Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 136 references

Recipe: Hardware-Accelerated Replication Protocols

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that any crash-fault-tolerant replication protocol can be turned into a Byzantine-fault-tolerant one without changing its core logic, by adding two trusted-hardware-backed properties: non-equivocation and transferable…

desk verdict Strong systems contribution and honest evaluation, but the non-equivocation layer depends on an SGX monotonic counter the paper itself says doesn't exist, so the 2f+1 transformation claim needs a fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09251 v1 pith:MOPAG77D submitted 2025-02-13 cs.CR

Dimitra Giantsidi , Emmanouil Giortamis , Julian Pritzi , Maurice Bailleu , Manos Kapritsos , Pramod Bhatotia This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords replicationprotocolsByzantinefaulttolerancecrashtrustedexecutionenvironmentsnon-equivocationtransferableauthenticationRDMAformalverification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Recipe is a proposed transformation layer that takes ordinary crash-fault-tolerant (CFT) replication protocols, which assume replicas can only fail by stopping, and makes them safe against Byzantine behavior—replicas that lie, equivocate, or are controlled by an adversary—in untrusted cloud infrastructure. The paper's central claim is that two properties, non-equivocation (a replica cannot send conflicting messages for the same operation) and transferable authentication (any forwarded message can be verified back to its original sender), together are sufficient to transform any CFT protocol into a Byzantine-fault-tolerant (BFT) one while keeping 2f+1 replicas rather than the 3f+1 that classical BFT requires. If true, this would let developers keep their existing CFT codebases and simply run them inside trusted execution environments (TEEs) with a hardware-accelerated network, gaining Byzantine resilience and confidentiality without redesigning the protocol. The paper demonstrates the transformation on four CFT protocols and reports up to 24x higher throughput than a standard BFT implementation.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a trusted message layer built from two TEE primitives: shield_request and verify_request. shield_request runs inside the sender's TEE, increments a monotonic counter for the communication channel, and produces a signed message containing the request, view, and sequence number; verify_request checks the signature and the sequence number at the receiver, rejecting replays and out-of-order duplicates. On top of this, a remote attestation phase distributes cryptographic keys only to attested replicas, establishing transferable authentication, while the trusted counters establish non-equivocation. The Recipe protocol organizes these into five phases—transferable authentication, initialization, normal operation, view change, and recovery—with a trusted lease mechanism for failure detection.

What would settle it

Restore a snapshot of a replica's TEE taken just before it broadcasts a message, then continue the protocol, and have the replica send another message that reuses the same sequence counter; if correct replicas accept the second message as fresh, the non-equivocation guarantee is broken.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Recipe's core claim is that the two properties a cited theoretical result identifies as necessary for moving from 3f+1 to 2f+1 replicas in Byzantine settings—non-equivocation and transferable authentication—are enough to transform any CFT protocol, and that they can be provided efficiently by wrapping the protocol in attested trusted execution environments. The paper implements this wrapping with a message layer that signs every message inside the TEE and attaches a per-channel, monotonically increasing counter, so a faulty replica cannot send conflicting messages for the same operation and any message can be verified back to its original sender even after forwarding. The unmodified CFT protocol runs inside this distributed trusted computing base, and the paper reports the transformation on four protocols—Raft, Chain Replication, ABD, and AllConcur—with formal verification of safety, integrity, and freshness, and measured throughput up to 24x that of PBFT and 5.9x that of a state-of-the-art TEE-optimized BFT protocol.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the TEE prevents the host from resetting or rolling back the per-replica monotonic message counter, so a Byzantine replica cannot send two different messages with the same sequence number.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing CFT code can be deployed in untrusted clouds with API-level changes only, keeping the original protocol's states, message rounds, and complexity intact.
  • Byzantine resilience becomes possible with 2f+1 replicas, which is f fewer replicas than classical BFT protocols require for the same resilience.
  • The transformed protocols achieve up to 24x higher throughput than the PBFT baseline and 5.9x over a state-of-the-art BFT baseline in the paper's evaluation.
  • Confidentiality can be layered in at about a 2x throughput cost relative to the non-confidential mode, while still outperforming the BFT baselines.
  • The formal verification of safety, integrity, and freshness covers the transformation for any number of replicas and protocol executions under the symbolic model assumptions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the 'any CFT protocol' claim would be to apply the same library to other unmodified CFT protocols, such as ZAB, CRAQ, or Hermes, and check that no protocol-specific security logic is needed; the paper only demonstrates four.
  • Because the entire security argument concentrates on the monotonicity of the TEE counter, any TEE that cannot prevent rollback would need an external anti-replay mechanism, shifting the practical deployment question from protocol design to hardware guarantees.
  • The reported throughput numbers measure normal-operation performance; a live Byzantine adversary that attacks the view-change or recovery path might impose different costs, and the paper's liveness argument would be the relevant thing to stress in that setting.
  • Recipe's separation of a trusted message layer from protocol logic suggests that the same two primitives could also be used to retrofit other high-cost BFT operations, such as view change or reconfiguration, without redesigning them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents Recipe, a hardware-assisted transformation framework that aims to convert any crash-fault-tolerant (CFT) replication protocol into a Byzantine-fault-tolerant (BFT) one using trusted execution environments (TEEs) and high-performance networking. The core mechanism is to provide two properties—transferable authentication and non-equivocation—through TEE-signed messages and per-channel monotonic counters. The manuscript specifies five protocol phases (attestation, initialization, normal operation, view change, recovery), claims formal verification in Tamarin, and evaluates transformed versions of Raft, Chain Replication, ABD, and AllConcur on an SGX cluster, reporting up to 24x throughput over PBFT and 5.9x over Damysus with 2f+1 replicas and optional confidentiality.

