Reputation
4,932
Next tag badge:
51/100 score
30/20 answers
Badges
1 6 21
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~47k people reached

Jul
3
revised Easy explanation of “IND-” security notions?
converted French? to English
Jul
3
comment Easy explanation of “IND-” security notions?
Another notion is IND-CCA1. $\;$
Jul
3
comment Easy explanation of “IND-” security notions?
Where have you seen IND-CCA3? $\;$
Jul
3
comment Using password-based encryption as a hashing scheme
I'm pretty sure the classic scheme uses password,salt instead of password+salt. $\hspace{1.05 in}$
Jul
3
comment The encryption scheme is secure?
"Also, the question should" ... $\;$
Jul
3
revised Mutual verification of shared secret
strengthened big paragraph
Jul
2
revised Mutual verification of shared secret
gave Dovathan's result
Jul
2
comment Does authenticated encryption add any protection to a signed digital envelope?
My impression of the reason for sign-encrypt-sign is it helping when the PKE scheme is not CCA-secure. $\:$ (A CCA attack would probably involve some invalid ciphertexts, and the outer signature would identify the responsible party.) $\;\;\;\;$
Jul
2
comment Mutual verification of shared secret
@codebeard : $\:$ Have you looked at his other answer to this question? $\;\;\;\;$
Jul
2
comment “123456” and “password” as crack standards
@Ghedipunk : $\:$ Well, either Bcrypt or Scrypt. $\;\;\;\;$
Jul
2
revised Mutual verification of shared secret
mentioned lower bound
Jul
1
comment Does authenticated encryption add any protection to a signed digital envelope?
Is "that structure" just the PK-encrypted-symmetric-key, or that together with $\hspace{1.78 in}$ the symmetrically encrypted plaintext? $\;$
Jul
1
revised Mutual verification of shared secret
removed non-proof
Jul
1
comment Mutual verification of shared secret
(I don't see how the next-to-last sentence of this answer helps, since one could just have the $x$ and $y$ be chosen by only-revelaed-to-one-party coin flips, with no fairness needed for those flips.) $\:$
Jul
1
comment Mutual verification of shared secret
As far as I can see, the equality protocol might also be "only secure for malicious adversaries but not $\hspace{.37 in}$ for fail-stop adversaries." $\:$ How do you handle that possibility? $\;\;\;\;$
Jul
1
revised Mutual verification of shared secret
fixed typos in my non-proof
Jul
1
comment Mutual verification of shared secret
The paper I used for $\hspace{.04 in}f$'s definition proves that $\hspace{.04 in}f$ can be fairly computed. $\:$ (Thus, either that paper is wrong or the "proof" in the bottom 2/3 of my answer is not valid.) $\;\;\;\;$
Jul
1
comment Mutual verification of shared secret
How is it that "the above" is a proof but what I just added to my answer is not valid? $\:$ Also, the paper you linked to "only considers finite functions (where the size of the domain is not dependent on the security parameter)", whereas equality has an infinite domain. $\;\;\;\;$
Jul
1
revised Mutual verification of shared secret
added in what Yehuda Lindell should see
Jul
1
comment Mutual verification of shared secret
(Okay, I did not realize you were an author for that paper.) $\:$ However, where above did you show that that paper's result does NOT cover the equality function? $\;\;\;\;$