Timeline for Do random numbers avoid replay attacks in Chaum's mixes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9 at 3:05 | answer | added | tla | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 3, 2023 at 15:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCrypto/status/1621523929126031363 | ||
| Feb 3, 2023 at 12:31 | history | edited | prettybonsai | CC BY-SA 4.0 | edited body |
| Feb 2, 2023 at 16:02 | comment | added | Amit | It sounds to me that the DB tracking of the random numbers is a good thing to do if you are concerned that your randomness sources / generation methods are not so great. With nonces for example which play a similar role, we usually trust them only on the basis of their entropy (e.g. if the nonce has enough bits it is assumed to be okay) and we usually don't store them for later comparisons. Also, I don't know enough about mixnet, but note that the problem with nonces increases the longer you use the same key in a session (or even across multiple sessions) - perhaps that's relevant here | |
| S Feb 2, 2023 at 13:29 | history | suggested | Rohit Gupta | CC BY-SA 4.0 | Corrected typos and made function and its parts bold |
| Feb 2, 2023 at 13:13 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 2, 2023 at 13:29 | |||||
| S Feb 2, 2023 at 12:30 | review | First questions | |||
| Feb 2, 2023 at 16:17 | |||||
| S Feb 2, 2023 at 12:30 | history | asked | prettybonsai | CC BY-SA 4.0 |