Significance. If the central transformation claim were established, Recipe would be a valuable contribution: it would let practitioners reuse mature CFT implementations in untrusted clouds at 2f+1 replication, with strong empirical evidence of performance gains. The paper's strengths include the explicit protocol taxonomy, transformation of four structurally different protocols, a serious attempt at formal verification, and a realistic performance study on real SGX hardware with direct I/O. The significance is, however, conditional on two load-bearing points: the non-equivocation mechanism must be realizable on the claimed TEE, and the 'any CFT protocol' generality must be substantiated beyond four examples and a cited theorem about reliable broadcast.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Algorithm 1] The non-equivocation property rests on a 'trusted monotonically increasing message counter' cnt_cq that is incremented inside the TEE and never resets. The manuscript itself cites the absence of SGX monotonic counters and of anti-rollback for sealed data (refs [22,25]) and acknowledges in §3.5 that TEEs do not provide trusted timers. Under the stated threat model of §3.1, the host is Byzantine and only the TEE is trusted; a Byzantine host can therefore restart the enclave to reset a volatile counter, or restore an old sealed image to roll back a persisted counter. Once the counter is reset, the same (view, cq, cnt_cq) tuple can be assigned to two different messages sent to two different correct replicas, both of which will accept them as fresh, directly violating Property 2 and invalidating the 2f+1 safety bound that the paper derives from non-equivocation. The paper needs to specify a concrete non-resettable counter implementation on the claimed hardware, or formally restrict the threat model, before the central transformation claim is supported.
  2. [Abstract and §1.2] The paper claims that transferable authentication and non-equivocation are 'the lower bound for transforming any CFT protocol for Byzantine settings, guaranteeing that a transformation of (any) CFT protocol to a BFT one always exists.' The only cited support is Clement et al.'s result on reliable broadcast and the 3f+1-to-2f+1 reduction. The manuscript does not prove that every CFT protocol in the taxonomy of Table 1—including per-key ordering, leaderless total-order, and read-heavy protocols—can be reduced to the setting of that theorem, nor does it identify an invariant that must be preserved. The four implemented protocols are evidence of generality but not a proof of the universal claim. Please provide the reduction or scale the claim back to the protocol classes that are actually proved and evaluated.
  3. [§4.3 and §1.6] The formal verification artifact is not part of the preprint. The text states that the Tamarin model and proofs 'will be provided after the double-blind review,' and the repository link in the references points to a project that is not shown to contain the model. Since the abstract and contributions present Tamarin verification as a main correctness argument, the reader cannot check whether the model includes adversarial enclave rollback, counter reset, or the actual CFT transformation steps. The artifact (or a standalone proof) must be made available, and if the model abstracts the counter as a perfect fact, this abstraction must be disclosed and justified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 5] The function name 'singed_hash' appears to be a typo for 'signed_hash'.
  2. [§3.5] The sentence saying that SGX 'does not secure timers' cites references [22,25], which are about the absence of SGX monotonic counters and anti-rollback; the relationship between the timer limitation and the counter limitation should be clarified.
  3. [§B.3] The Damysus comparison is made against Damysus running in SGX simulation mode; calling this an 'upper bound' is not a substitute for a same-hardware baseline, and the simulation condition should be stated prominently in the evaluation overview.
  4. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is dense, and the numbered steps A.1 through C.9 are hard to follow in the caption; several labels are not referenced in the body text, so the figure should be simplified or the caption expanded.
  5. [§4.3, property (3)] The formula for the freshness property uses the same symbol m_j^x twice under two universal quantifiers; distinct names should be used for the two acceptance events to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: Recipe's central transformation claim rests on an external lower-bound theorem and stated TEE trust assumptions, not on fitting or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that non-equivocation and transferable authentication suffice to transform any CFT protocol into a BFT protocol in a TEE-assisted model. The sufficiency/necessity basis is explicitly attributed to Clement et al. (PODC 2012), an external result not derived in this paper and not authored by the present authors. The two properties are then realized via stated hardware assumptions: Section 3.1 assumes TEEs can only crash-fail, and Section 4.1 builds non-equivocation on a trusted monotonic counter inside that TEE. This is an explicit trust-model input, not a conclusion derived from the protocol; it may be a soundness limitation on SGX hardware (as the paper itself notes at Section 3.5 and refs [22,25] regarding missing monotonic counters and timers), but it is not a circular derivation. The Tamarin verification (Section 4.3) checks safety/integrity/freshness against the modeled rules under Dolev-Yao and perfect-cryptography assumptions; the properties verified are model-relative and are not fitted to data, so they are not 'predictions' that reduce to their inputs. The only notable self-citation is the trusted-lease mechanism [130] used for failure detection and view change (Sections 1.4, 3.5, A.3); T-lease is a separately published, implemented component and is not used to define the target transformation property, so it does not make the argument circular. The preprint's missing artifact link and the acknowledged absence of SGX monotonic counters are completeness/correctness concerns, not evidence of circular reasoning. No step was found where a parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then reported as a prediction, or where a uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work is imported to force a choice.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Recipe introduces no new free parameters fitted to data. Its central claim rests on domain assumptions about TEE trustworthiness, partial synchrony, perfect cryptography, and the Clement et al. lower-bound theorem. The most fragile assumption is the unstated one that an SGX in-enclave counter provides monotonicity despite the platform lacking hardware monotonic counters.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption TEEs (Intel SGX enclaves) can only fail by crashing; the host, OS, hypervisor, and network can be Byzantine.
    Stated in Section 3.1 System Model; the whole transformation depends on the TEE being a hard trust root that cannot misbehave.
  • domain assumption Clement et al. PODC 2012 theorem: non-equivocation and transferable authentication are sufficient to transform CFT to BFT with 2f+1 replicas.
    Invoked in Sections 1.2 and 4.1 as the theoretical foundation for the any-CFT-protocol claim; the paper does not re-derive the theorem.
  • domain assumption Partial synchrony: messages after GST arrive within Delta, and the system knows Delta but not GST.
    Section 3.1 communication model; needed for liveness of view changes and the trusted lease mechanism.
  • domain assumption Dolev-Yao attacker with perfect cryptography; hash collision resistance and unforgeable signatures.
    Section 3.1 cryptographic model and Section 4.3; needed for the Tamarin verification.
  • ad hoc to paper The in-enclave monotonic counter cannot be rolled back or reset by a Byzantine host.
    Section 4.1 relies on a trusted monotonically increasing counter for non-equivocation; Intel SGX does not expose monotonic counters (refs [22,25]), and the paper gives no anti-rollback mechanism.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recipe: Hardware-Accelerated Replication Protocols." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MOPAG77D

