Re: [T2TRG] Quick Doodle T2TRG security topics (Re: New topic for T2TRG?)

[Rene Struik <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carsten:

Thanks. If there is a brief problem statement on what problem is solved, 
both stated and in real life, I am happy to reflect on this: I have done 
quite a bit of protocol analysis, including fixes, but this starts with 
a clear description about what one wishes to achieve (at least, on the 
crypto level with existing protocol soup distractions removed for the 
moment). A good use of yet another cooped-up time window or simply next 
to the Christmas tree. {if not completely clear/complete yet, please let 
me know offline -- I can fill in part of the blanks if not that many}.

Best regards, Rene

On 2021-12-23 12:38 p.m., Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Hi Rene,
>
>> During the call, you mentioned that EAP-NOOB seems un-implementable (or, one of your students thought so). If you could articulate what is good and what is bad (in terms of feature set, user experience, etc.), that would be good to know, as would be whether you think this can be remedied or whether one can improve the protocol with a minor tweak.
> I haven’t really looked at the protocol, only briefly at the implementability of the signing inputs after a student alerted me to issues he had.
>
> Re the protocol, I’ve heard rumors that a simpler protocol could be invented that solves the same set of problems, but I know nothing about that.
>
> Re the implementability: I sent some notes to Mohit; I’m sure the student will also write up something but it is a quiet time here in Germany right now.
>
> I think that the RG would benefit from an analysis of NOOB, both with respect to technical details such as signing inputs, and with respect to players, trust relationships, outcomes, etc., and how the protocol addresses these.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>

-- 
email: [e-mail] | Skype: rstruik
cell: [phone] | US: [phone]