Shamir's Secret Sharing Stays Secure Against Leaky Shareholders — Now Provably Below the 50% Threshold

New proof shows Shamir's scheme resists 1-bit leakage from each share when the reconstruction threshold is just 48.9% of parties — first explicit bound below half.

Imagine you're a teacher who splits an exam answer key across 100 locked boxes, each held by a different student. Any group of, say, 50 students can pool their boxes and reconstruct the key. But what if every student can peek through a tiny crack in their own box — seeing just one bit of what's inside? The question is: how many students need to collude before those individual peeks add up to something dangerous? This paper proves that even when every single student peeks, the key stays safe as long as the reconstruction threshold sits above about 48.9% of the total number of students. That's the first explicit bound that dips below the psychologically important 50% mark. The committed claim: for all sufficiently large n and every prime p > n, the (n, t)-Shamir secret sharing scheme over GF(p) is exp(−Ω(n))-resilient against arbitrary 1-bit local leakage whenever t/n ≥ 0.489, regardless of the choice of distinct nonzero evaluation points. This is a clean, unconditional, non-asymptotic threshold statement — no special structure on evaluation points, no restriction on the leakage function beyond being 1-bit. The prior art baseline is the Benhamouda–Degwekar–Ishai–Rabin (BDIR) line of work, which established leakage resilience for Shamir's scheme when the threshold ratio t/n exceeds 1/2. Getting below 1/2 had been an open problem in this area. The improvement from 0.500 to 0.489 sounds small numerically but is structurally significant: crossing the half-barrier means the security guarantee now covers regimes where fewer than half the parties are needed to reconstruct, which is the practically relevant setting for most real deployments. Nobody had previously given an explicit constant below 1/2. The technique sits squarely in the algebraic coding theory family. The authors refine a dual-code list recovery analysis — essentially asking how many codewords in the dual of a Reed-Solomon code can be consistent with a given leakage pattern. The key innovation is a case-split strategy: leakage functions are partitioned by the support sizes and biases of their induced distributions, and complementary Fourier-analytic estimates are applied to each regime. This avoids the uniform-bound bottleneck that kept previous analyses stuck at the 1/2 barrier. The compute requirement is essentially zero — this is a pen-and-paper proof, not a computational experiment. Integrity is strong for a theory paper. The result is a mathematical proof, not a simulation or experiment. There is no benchmark selection concern, no p-hacking surface, no stale baseline problem. The validation is self-contained: either the proof is correct or it isn't. The main integrity question is whether the proof's reliance on 'sufficiently large n' hides a practically irrelevant constant — the authors do not specify the concrete threshold for n, which leaves room for the bound to kick in only at astronomically large party counts. The milestone ladder for local leakage resilience runs roughly: t/n > 1/2 (BDIR and successors) → t/n ≥ 0.489 (this paper) → the conjectured optimal t/n = Ω(1) or even t/n → 0 for larger alphabets. The next concrete target is pushing the threshold below, say, 0.45 or establishing a matching impossibility result showing 0.489 is tight. A separate practical milestone is extending the bound from 1-bit leakage to multi-bit leakage (e.g., O(log n) bits), which is where real side-channel attacks live. The obvious experiment not run: extending the analysis to multi-bit leakage or to composite-order fields (which cover the practically important case of GF(2^k)). The honest read is (a) — the Fourier-analytic case split that powers the improvement is specifically tuned to 1-bit Boolean leakage functions, and generalizing to multi-bit leakage likely requires a fundamentally different decomposition strategy. This isn't something they're hiding; it's a genuine technical barrier. For practitioners: if you're deploying Shamir-based threshold cryptography and worrying about side-channel leakage from individual share-holders, this paper tells you that setting your threshold at roughly half the parties gives you exponentially strong leakage resilience — even against worst-case 1-bit leakage. The result is unconditional and doesn't depend on how you pick your evaluation points, which is a real engineering convenience.