@misc{pith2026250209251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recipe: Hardware-Accelerated Replication Protocols},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MOPAG77D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09251}
}
read the original abstract

Replication protocols are essential for distributed systems, ensuring consistency, reliability, and fault tolerance. Traditional Crash Fault Tolerant (CFT) protocols, which assume a fail-stop model, are inadequate for untrusted cloud environments where adversaries or software bugs can cause Byzantine behavior. Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) protocols address these threats but face significant performance, resource overheads, and scalability challenges. This paper introduces Recipe, a novel approach to transforming CFT protocols to operate securely in Byzantine settings without altering their core logic. Recipe rethinks CFT protocols in the context of modern cloud hardware, including many-core servers, RDMA-capable networks, and Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs). The approach leverages these advancements to enhance the security and performance of replication protocols in untrusted cloud environments. Recipe implements two practical security mechanisms, i.e., transferable authentication and non-equivocation, using TEEs and high-performance networking stacks (e.g., RDMA, DPDK). These mechanisms ensure that any CFT protocol can be transformed into a BFT protocol, guaranteeing authenticity and non-equivocation. The Recipe protocol consists of five key components: transferable authentication, initialization, normal operation, view change, and recovery phases. The protocol's correctness is formally verified using Tamarin, a symbolic model checker. Recipe is implemented as a library and applied to transform four widely used CFT protocols-Raft, Chain Replication, ABD, and AllConcur-into Byzantine settings. The results demonstrate up to 24x higher throughput compared to PBFT and 5.9x better performance than state-of-the-art BFT protocols. Additionally, Recipe requires fewer replicas and offers confidentiality, a feature absent in traditional BFT protocols.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of the Recipe version of Raft (R-Raft) execution. where the transformed CFT protocol executes clients’ requests (red box). Prior to the protocol ex￾ecution, nodes pass through a transferable authentication phase (§ 3.6) to prove that the TEEs and loaded code are genuine, followed by initialization and normal operation. 3.4 Normal Operation We first explain the initialization and the normal execution phases, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Recipe’s system architecture. Further, Recipe builds a direct I/O layer comprised of a networking library for low-latency commu￾nication between nodes (§A.3). The library bypasses the kernel stack for performance and shields the communication to guarantee non-equivocation and transferable authentication against Byzantine actors in the network. Recipe guarantees both properties by layering the non-equivocation and au… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance of Recipe for different value sizes. B.2 Recipe in Action for CFT Protocols Experimental setup. We run our experiments in a cluster of three SGX machines (NixOS, 5.15.43) with CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-9900K each with 8 cores (16 HT), NIC: Intel Corporation Ethernet Controller XL710 for 40GbE QSFP+ (rev 02) and a 40GbE QSFP+ network switch. For the evaluation, we use the YCSB benchmark [27] (configured w… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Speedup (left Table) and throughput (right Figure) of four protocols with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Throughput of Recipe (w/ confidentiality) compared with PBFT (BFT-Smart). reads to the leader. Some protocols [117] allow followers to read locally. This is achieved in two ways: they might forego linearizability and downgrade to sequential consistency [33] (with the p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance overheads of transformation and TEEs and performance analysis of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

136 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://mark43.com/resources/blog/3-pillars-of- data-security-confidentiality-availability-integrity/

    3 Pillars of Data Security: Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability. https://mark43.com/resources/blog/3-pillars-of- data-security-confidentiality-availability-integrity/. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    https://www.alibabacloud.com/product/baas

    Alibaba cloud: Blockchain as a service. https://www.alibabacloud.com/product/baas. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    https://www.arm.com/why-arm/architecture/security-features/arm- confidential-compute-architecture

    Arm Confidential Compute Architecture. https://www.arm.com/why-arm/architecture/security-features/arm- confidential-compute-architecture. Last accessed: May 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    https://aws.amazon.com/blockchain/

    Blockchain on aws. https://aws.amazon.com/blockchain/. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    https://www.scylladb .com/users/case-study-ge-healthcare-takes-dynamodb-on-premises-with-scyllas-project-alternator/

    Case study: Ge healthcare takes dynamodb on-premises with scylladb’s ‘project alternator’. https://www.scylladb .com/users/case-study-ge-healthcare-takes-dynamodb-on-premises-with-scyllas-project-alternator/. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/hess-corporation/

    Hess corporation case study. https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/hess-corporation/. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/netflix- at-cockroachdb/

    The history of databases at netflix and how they use cockroachdb. https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/netflix- at-cockroachdb/. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    How are databases used in banking? https://globalbanks.com/how-are-databases-used-in-banking/. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

Show all 136 references
  1. [9]

    Last accessed: May 2021

    How big is rocksdb adoption? https://rocksdb.org/docs/support/faq.html. Last accessed: May 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    https://github.com/facebook/folly

    https://github.com/facebook/folly. https://github.com/facebook/folly. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric/tree/main/orderer#service-types

    Hyperledger fabric ordering service. https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric/tree/main/orderer#service-types. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    https://www.ibm.com/blockchain

    Ibm blockchain. https://www.ibm.com/blockchain. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Attestation Service for Intel Software GuardExtensions (Intel SGX): API Documentation

    Intel Corporation. Attestation Service for Intel Software GuardExtensions (Intel SGX): API Documentation. https://api.trustedservices.intel.com/documents/sgx-attestation-api-spec.pdf. Last accessed: Jan, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    http://dpdk.org/

    Intel DPDK. http://dpdk.org/. Last accessed: Jan, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/intel-trust-domain- extensions.html

    Intel tdx. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/intel-trust-domain- extensions.html. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Last accessed: Aug, 2020

    iPerf - The ultimate speed test tool for TCP, UDP nd SCTP. Last accessed: Aug, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    https://openssl.org

    OpenSSL library. https://openssl.org. Last accessed: Jan, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    https://www.oracle.com/blockchain/

    Oracle blockchain. https://www.oracle.com/blockchain/. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    Ordering service implementations. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    https://github.com/dgiantsidi/Recipe-protocols.git

    Recipe software artifact. https://github.com/dgiantsidi/Recipe-protocols.git. Last accessed: May, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    https://redis.io/

    Redis. https://redis.io/

  14. [22]

    https://github.com/intel/linux-sgx/issues/424

    SGX Monotonic Counters not supported. https://github.com/intel/linux-sgx/issues/424. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/sybil-attacks-explained

    Sybil attacks explained. https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/sybil-attacks-explained. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    https://github.com/tamarin-prover/tamarin-prover/blob/develop/examples/class ic/TLS_Handshake.spthy

    Tamarin tls handshake proof. https://github.com/tamarin-prover/tamarin-prover/blob/develop/examples/class ic/TLS_Handshake.spthy. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: February 2025. Recipe: Hardware-Accelerated Replication Protocols 25

    2025

  17. [25]

    https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk /en/support/articles/000057968/software/intel-security-products.html

    Unable to find Alternatives to Monotonic Counter Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) in Intel Software Guard Extensions (Intel SGX) for Linux to Prevent Sealing Rollback Attacks. https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk /en/support/articles/000057968/software/intel-securit...

