3 ms·
This looks really promising, except for the “variety of handshake patterns from which the developer can choose”. Few details in the paper, but hopefully the cho
by tatersolid 8y ago
This looks really promising, except for the “variety of handshake patterns from which the developer can choose”. Few details in the paper, but hopefully the choices are limited to just “we share a secret” or “use a pinned public key” or possibly “use PKI” choices. We don’t need non-specialist developers trying to decide what form of mutual authentication they should use; the library should make safe choices for the developer.
I also hope the wire protocol is strictly versioned with zero options. You want a new cipher suite, rev the whole protocol.
- tptacek 8y agoThe design is based on Noise, which doesn't have negotiation.
- tatersolid 8y agoAren’t the “fallback” modifiers in Noise a form of negotiation? http://noiseprotocol.org/noise.html#handshake-pattern-name-section http://noiseprotocol.org/noise.html#handshake-pattern-name-s...
- tptacek 8y agoNot the way we normally think of negotiation, I don't think? Like: you don't use fallback patterns to switch ciphersuites. Another way to think about it, and maybe I'm misapprehending something about Noise, is that whatever you're falling back "to" in a handshake is also a documented part of the same protocol. The fallback patterns would presumably (all things being equal) "survive" a versioning of the whole protocol.