3 ms·
Those docs look out of date and appear to be designed for "app" ecosystems. The latest proposal from Mozilla is https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QMHkAQ4JiuJk
by stebalien 2y ago
Those docs look out of date and appear to be designed for "app" ecosystems. The latest proposal from Mozilla is https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QMHkAQ4JiuJkNcyGjAkOikPKNXAzNbQKILqgvSNIAKw/edit#heading=h.5wiflfzeuvfm https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QMHkAQ4JiuJkNcyGjAkOikPK...
And I'm now quite sure this system is insecure. Fundamentally, either:
1. There is some magical sybil protection: An attacker can only spend their own privacy budget without affecting the rest of the system.
2. The system can be saturated: An attacker can spend everyone's privacy budget.
3. The system is not private: An attacker can exceed the "safe" privacy budget by combining information from multiple sybils.
- MrAlex94 2y agoI assume it’s the MPC part that would need the Sybil protection? Also, another assumption, but it’s that doc still builds upon the W3C proposal - would it not be worth raising as an issue in the repo? Seems to still be active.
- stebalien 2y agoIt's all other parties, actually. I'm assuming Mozilla and friends are trusted and that the cryptography is perfect. I've filed an issue at https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/ipa/issues/90 https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/ipa/issues/90 but I'm still not sure if that's the right repo.