    2025

  18. [26]

    https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/solutions/web3

    Web3. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/solutions/web3. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    https://github.com/brianfrankcooper/YCSB

    YCSB. https://github.com/brianfrankcooper/YCSB. Last accessed: Jan, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Hot-stuff the linear, optimal-resilience, one-message bft devil.CoRR, abs/1803.05069, 2018

    Ittai Abraham, Guy Gueta, and Dahlia Malkhi. Hot-stuff the linear, optimal-resilience, one-message bft devil.CoRR, abs/1803.05069, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Revisiting fast practical byzantine fault tolerance, 2017

    Ittai Abraham, Guy Gueta, Dahlia Malkhi, Lorenzo Alvisi, Rama Kotla, and Jean-Philippe Martin. Revisiting fast practical byzantine fault tolerance, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Alsberg and John D

    Peter A. Alsberg and John D. Day. A principle for resilient sharing of distributed resources. InProceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’76, page 562–570, Washington, DC, USA, 1976. IEEE Computer Society Press

    1976

  23. [31]

    AMD Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV)

    AMD. AMD Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV). https://developer.amd.com/sev/. Last accessed: Jan, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Hyperledger fabric: A distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains

    Elli Androulaki, Artem Barger, Vita Bortnikov, Christian Cachin, Konstantinos Christidis, Angelo De Caro, David Enyeart, Christopher Ferris, Gennady Laventman, Yacov Manevich, Srinivasan Muralidharan, Chet Murthy, Binh Nguyen, Manish Sethi, Gari Singh, Keith Smith, Alessandro ...

    2018

  25. [33]

    Hagit Attiya and Jennifer L. Welch. Sequential consistency versus linearizability. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. , 12(2):91–122, May 1994

    1994

  26. [34]

    The next 700 bft protocols

    Pierre-Louis Aublin, Rachid Guerraoui, Nikola Knežević, Vivien Quéma, and Marko Vukolić. The next 700 bft protocols. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 32(4), jan 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Rbft: Redundant byzantine fault tolerance

    Pierre-Louis Aublin, Sonia Ben Mokhtar, and Vivien Quéma. Rbft: Redundant byzantine fault tolerance. In2013 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pages 297–306, 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    Wei Bai, Shanim Sainul Abdeen, Ankit Agrawal, Krishan Kumar Attre, Paramvir Bahl, Ameya Bhagat, Gowri Bhaskara, Tanya Brokhman, Lei Cao, Ahmad Cheema, Rebecca Chow, Jeff Cohen, Mahmoud Elhaddad, Vivek Ette, Igal Figlin, Daniel Firestone, Mathew George, Ilya German, Lakhmeet Gh...

    2023

  29. [37]

    Avocado: A secure In-Memory distributed storage system

    Maurice Bailleu, Dimitra Giantsidi, Vasilis Gavrielatos, Do Le Quoc, Vijay Nagarajan, and Pramod Bhatotia. Avocado: A secure In-Memory distributed storage system. In2021 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 21), pages 65–79. USENIX Association, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    SPEICHER: Securing lsm-based key-value stores using shielded execution

    Maurice Bailleu, Jörg Thalheim, Pramod Bhatotia, Christof Fetzer, Michio Honda, and Kapil Vaswani. SPEICHER: Securing lsm-based key-value stores using shielded execution. In 17th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST), 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Trusteddb: a trusted hardware based database with privacy and data confidentiality

    Sumeet Bajaj and Radu Sion. Trusteddb: a trusted hardware based database with privacy and data confidentiality. In In Proceedings of the 2011 international conference on Management of data, pages 205–216. ACM, 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    Hybrids on steroids: Sgx-based high performance bft

    Johannes Behl, Tobias Distler, and Rüdiger Kapitza. Hybrids on steroids: Sgx-based high performance bft. EuroSys ’17, page 222–237, New York, NY, USA, 2017. Association for Computing Machinery

    2017

  33. [41]

    The latest gossip on BFT consensus.CoRR, abs/1807.04938, 2018

    Ethan Buchman, Jae Kwon, and Zarko Milosevic. The latest gossip on BFT consensus.CoRR, abs/1807.04938, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    The chubby lock service for loosely-coupled distributed systems

    Mike Burrows. The chubby lock service for loosely-coupled distributed systems. In 7th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Castro, P

    M. Castro, P. Druschel, A.-M. Kermarrec, and Antony Rowstron. Scribe: a large-scale and decentralized application-level multicast infrastructure. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 2002

    2002

  36. [44]

    Practical byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery.ACM Trans

    Miguel Castro and Barbara Liskov. Practical byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery.ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 2002

    2002

  37. [45]

    Hubert Chan, Rafael Pass, and Elaine Shi

    T-H. Hubert Chan, Rafael Pass, and Elaine Shi. Pala: A simple partially synchronous blockchain.IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., 2018:981, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Hubert Chan, Rafael Pass, and Elaine Shi

    T-H. Hubert Chan, Rafael Pass, and Elaine Shi. Pili: An extremely simple synchronous blockchain. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., 2018:980, 2018. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: February 2025. 26 Dimitra Giantsidi, Emmanouil Giortamis, Julian Pritzi, Maurice Bailleu, M...

