3 ms·

where does this factor "1000x" come from? I have doubts.

• raggi 2mo ago
  https://www.jeremykun.com/2024/05/04/fhe-overview/#the-highest-level-view https://www.jeremykun.com/2024/05/04/fhe-overview/#the-highe... > Fourth, there is a bandwidth concern. FHE encryption schemes generally increase the size of the data being encrypted, and the user must send the server a special set of encryption keys to enable the computation, which are relatively large as well. The special keys need only be generated and sent once and can be used for all future computations, but they can easily be gigabytes in size. In one example FHE scheme with lightweight keys, a ciphertext encrypting a single integer is on the order of 25 KB, and the special keys are about 0.5 GB. In others, 16,000 or more integers are packed into a single ciphertext of similar size, but the keys can be 10s of GiBs.
  • pamcake 2mo ago
    I'm still a bit skeptic - 1000x sounds overly optimistic and only looking at encryption transformation without any operation is already at least 10000x with scheme mentioned in that quote. Sibling comment estimates lower bounds of current research at minimun 10^6 overhead which sounds more realistic.
• pamcake 2mo ago
  Most likely from above in thread. There is no reason to believe it should be lower than that - or even that low. Or do you have access to research claiming such achievements?
  • froh 2mo ago
    maybe I simply don't know how this works ;-) I was very much surprised and asked. give me demerits for the way of asking. but the question stays: how come an encryption scheme inflates data by this order of magnitude and needs GB sized keys? where can I learn about this? not the nutty gritty details proofs and all but an overview. assume I did my CS masters in the 1990s and worked as SW eng ever since. NVM, I asked Gemini https://share.google/aimode/pqZO1VF3cGTeetamq https://share.google/aimode/pqZO1VF3cGTeetamq
• meindnoch 2mo ago
  Yeah, I have doubts too. It's much higher than that.