These comments in all places seem 90% rhetoric, 10% moment-in-time papers/analyses from years ago. I want the analysis without the rhetoric. Anything that spends words on "non standard crypto" and berating people for even considering it is not analysis.
No I'm not :) I looked at the StackExchange post you linked to. :)
-
-
1. The author of the said POC was this Brazilian: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aramos/ - I don't have it here with me, because it was using live, using tools for network packages + SMS attack 2. There are papers indeed, one of the thesis we are looking for is: http://cs.au.dk/~jakjak/master-thesis.pdf …
-
It looks like MTProto 2 was created in response to analyses during the 2015 era, so I wonder whether that analysis still holds (the paper about IND-CCA is obsoleted it seems)
-
Probably that paper is obsolete, then again, we do not have the source code.
-
We have a newly documented protocol so we can see whether the analyses apply to it. At minimum it seems they attempted to respond to public critiques through updates that they documented. Should be worth some good faith assumption.
-
that is true, but assuming good faith is a 'no-no' in the security world, I don't think it will change soon given the market
-
I really mean "don't bozo bit them as so self evidently bonkers that you don't even need to bother analyzing it"
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.