    2018

  39. [47]

    An algorithm for replicated objects with efficient reads

    Tushar Chandra, Vassos Hadzilacos, and Sam Toueg. An algorithm for replicated objects with efficient reads. pages 325–334, 07 2016

    2016

  40. [48]

    Vikram, and Andrew C

    Stephen Chong, K. Vikram, and Andrew C. Myers. Sif: Enforcing confidentiality and integrity in web applications. In USENIX Security Symposium, 2007

    2007

  41. [49]

    Attested append-only memory: Making adversaries stick to their word

    Byung-Gon Chun, Petros Maniatis, Scott Shenker, and John Kubiatowicz. Attested append-only memory: Making adversaries stick to their word. InProceedings of Twenty-first ACM SIGOPS Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), 2007

    2007

  42. [50]

    Attested append-only memory: Making adversaries stick to their word.SIGOPS Oper

    Byung-Gon Chun, Petros Maniatis, Scott Shenker, and John Kubiatowicz. Attested append-only memory: Making adversaries stick to their word.SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev., 41(6):189–204, oct 2007

    2007

  43. [51]

    On the (limited) power of non-equivocation

    Allen Clement, Flavio Junqueira, Aniket Kate, and Rodrigo Rodrigues. On the (limited) power of non-equivocation. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC ’12, page 301–308, New York, NY, USA, 2012. Association for Computing Machinery

    2012

  44. [52]

    https://microsoft.github.io/CCF/master/

    CCF documentation. https://microsoft.github.io/CCF/master/. Last accessed: Jan, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Intel SGX Explained, 2016

    Victor Costan and Srinivas Devadas. Intel SGX Explained, 2016

    2016

  46. [54]

    A comprehensive symbolic analysis of tls 1.3

    Cas Cremers, Marko Horvat, Jonathan Hoyland, Sam Scott, and Thyla Van Der Merwe. A comprehensive symbolic analysis of tls 1.3. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, pages 1773–1788, 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    Automated analysis and verification of tls 1.3: 0-rtt, resumption and delayed authentication

    Cas Cremers, Marko Horvat, Sam Scott, and Thyla van der Merwe. Automated analysis and verification of tls 1.3: 0-rtt, resumption and delayed authentication. In2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pages 470–485. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  48. [56]

    Dynamo: Amazon’s highly available key-value store

    Giuseppe DeCandia, Deniz Hastorun, Madan Jampani, Gunavardhan Kakulapati, Avinash Lakshman, Alex Pilchin, Swaminathan Sivasubramanian, Peter Vosshall, and Werner Vogels. Dynamo: Amazon’s highly available key-value store. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review (SIGOPS), 2007

    2007

  49. [57]

    Damysus: Streamlined bft consensus leveraging trusted components

    Jérémie Decouchant, David Kozhaya, Vincent Rahli, and Jiangshan Yu. Damysus: Streamlined bft consensus leveraging trusted components. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth European Conference on Computer Systems, EuroSys ’22, page 1–16, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Com...

    2022

  50. [58]

    From crash-stop to permanent omission: Automatic transformation and weakest failure detectors

    Carole Delporte-Gallet, Hugues Fauconnier, Felix Freiling, Lucia Penso, and Andreas Tielmann. From crash-stop to permanent omission: Automatic transformation and weakest failure detectors. volume 4731, pages 165–178, 09 2007

    2007

  51. [59]

    On the security of public key protocols

    Danny Dolev and Andrew Yao. On the security of public key protocols. IEEE Transactions on information theory , 29(2):198–208, 1983

    1983

  52. [60]

    John R. Douceur. The sybil attack. In Peter Druschel, Frans Kaashoek, and Antony Rowstron, editors,Peer-to-Peer Systems, pages 251–260, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2002. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2002

  53. [61]

    FaRM: Fast remote memory

    Aleksandar Dragojević, Dushyanth Narayanan, Miguel Castro, and Orion Hodson. FaRM: Fast remote memory. In 11th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 14), 2014

    2014

  54. [62]

    Nightingale, Matthew Renzelmann, Alex Shamis, Anirudh Badam, and Miguel Castro

    Aleksandar Dragojević, Dushyanth Narayanan, Edmund B. Nightingale, Matthew Renzelmann, Alex Shamis, Anirudh Badam, and Miguel Castro. No compromises: Distributed transactions with consistency, availability, and performance. In Proceedings of the 25th Symposium on Operating Sys...

    2015

  55. [63]

    Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony

    Cynthia Dwork, Nancy Lynch, and Larry Stockmeyer. Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony. J. ACM, 35(2):288–323, apr 1988

    1988

  56. [64]

    State-machine replication for planet-scale systems (extended version), 2020

    Vitor Enes, Carlos Baquero, Tuanir França Rezende, Alexey Gotsman, Matthieu Perrin, and Pierre Sutra. State-machine replication for planet-scale systems (extended version), 2020

    2020

  57. [65]

    Fetzer and F

    C. Fetzer and F. Cristian. A highly available local leader election service.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(5):603–618, 1999

    1999

  58. [66]

    Distributed caching with memcached

    Brad Fitzpatrick. Distributed caching with memcached. Linux Journal, 2004

    2004

  59. [67]

    Odyssey: The impact of modern hardware on strongly-consistent replication protocols

    Vasilis Gavrielatos, Antonis Katsarakis, and Vijay Nagarajan. Odyssey: The impact of modern hardware on strongly-consistent replication protocols. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Computer Systems EuroSys’21, page 245–260, United States, April 2021. Associatio...

    2021

  60. [68]

    Cp-bdhca: Blockchain-based confidentiality-privacy preserving big data scheme for healthcare clouds and applications

    Hemant Ghayvat, Sharnil Pandya, Pronaya Bhattacharya, Mohd Zuhair, Mamoon Rashid, Saqib Hakak, and Kapal Dev. Cp-bdhca: Blockchain-based confidentiality-privacy preserving big data scheme for healthcare clouds and applications. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics...

    1937

  61. [69]

    Treaty: Secure distributed transactions

    Dimitra Giantsidi, Maurice Bailleu, Natacha Crooks, and Pramod Bhatotia. Treaty: Secure distributed transactions. In 2022 52nd Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN), pages 14–27, 2022

    2022

  62. [70]

    Gray and D

    C. Gray and D. Cheriton. Leases: An efficient fault-tolerant mechanism for distributed file cache consistency. In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP ’89, page 202–210, New York, NY, USA, 1989. Association for Computing Machinery. , V...

