So wait, NDSS accepted and published an entire new VPN protocol with no security analysis?
-
-
-
-
Replying to @matthew_d_green
I am confused ... I thought it had a security proof?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BenLaurie
I don’t have the NDSS paper, but here’s a full version. Don’t see anything. https://www.wireguard.com/papers/wireguard.pdf …
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @BenLaurie
Dowling and Paterson just wrote one. But it seems to require changes to the protocol. https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/080
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @BenLaurie
That change (extra msg): is it a proof convenience only, or is it also necessary for achieving the desired properties?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tobycmurray @BenLaurie
Who knows? My experience is that a broken proof often implies an attack.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
That's very clearly not the case here.
5:21 AM - 24 Jan 2018
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
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.