Skip to content

Towards the ideals of Self-Recovery and Metadata Privacy in Social Vault Recovery with Apollo

May 2025 · 0 citations · 99 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

Apollo is a social recovery mechanism that aims to avoid any memorability assumptions while strongly protecting recovery metadata privacy, and uses a novel multi-layered secret sharing scheme to mitigate the computational overhead of recovery in this setting, which would otherwise be exponential in the recovery threshold.

Abstract

Social recovery enables users to enlist trusted contacts, or trustees, to help recover lost access to end-to-end-encrypted repositories or vaults. However, existing recovery mechanisms often make strong memorability assumptions about what users will remember. Weakening these memorability assumptions to increase the robustness of recovery is possible, but may leak sensitive metadata about the user and/or trustees if done naively. This paper's first contribution is to draw attention to and formalize this basic tension between memorability and metadata privacy in social vault recovery. Our second contribution is Apollo, a social recovery mechanism that aims to avoid any memorability assumptions while strongly protecting recovery metadata privacy. Apollo approximates the ideal of self-recovery by relying only on a threshold of social reconnection events, which may be initiated either by the user or the user's contacts. Apollo thereby has a chance of succeeding in vault recovery even in a worst-case scenario where the user has forgotten all metadata, including even the vault's existence. To protect the metadata's privacy, Apollo distributes either real or fake (chaff) data to all of a user's contacts, not just the user's trustees, thus systematically anonymizing the trustees among the larger set of contacts. To make this anonymity set scalable, Apollo uses a novel multi-layered secret sharing scheme to mitigate the computational overhead of recovery in this setting, which would otherwise be exponential in the recovery threshold. Finally, we evaluate a prototype implementation of Apollo. Apollo reduces the probability of malicious recovery to under 0.1% for an adversary capable of obtaining shares from every 1-out-of-2 contacts. After reconnecting with 30 contacts, the multi-layered design shows an improvement of 5 orders in computation time, compared to a single-layered approach.

View source

Similar papers

#computer vision Review Sep 2017

Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis

This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.

P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al. · 727 citations · ⚡54
#computer vision Jun 2008

The impact of agile practices on communication in software development

The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.

M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al. · 401 citations · ⚡48
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Reinforcing the value of human understanding at MIT

During the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences’ 75th Anniversary Symposium, President Sally Kornbluth said “MIT has never needed your particular insight and guidance more than we do now.”

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Q&A: How AI came to model the “messy” human mind

Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.