    1989

  63. [71]

    Gunawi, Mingzhe Hao, Tanakorn Leesatapornwongsa, Tiratat Patana-anake, Thanh Do, Jeffry Adityatama, Kurnia J

    Haryadi S. Gunawi, Mingzhe Hao, Tanakorn Leesatapornwongsa, Tiratat Patana-anake, Thanh Do, Jeffry Adityatama, Kurnia J. Eliazar, Agung Laksono, Jeffrey F. Lukman, Vincentius Martin, and Anang D. Satria. What Bugs Live in the Cloud? A Study of 3000+ Issues in Cloud Systems. In...

    2014

  64. [72]

    Suyash Gupta, Sajjad Rahnama, Shubham Pandey, Natacha Crooks, and Mohammad Sadoghi. Dissecting bft consensus: In trusted components we trust! InProceedings of the Eighteenth European Conference on Computer Systems, EuroSys ’23, page 521–539, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Associatio...

    2023

  65. [73]

    High-resolution side channels for untrusted operating systems

    Marcus Hähnel, Weidong Cui, and Marcus Peinado. High-resolution side channels for untrusted operating systems. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC), 2017

    2017

  66. [74]

    Herlihy and Jeannette M

    Maurice P. Herlihy and Jeannette M. Wing. Linearizability: A Correctness Condition for Concurrent Objects.ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst

  67. [75]

    Making distributed applications robust

    Chi Ho, Danny Dolev, and Robbert Van Renesse. Making distributed applications robust. pages 232–246, 12 2007

    2007

  68. [76]

    Nysiad: Practical protocol transformation to tolerate byzantine failures

    Chi Ho, Robbert Van Renesse, Mark Bickford, and Danny Dolev. Nysiad: Practical protocol transformation to tolerate byzantine failures. In 5th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 08) , San Francisco, CA, 2008. USENIX Association

    2008

  69. [77]

    Distributed consensus revised

    Heidi Howard. Distributed consensus revised. PhD thesis, 09 2018

    2018

  70. [78]

    Lorch, Lidong Zhou, and Yingnong Dang

    Peng Huang, Chuanxiong Guo, Jacob R. Lorch, Lidong Zhou, and Yingnong Dang. Capturing and enhancing in situ system observability for failure detection. In13th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 18), pages 1–16, Carlsbad, CA, October 2018. USE...

    2018

  71. [79]

    Junqueira, and Benjamin Reed

    Patrick Hunt, Mahadev Konar, Flavio P. Junqueira, and Benjamin Reed. ZooKeeper: Wait-free Coordination for Internet-scale Systems. In Proceedings of the 2010 USENIX Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference

    2010

  72. [80]

    BFT-smart in Hyperledger Fabric

    Hyperledger Fabric. BFT-smart in Hyperledger Fabric. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  73. [81]

    https://software.intel.com/en-us/sgx

    Intel Software Guard Extensions (Intel SGX). https://software.intel.com/en-us/sgx. Last accessed: Jan, 2021

    2021

  74. [82]

    Sagar Jha, Jonathan Behrens, Theo Gkountouvas, Matthew Milano, Weijia Song, Edward Tremel, Robbert Van Renesse, Sydney Zink, and Kenneth P. Birman. Derecho: Fast state machine replication for cloud services.ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 36(2), apr 2019

    2019

  75. [83]

    Datacenter RPCs can be General and Fast

    Anuj Kalia, Michael Kaminsky, and David Andersen. Datacenter RPCs can be General and Fast. In 16th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), 2019

    2019

  76. [84]

    Andersen

    Anuj Kalia, Michael Kaminsky, and David G. Andersen. FaSST: Fast, Scalable and Simple Distributed Transactions with Two-Sided (RDMA) Datagram RPCs. In12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 16), 2016

    2016

  77. [85]

    Cheapbft: Resource-efficient byzantine fault tolerance

    Rüdiger Kapitza, Johannes Behl, Christian Cachin, Tobias Distler, Simon Kuhnle, Seyed Vahid Mohammadi, Wolfgang Schröder-Preikschat, and Klaus Stengel. Cheapbft: Resource-efficient byzantine fault tolerance. InProceedings of the 7th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems,...

    2012

  78. [86]

    All about eve: Execute-Verify replication for Multi-Core servers

    Manos Kapritsos, Yang Wang, Vivien Quema, Allen Clement, Lorenzo Alvisi, and Mike Dahlin. All about eve: Execute-Verify replication for Multi-Core servers. In 10th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 12), pages 237–250, Hollywood, CA, October ...

    2012

  79. [87]

    Siavash Katebzadeh, Arpit Joshi, Aleksandar Dragojevic, Boris Grot, and Vijay Nagarajan

    Antonios Katsarakis, Vasilis Gavrielatos, M.R. Siavash Katebzadeh, Arpit Joshi, Aleksandar Dragojevic, Boris Grot, and Vijay Nagarajan. Hermes: A Fast, Fault-Tolerant and Linearizable Replication Protocol. InProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Architectural Sup...

    2020

  80. [88]

    ShieldStore: Shielded In-Memory Key-Value Storage with SGX

    Taehoon Kim, Joongun Park, Jaewook Woo, Seungheun Jeon, and Jaehyuk Huh. ShieldStore: Shielded In-Memory Key-Value Storage with SGX. InProceedings of the Fourteenth EuroSys Conference 2019 (EuroSys), 2019

    2019

  81. [89]

    Zyzzyva: Speculative byzantine fault tolerance

    Ramakrishna Kotla, Lorenzo Alvisi, Mike Dahlin, Allen Clement, and Edmund Wong. Zyzzyva: Speculative byzantine fault tolerance. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 27(4), jan 2010

    2010

  82. [90]

    Blockchain distributed ledger technologies for biomedical and health care applications

    Tsung-Ting Kuo, Hyeon-Eui Kim, and Lucila Ohno-Machado. Blockchain distributed ledger technologies for biomedical and health care applications. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(6):1211–1220, 09 2017

