Natanael

joined 8 months ago
[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 8 points 1 hour ago

Alternative facts

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 6 points 1 hour ago

But it will never roll like an orange does

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 9 points 10 hours ago

He should've lived longer. By a few hours.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 22 hours ago

Last Thursdayism is when they reload the save

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 22 hours ago

Same lmao

Pretty sure he's misunderstanding interference patterns

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is why moderators should use a separate account for moderation actions than their main

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 1 day ago

That's not quite sufficient. Look at a bit more advanced cryptographic stuff like Snarkblock.

You still got the issue that blocks WILL have a publicly visible effect when you block somebody who already have replied to you.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 20 points 1 day ago

From a technical standpoint, doing it in another way requires your blocks to be public.

He and you are both publishing individual comments with metadata telling which thread and where in it that these entries go. The instance hosting the community simply pull all these entries together. To cut off that response then your instance must tell that hosting instance to detach that reply from the blocked user. Currently Lemmy doesn't support any such thing.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

These TVs coexisted with abbreviated texting in Sweden

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Well excuse me for being from the Nordics where it was adopted early

 

Abstract Common verification steps in cryptographic protocols, such as signature or message authentication code checks or the validation of elliptic curve points, are crucial for the overall security of the protocol. Yet implementation errors omitting these steps easily remain unnoticed, as often the protocol will function perfectly anyways. One of the most prominent examples is Apple's goto fail bug where the erroneous certificate verification skipped over several of the required steps, marking invalid certificates as correctly verified. This vulnerability went undetected for at least 17 months.

We propose here a mechanism which supports the detection of such errors on a cryptographic level. Instead of merely returning the binary acceptance decision, we let the verification return more fine-grained information in form of what we call a confirmation code. The reader may think of the confirmation code as disposable information produced as part of the relevant verification steps. In case of an implementation error like the goto fail bug, the confirmation code would then miss essential elements.

The question arises now how to verify the confirmation code itself. We show how to use confirmation codes to tie security to basic functionality at the overall protocol level, making erroneous implementations be detected through the protocol not functioning properly. More concretely, we discuss the usage of confirmation codes in secure connections, established via a key exchange protocol and secured through the derived keys. If some verification steps in a key exchange protocol execution are faulty, then so will be the confirmation codes, and because we can let the confirmation codes enter key derivation, the connection of the two parties will eventually fail. In consequence, an implementation error like goto fail would now be detectable through a simple connection test.

3
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Natanael@infosec.pub to c/crypto@infosec.pub
 

https://bsky.app/profile/tumbolia.bsky.social/post/3ltyahiem3s2u

We updated our paper on Fiat-Shamir!

We now take a closer look at the gap between what symmetric cryptography has focused on for over 10 years (indifferentiability) and what is actually needed for the soundness of ZKPs and SNARKs (something stronger!).

 

Opossum is a cross-protocol application layer desynchronization attack that affects TLS-based application protocols that rely on both opportunistic and implicit TLS. Among the affected protocols are HTTP, FTP, POP3, SMTP, LMTP and NNTP.

Note: The vast majority of websites are not vulnerable as HTTP TLS upgrade (RFC 2817) was never widely adopted and no browsers support it.

view more: next ›