# HG changeset patch # User Christian Urban # Date 1477562472 -3600 # Node ID 17f603095f0b2347e4e4d3c9e75c5ef01b952a8b # Parent 41fe05bdc342c6822551acf22a4301217bd7f2c8# Parent ddcc4ef4f82c76facf0f7fda2b7b33a0d266985a updated diff -r ddcc4ef4f82c -r 17f603095f0b handouts/ho05.pdf Binary file handouts/ho05.pdf has changed diff -r ddcc4ef4f82c -r 17f603095f0b handouts/ho05.tex --- a/handouts/ho05.tex Wed Oct 26 01:03:33 2016 +0100 +++ b/handouts/ho05.tex Thu Oct 27 11:01:12 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