    2017

  83. [91]

    SGXBOUNDS: Memory Safety for Shielded Execution

    Dmitrii Kuvaiskii, Oleksii Oleksenko, Sergei Arnautov, Bohdan Trach, Pramod Bhatotia, Pascal Felber, and Christof Fetzer. SGXBOUNDS: Memory Safety for Shielded Execution. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys), 2017

    2017

  84. [92]

    Cassandra: structured storage system on a p2p network

    Avinash Lakshman and Prashant Malik. Cassandra: structured storage system on a p2p network. InProceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Principles of distributed computing (PODC). ACM, 2009

    2009

  85. [93]

    How to make a multiprocessor computer that correctly executes multiprocess programs.IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-28(9):690–691, 1979

    Lamport. How to make a multiprocessor computer that correctly executes multiprocess programs.IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-28(9):690–691, 1979

    1979

  86. [94]

    The part-time parliament

    Leslie Lamport. The part-time parliament. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 16(2):133–169, may 1998

    1998

  87. [95]

    The Byzantine Generals Problem.ACM Trans

    Leslie Lamport, Robert Shostak, and Marshall Pease. The Byzantine Generals Problem.ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 1982. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: February 2025. 28 Dimitra Giantsidi, Emmanouil Giortamis, Julian Pritzi, Maurice Bailleu, Manos Kapritsos, and...

    1982

  88. [96]

    Keystone: an open framework for architecting trusted execution environments

    Dayeol Lee, David Kohlbrenner, Shweta Shinde, Krste Asanović, and Dawn Song. Keystone: an open framework for architecting trusted execution environments. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys), 2020

    2020

  89. [97]

    http://leveldb.org/

    LevelDB. http://leveldb.org/. Last accessed: Dec, 2018

    2018

  90. [98]

    Trinc: Small trusted hardware for large distributed systems

    Dave Levin, John R Douceur, Jacob R Lorch, and Thomas Moscibroda. Trinc: Small trusted hardware for large distributed systems. In NSDI, volume 9, pages 1–14, 2009

    2009

  91. [99]

    Karame, and N

    Jian Liu, Wenting Li, Ghassan O. Karame, and N. Asokan. Scalable byzantine consensus via hardware-assisted secret sharing. CoRR, abs/1612.04997, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  92. [100]

    N. A. Lynch and A. A. Shvartsman. Robust emulation of shared memory using dynamic quorum-acknowledged broadcasts. In Proceedings of IEEE 27th International Symposium on Fault Tolerant Computing (FtCS), 1997

    1997

  93. [101]

    On the subject of non-equivocation: Defining non-equivocation in synchronous agreement systems

    Mads Frederik Madsen and Søren Debois. On the subject of non-equivocation: Defining non-equivocation in synchronous agreement systems. In Proceedings of the 39th Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC ’20, page 159–168, New York, NY, USA, 2020. Association for ...

    2020

  94. [102]

    The tamarin prover for the symbolic analysis of security protocols

    Simon Meier, Benedikt Schmidt, Cas Cremers, and David Basin. The tamarin prover for the symbolic analysis of security protocols. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CA V), 2013

    2013

  95. [103]

    RDMA Aware Networks Programming User Manual

    Melanox. RDMA Aware Networks Programming User Manual. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  96. [104]

    Ralph C. Merkle. Secure communications over insecure channels. Commun. ACM, 21(4):294–299, apr 1978

    1978

  97. [105]

    Splitbft: Improving byzantine fault tolerance safety using trusted compartments

    Ines Messadi, Markus Horst Becker, Kai Bleeke, Leander Jehl, Sonia Ben Mokhtar, and Rüdiger Kapitza. Splitbft: Improving byzantine fault tolerance safety using trusted compartments. InProceedings of the 23rd ACM/IFIP International Middleware Conference, Middleware ’22, page 56...

    2022

  98. [106]

    Andersen, and Michael Kaminsky

    Iulian Moraru, David G. Andersen, and Michael Kaminsky. There is more consensus in egalitarian parliaments. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP ’13, page 358–372, New York, NY, USA, 2013. Association for Computing Machinery

    2013

  99. [107]

    Beyond the hipaa privacy rule: Enhancing privacy, improving health through research

    National Library of Medicine. Beyond the hipaa privacy rule: Enhancing privacy, improving health through research. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9579/. Last accessed: February 14, 2025

    2025

  100. [108]

    Primary-backup replication: From a time-free protocol to a time-based implementation

    Rui Oliveira, José Pereira, and André Schiper. Primary-backup replication: From a time-free protocol to a time-based implementation. pages 14–23, 02 2001

    2001

  101. [109]

    In Search of an Understandable Consensus Algorithm

    Diego Ongaro and John Ousterhout. In Search of an Understandable Consensus Algorithm. InProceedings of the 2014 USENIX Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC), 2014

    2014

  102. [110]

    Rumble, Ryan Stutsman, John Ousterhout, and Mendel Rosenblum

    Diego Ongaro, Stephen M. Rumble, Ryan Stutsman, John Ousterhout, and Mendel Rosenblum. Fast crash recovery in ramcloud. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles , SOSP ’11, page 29–41, New York, NY, USA, 2011. Association for Computing Machinery

    2011

  103. [111]

    Belisarius: Bft storage with confidentiality

    Ricardo Padilha and Fernando Pedone. Belisarius: Bft storage with confidentiality. In 2011 IEEE 10th International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications, pages 9–16, 2011

    2011

  104. [112]

    McCune, and Adrian Perrig

    Bryan Parno, Jonathan M. McCune, and Adrian Perrig. Bootstrapping Trust in Commodity Computers. InProceedings of the 2010 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P), 2010

    2010

  105. [113]

    McCune, and Adrian Perrig.Bootstrapping Trust in Modern Computers

    Bryan Parno, Jonathan M. McCune, and Adrian Perrig.Bootstrapping Trust in Modern Computers. Springer, August 2011

    2011

  106. [114]

    Marius Poke, Torsten Hoefler, and Colin W. Glass. Allconcur: Leaderless concurrent atomic broadcast (extended version). ArXiv, abs/1608.05866, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  107. [115]

