Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Describe B&A payload size optimization options #1183

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 23, 2024

Conversation

brusshamilton
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@brusshamilton brusshamilton marked this pull request as ready for review May 16, 2024 18:45
size bucket smaller than `requestSize` then that size will be used instead.

If the `perBuyerConfig` field is specified and non-empty, the returned encrypted
blob will be exactly `requestSize` bytes long unless there was an error. If an error
Copy link
Contributor

@JacobGo JacobGo Jul 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As a seller concerned about request size, perBuyerConfig returning the exact requestSize is quite suboptimal. While it's highly desirable to fairly fit multiple buyers on the request, we would prefer to take the min(actual_size, request_size) instead.

Could we satisfy the privacy constraints in a way that better optimizes for streamlined request payload size?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree that returning the exact request size is unfortunate, but returning even a bucketed size leaks significantly more data than we are comfortable with.

One alternative that we considered was allowing the config to be specified out of band per seller, and only allowed to change relatively slowly (preventing the leak from calling the API multiple times with the slightly different parameters). Unfortunately this can be worked around using multiple sellers that have configs that are slightly different. The sellers don't even have to be cooperating because the attack can be completely client-side.

christceder

This comment was marked as spam.

FLEDGE_browser_bidding_and_auction_API.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
FLEDGE_browser_bidding_and_auction_API.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
FLEDGE_browser_bidding_and_auction_API.md Show resolved Hide resolved
FLEDGE_browser_bidding_and_auction_API.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
FLEDGE_browser_bidding_and_auction_API.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@JensenPaul JensenPaul merged commit e30fcac into WICG:main Aug 23, 2024
2 checks passed
github-actions bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 23, 2024
SHA: e30fcac
Reason: push, by JensenPaul

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@brusshamilton brusshamilton deleted the PayloadSizeOptimization branch August 23, 2024 18:03
github-actions bot added a commit to brusshamilton/turtledove that referenced this pull request Aug 23, 2024
SHA: e30fcac
Reason: push, by brusshamilton

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants