# HG changeset patch # User Christian Urban # Date 1477562815 -3600 # Node ID 5ecc1211752d43ed2b87e78e236e6f4605afd65d # Parent 17f603095f0b2347e4e4d3c9e75c5ef01b952a8b# Parent 0b897cc6b972a05752bc9683b9de45f200c829eb updated diff -r 0b897cc6b972 -r 5ecc1211752d handouts/ho05.pdf Binary file handouts/ho05.pdf has changed diff -r 0b897cc6b972 -r 5ecc1211752d handouts/ho05.tex --- a/handouts/ho05.tex Sun Oct 26 23:42:47 2014 +0000 +++ b/handouts/ho05.tex Thu Oct 27 11:06:55 2016 +0100 @@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ answer, it will not make sense to replay this message, because next time this protocol is run, the nonce $B$ sends out will be different. So if we run this protocol, what can $B$ infer? -It has send out an (unpredictable) nonce to $A$ and received +It has sent out an (unpredictable) nonce to $A$ and received this challenge back, but encoded under the key $K_{AB}$. If $B$ assumes only $A$ and $B$ know the key $K_{AB}$ and the nonce is unpredictable, then $B$ is able to infer it must be @@ -555,7 +555,7 @@ the only one that can decrypt them. While this sounds all good, it relies on the ability that people can associate me with my public key. That is not as trivial as it sounds. For -example, if I would be the government, say Cameron, and try to +example, if I would be the government, say Theresa Mayhem, and try to find out who are the trouble makers in the country, I would publish an innocent looking webpage and say I am The Guardian newspaper (or alternatively The Sun for all the juicy