So wait, NDSS accepted and published an entire new VPN protocol with no security analysis?
-
-
Replying to @matthew_d_green
There are arguments in the original paper, the Tamarin analysis and it's based on existing protocols, . Or are you saying Tamarin proof doesn't count, or that the other NDSS protocol analyses without eCK-equivalent models are also bad?
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @lvh
I’m saying Tamarin analyses are not the same as a formal proof.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
That's fine. It caught my eye because your first tweet said "no security analysis", and it seems like both the informal analyses in the paper and the Tamarin work would clear that bar, at least sufficiently for NDSS.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @lvh
Well the paper doesn’t mention Tamarin by name (based on a quick search) I don’t know if that work was available to the NDSS reviewers. Maybe it was? Still worries me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @lvh
Here’s the camera ready. I’m just searching for Tamarin, proof and analysis and getting 0 hits. Maybe there’s a cite in there and I’m too lazy to see it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The Tamarin paper wasn't available at the time of NDSS. I actually met the co-author of the Tamarin paper at NDSS itself, where we spec'd out the first model sketches during the conference.
-
-
So sure, complain all you want about the acceptance. But the fact is there are proofs now, and even more are coming, so from a WireGuard perspective I think we're fine here.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.