Refinement Orders for Quantitative Information Flow and Differential Privacy

Quantitative Information Flow (QIF) and Differential Privacy (DP) are both concerned with the protection of sensitive information, but they are rather different approaches. In particular, QIF considers the expected probability of a successful attack, while DP (in both its standard and local versions) is a max-case measure, in the sense that it is compromised by the existence of a possible attack, regardless of its probability. Comparing systems is a fundamental task in these areas: one wishes to guarantee that replacing a system A by a system B is a safe operation that is the privacy of B is no worse than that of A. In QIF, a refinement order provides strong such guarantees, while, in DP, mechanisms are typically compared w.r.t. the privacy parameter e in their definition. In this paper, we explore a variety of refinement orders, inspired by the one of QIF, providing precise guarantees for max-case leakage. We study simple structural ways of characterising them, the relation between them, efficient methods for verifying them and their lattice properties. Moreover, we apply these orders in the task of comparing DP mechanisms, raising the question of whether the order based on e provides strong privacy guarantees. We show that, while it is often the case for mechanisms of the same “family” (geometric, randomised response, etc.), it rarely holds across different families.

[1]  Aaron Roth,et al.  Selling privacy at auction , 2010, EC '11.

[2]  Pasquale Malacaria,et al.  Algebraic foundations for quantitative information flow , 2014, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.

[3]  Mário S. Alvim,et al.  Measuring Information Leakage Using Generalized Gain Functions , 2012, 2012 IEEE 25th Computer Security Foundations Symposium.

[4]  Catuscia Palamidessi,et al.  Geo-indistinguishability: differential privacy for location-based systems , 2012, CCS.

[5]  David Clark,et al.  Quantitative Information Flow, Relations and Polymorphic Types , 2005, J. Log. Comput..

[6]  Thomas M. Liebling,et al.  Extended convex hull , 2001, Comput. Geom..

[7]  Ashwin Machanavajjhala,et al.  Pufferfish , 2014, ACM Trans. Database Syst..

[8]  David A. Basin,et al.  An information-theoretic model for adaptive side-channel attacks , 2007, CCS '07.

[9]  Catuscia Palamidessi,et al.  Comparing Systems: Max-Case Refinement Orders and Application to Differential Privacy , 2019, 2019 IEEE 32nd Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF).

[10]  Mário S. Alvim,et al.  Axioms for Information Leakage , 2016, 2016 IEEE 29th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF).

[11]  Hirotoshi Yasuoka,et al.  Quantitative Information Flow - Verification Hardness and Possibilities , 2010, 2010 23rd IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium.

[12]  Shiva Prasad Kasiviswanathan,et al.  On the 'Semantics' of Differential Privacy: A Bayesian Formulation , 2008, J. Priv. Confidentiality.

[13]  Andreas Haeberlen,et al.  Differential Privacy: An Economic Method for Choosing Epsilon , 2014, 2014 IEEE 27th Computer Security Foundations Symposium.

[14]  Hans Raj Tiwary On the Hardness of Computing Intersection, Union and Minkowski Sum of Polytopes , 2008, Discret. Comput. Geom..