3 ms·

What does Bidenable mean? Google thinks I'm asking about Joe Biden, and that just makes me think there's an XKCD connection in there somewhere that would be sup

What does Bidenable mean? Google thinks I'm asking about Joe Biden, and that just makes me think there's an XKCD connection in there somewhere that would be super hilarious if we could just find it.

est31 8y ago
It's in the abstract. It says that prior to the paper you had to choose between one of two kinds of "deniability", now you can have both of them at the same time (bi-deniability).
triodan 8y ago
It means both the sender and the receiver of the message, if coerced, can without coordination have a degree plausible deniability for the contents of the message. For example, I send you the message "CIA" encrypted using this scheme. Theoretically, it should be impossible for any third party to prove that I send "CIA", because I can give up a different decryption key that decodes the ciphertext to, say, "NSA". Similarly, on the receiving end, you can give up a different decryption key that decodes the ciphertext to, say, "FBI". This scheme also means it is impossible for a third party to discover who is giving up the 'truth' in such scenarios (for example if I told the truth and decrypted the ciphertext into "CIA", while you lied and decrypted the ciphertext into "FBI", the third party has no way to know which one is correct, or if either of them are fake).
- josephg 8y ago
  Can you make sure the 'alternate' decoded version of the messages will actually decode into something legible? Is there some way to explicitly craft the alternate decoded message, or is it random?
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  Aha, thanks!
- tjpnz 8y ago
  So it's effectively a duress code you might punch into a security system?
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    Two duress codes--one for you, and one for your counterparty. Thus, the bi- in bi-deniable. Mono-deniable gives a duress code only to the sender, or only to the recipient. The paper claims an additional category of bi-deniability, such that your duress code and your counterparty's duress code produce different plaintexts, rather than the same plaintext. It is unclear from the abstract whether it is possible to have a bi-deniable scheme without this property (which does not also require prior coordination between parties).
Lukas_Skywalker 8y ago
You misspelled bi-deniable (compare this to your biden-able). See the sibling comments for an explanation.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
SilasX 8y ago
Heh, I actually thought the same thing, and it's not necessarily irrelevant. As others note, it parses as bi-deniable -- it can decrypt on both ends into two plaintexts with plausbility. But yes, I initially parsed it as Biden-y-able, which is surprisingly fitting [1] given Biden's ability to get away with any gaffe[2], which is analogous to what bideniable encryption gets you. So, a good mnemonic at least... (Relatedly, I used to think git reflog parsed as re-flog "because you're only using this if you did something so stupid you want to flog yourself twice".) [1] I hate the word "apropos". [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/why-joe-bidens-gaffes-dont-matter/451404/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/why-joe...
philwelch 8y ago
This reminds me of Asimov’s observation that chemists tend to read “unionized” as “un-ionized” and not “union-ized”.

What does Bidenable mean? Google thinks I'm asking about Joe Biden, and that just makes me think there's an XKCD connection in there somewhere that would be super hilarious if we could just find it.

est31 8y ago

It's in the abstract. It says that prior to the paper you had to choose between one of two kinds of "deniability", now you can have both of them at the same time (bi-deniability).

triodan 8y ago

It means both the sender and the receiver of the message, if coerced, can without coordination have a degree plausible deniability for the contents of the message. For example, I send you the message "CIA" encrypted using this scheme. Theoretically, it should be impossible for any third party to prove that I send "CIA", because I can give up a different decryption key that decodes the ciphertext to, say, "NSA". Similarly, on the receiving end, you can give up a different decryption key that decodes the ciphertext to, say, "FBI". This scheme also means it is impossible for a third party to discover who is giving up the 'truth' in such scenarios (for example if I told the truth and decrypted the ciphertext into "CIA", while you lied and decrypted the ciphertext into "FBI", the third party has no way to know which one is correct, or if either of them are fake).

josephg 8y ago
Can you make sure the 'alternate' decoded version of the messages will actually decode into something legible? Is there some way to explicitly craft the alternate decoded message, or is it random?
vinceguidry 8y ago
Aha, thanks!
tjpnz 8y ago
So it's effectively a duress code you might punch into a security system?
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  Two duress codes--one for you, and one for your counterparty. Thus, the bi- in bi-deniable. Mono-deniable gives a duress code only to the sender, or only to the recipient. The paper claims an additional category of bi-deniability, such that your duress code and your counterparty's duress code produce different plaintexts, rather than the same plaintext. It is unclear from the abstract whether it is possible to have a bi-deniable scheme without this property (which does not also require prior coordination between parties).

Lukas_Skywalker 8y ago

You misspelled bi-deniable (compare this to your biden-able). See the sibling comments for an explanation.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

SilasX 8y ago

Heh, I actually thought the same thing, and it's not necessarily irrelevant. As others note, it parses as bi-deniable -- it can decrypt on both ends into two plaintexts with plausbility. But yes, I initially parsed it as Biden-y-able, which is surprisingly fitting [1] given Biden's ability to get away with any gaffe[2], which is analogous to what bideniable encryption gets you. So, a good mnemonic at least... (Relatedly, I used to think git reflog parsed as re-flog "because you're only using this if you did something so stupid you want to flog yourself twice".) [1] I hate the word "apropos". [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/why-joe-bidens-gaffes-dont-matter/451404/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/why-joe...

philwelch 8y ago

This reminds me of Asimov’s observation that chemists tend to read “unionized” as “un-ionized” and not “union-ized”.