis. So working a tool of our shift in a in a jail And it helps to make better interactions with The inmates so I can feel a bit safer building a better connection with them and them having they can have a little more Respect for me as an officer. So I feel safer there and it makes that job a little easier and also with my co-workers Those are people that we spend about half our life with so I feel like I'm making a more of a friendlier connection with them and Like that's gonna make work easier as well and also outside of work at home I'm building more meaningful relationships with my friends and other people will be using that like the following technique that we learned in there about bringing in the right people and You know and finding out who is in my life that's bringing me down So I'm kind of working there with my whole social circle. I'm just maybe a month out So I'm still working on that, but that's that's going well Well, somebody just decided really thought that they didn't need something like this. I would tell them that You know, I was there at one point, but It's with that without a doubt that you're gonna come out better and it's it's extremely motivating to go through this and Yeah, you at least have to motivate yourself to get there to make a change like you Staying in comfort zone. You never get any better and You have to really be honest with yourself to ask you to to know You're exactly where you want to be it in your life. I think the AOC is Absolutely life-changing


Here are seven things that only a fake friend would do.  A true friend would never jeopardize your friendship or humiliate you like that by stabbing you in the back. They throw you under the bus. They don't vouch for you. They don't take your side. And they certainly don't stick up for you when someone is hurting or belittling you. They constantly cancel on you. You've had to learn the hard way over and over again that you can't ever count on them to come through for you.  Even if you go out of your way to invite them or tell them about your plans, they just don't do the same for you. They call just to ask you for favors. Fake friends think it's okay to ghost you for weeks only to pop up and ask you for a favor. They give you backhanded compliments. It shows that they are jealous of you and that they judge you more harshly than they want to let on. They only talk about themselves. The communication between you two feels largely one-sided because fake friends are self-absorbed and inconsiderate. They don't care much about you or what you have to say.


These kids you throw something at them and they're like well, yeah, let's try it Let's let's you know keep working until we're we're the best at it, you know, so It's been a great experience. It's been great. The audience has a great time when whenever they come We've had Consistent consistent standing ovation. So by the end you will be clapping and dancing along with the cast Show me show me show what you've got come on come on come on come on ready and not