# HG changeset patch # User Christian Urban # Date 1477562389 -3600 # Node ID f67c624d5fb98c4d8b0d0df3f0a5daaddbf59954 # Parent 73ca7e916739274cafd524bd26c9d795d2e15ca4 updated diff -r 73ca7e916739 -r f67c624d5fb9 handouts/ho05.tex --- a/handouts/ho05.tex Fri Oct 21 21:15:47 2016 +0100 +++ b/handouts/ho05.tex Thu Oct 27 10:59:49 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