So wait, NDSS accepted and published an entire new VPN protocol with no security analysis?
-
-
Replying to @matthew_d_green
Don't be ridiculous. When I asked Kenny and Ben what they meant by "no rigorous analysis has been done to date", they responded that what they meant is no computational proof has been done, but they were certainly aware of the Tamarin symbolic proofs that were done.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @EdgeSecurity @matthew_d_green
There appears to be some kind of rivalry between computational people and symbolic people in the formal analysis community. Anyway, here are two papers prior to this recent one: https://www.wireguard.com/papers/wireguard-formal-verification.pdf … https://www.wireguard.com/papers/wireguard.pdf …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EdgeSecurity
So the Tamarin analysis is something, but it’s not in the NDSS paper. Still seems like a strange accept.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
Maybe a strange accept? Probably not a strange accept? There's quite a bit of security analysis threaded throughout the NDSS paper (wireguard.pdf earlier in this thread). And with these new papers, we're receiving additional proofs of the protocol's cryptographic soundness.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EdgeSecurity
There’s no proof in the paper. There are a few arguments. That’s not enough. And the new proof seems to require protocol changes.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @EdgeSecurity
And yes, I think it’s problematic for a security conference to be accepting pure protocol papers without security proofs. Cc
@kennyog1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes
I guess you can actually complain in earnest if somebody actually breaks WireGuard? But judging by the proofs we have of it, it doesn't look like that's going to happen.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.