    CryptDB: protecting confidentiality with encrypted query processing

    Raluca Ada Popa, Catherine Redfield, Nickolai Zeldovich, and Hari Balakrishnan. CryptDB: protecting confidentiality with encrypted query processing. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), 2011

    2011

  108. [116]

    Visigoth fault tolerance

    Daniel Porto, João Leitão, Cheng Li, Allen Clement, Aniket Kate, Flavio Junqueira, and Rodrigo Rodrigues. Visigoth fault tolerance. In Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys), 2015

    2015

  109. [117]

    Reed and Flavio Paiva Junqueira

    Benjamin C. Reed and Flavio Paiva Junqueira. A simple totally ordered broadcast protocol. InLADIS ’08, 2008

    2008

  110. [118]

    Schneider

    Robbert Van Renesse and Fred B. Schneider. Chain replication for supporting high throughput and availability. In6th Symposium on Operating Systems Design & Implementation (OSDI 04), San Francisco, CA, 2004. USENIX Association

    2004

  111. [119]

    Keystone Open-source Secure Hardware Enclave

    RISC-V. Keystone Open-source Secure Hardware Enclave. https://keystone-enclave.org/. Last accessed: Jan, 2021

    2021

  112. [120]

    https://rocksdb.org/

    RocksDB, A persistent key-value store. https://rocksdb.org/. Last accessed: Dec, 2018

    2018

  113. [121]

    Wintersteiger, Manuel Costa, and Mark Russinovich

    Alex Shamis, Peter Pietzuch, Burcu Canakci, Miguel Castro, Cedric Fournet, Edward Ashton, Amaury Chamayou, Sylvan Clebsch, Antoine Delignat-Lavaud, Matthew Kerner, Julien Maffre, Olga Vrousgou, Christoph M. Wintersteiger, Manuel Costa, and Mark Russinovich. IA-CCF: Individual ...

    2022

  114. [122]

    Graphjet: Real-time content recommendations at twitter

    Aneesh Sharma, Jerry Jiang, Praveen Bommannavar, Brian Larson, and Jimmy Lin. Graphjet: Real-time content recommendations at twitter. Proc. VLDB Endow., 9(13):1281–1292, sep 2016

    2016

  115. [123]

    Preventing page faults from telling your secrets

    Shweta Shinde, Zheng Leong Chua, Viswesh Narayanan, and Prateek Saxena. Preventing page faults from telling your secrets. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security , ASIA , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: February 2025...

    2025

  116. [124]

    FlexSC: Flexible System Call Scheduling with Exception-less System Calls

    Livio Soares and Michael Stumm. FlexSC: Flexible System Call Scheduling with Exception-less System Calls. In Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), 2010

    2010

  117. [125]

    From byzantine consensus to bft state machine replication: A latency-optimal transformation

    João Sousa and Alysson Bessani. From byzantine consensus to bft state machine replication: A latency-optimal transformation. Proceedings - 9th European Dependable Computing Conference, EDCC 2012, 05 2012

    2012

  118. [126]

    Neobft: Accelerating byzantine fault tolerance using authenticated in-network ordering

    Guangda Sun, Mingliang Jiang, Xin Zhe Khooi, Yunfan Li, and Jialin Li. Neobft: Accelerating byzantine fault tolerance using authenticated in-network ordering. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2023 Conference, ACM SIGCOMM ’23, page 239–254, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association...

    2023

  119. [127]

    Florian Suri-Payer, Matthew Burke, Zheng Wang, Yunhao Zhang, Lorenzo Alvisi, and Natacha Crooks. Basil. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 28th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles CD-ROM. ACM, oct 2021

    2021

  120. [128]

    Freedman

    Jeff Terrace and Michael J. Freedman. Object storage on craq: High-throughput chain replication for read-mostly workloads. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference, USENIX’09, page 11, USA,

    2009

  121. [129]

    Rkt-io: A direct i/o stack for shielded execution

    Jörg Thalheim, Harshavardhan Unnibhavi, Christian Priebe, Pramod Bhatotia, and Peter Pietzuch. Rkt-io: A direct i/o stack for shielded execution. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth European Conference on Computer Systems (ACM EuroSys 21), 2021

    2021

  122. [130]

    T-lease: A trusted lease primitive for distributed systems

    Bohdan Trach, Rasha Faqeh, Oleksii Oleksenko, Wojciech Ozga, Pramod Bhatotia, and Christof Fetzer. T-lease: A trusted lease primitive for distributed systems. InProceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, SoCC ’20, page 387–400, New York, NY, USA, 2020. Associati...

    2020

  123. [131]

    Paxos made moderately complex

    Robbert Van Renesse and Deniz Altinbuken. Paxos made moderately complex. ACM Comput. Surv., 47(3), feb 2015

    2015

  124. [132]

    Recovering semantics of tables on the web.Proc

    Petros Venetis, Alon Halevy, Jayant Madhavan, Marius Paşca, Warren Shen, Fei Wu, Gengxin Miao, and Chung Wu. Recovering semantics of tables on the web.Proc. VLDB Endow., 4(9):528–538, jun 2011

    2011

  125. [133]

    Efficient byzantine fault-tolerance

    Giuliana Veronese, Miguel Correia, Alysson Bessani, Lau Lung, and Paulo Veríssimo. Efficient byzantine fault-tolerance. Computers, IEEE Transactions on, 62:16–30, 01 2013

    2013

  126. [134]

    Eventually consistent

    Werner Vogels. Eventually consistent. Commun. ACM, 52(1):40–44, jan 2009

    2009

  127. [135]

    Regaining lost cycles with hotcalls: A fast interface for sgx secure enclaves

    Ofir Weisse, Valeria Bertacco, and Todd Austin. Regaining lost cycles with hotcalls: A fast interface for sgx secure enclaves. SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News, 45(2):81–93, jun 2017

    2017

  128. [136]

    Brief Announcement: Communication-Efficient BFT Using Small Trusted Hardware to Tolerate Minority Corruption

    Sravya Yandamuri, Ittai Abraham, Kartik Nayak, and Michael Reiter. Brief Announcement: Communication-Efficient BFT Using Small Trusted Hardware to Tolerate Minority Corruption. In Seth Gilbert, editor, 35th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2021) , volume ...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.