[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CADET protocol: Anna or Betty?

From: carlo von lynX
Subject: Re: CADET protocol: Anna or Betty?
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 15:23:43 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 10:28:02PM +0900, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
> That sounds like it allows anyone to highjack any (established) channel
> after a successful kx.

Oh, transport does not guarantee the identity of nodes so CADET
has to handle authentication itself... great. Still, an attacker
would not be able to hijack a conversation, just break it.. right?

dvn has suggested a different approach, to make the
CADET_CONNECTION_CREATE ensure that both sides have the same
state, so we are looking into adding extra info there (which
I understand would be a breaking protocol change, since gnunet
does not have PSYC's extensibility).

btw, figuring out how CADET tunnels get stuck and stop working
was the amazing work of
                    _|_   >  __  __  __    _  _  | _ _|_ 
                     |  -{  (_  (_  /__) |/  / | |<   |  
                     |_ __> __) __) \___ |   \_|_| \  |_ 

> > Back in the days of PSYC1 I designed it in such a way that if
> > both nodes decide to talk to each other at the same time, they
> > will interpret each others' initations as the respective 
> > responses, resulting in faster link creation.
> That may be ok for the initial handshake, but not for resumptions.

PSYC1 is more on the transport layer from gnunet's perspective,
there is no crypto state to resume.

  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
   //  http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
  //    irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]