2 ms·

It's in section 4.3: 4.3 Persistent Attacks Consider a scenario with panic communication and a persistent adversary with goal . In addition, preventing both

by monochr 12y ago

It's in section 4.3: 4.3 Persistent Attacks Consider a scenario with panic communication and a persistent adversary with goal . In addition, preventing both signals and screens is important. Working Example: Consider the previously defined improper influence problem in Internet-based voting. Alice could be coerced by Oscar into voting a certain way. Alternatively, Alice may want to sell her vote to Oscar by casting her ballot in his presence. Bob's observable response will be the report of a successful casting of Alice's vote, but he will take the unobserved reaction of disregarding any votes cast under a panic password.

seandhi 12y ago
I must be totally dense because I am not understanding this at all. As an example, the security system in my home has a duress code that I can enter which disarms the alarm while silently alerting the authorities that my duress code has been entered. In most cases, this is probably sufficient. However, for certain adversaries who are aware that a duress code exists, they could make the "bargain" with me that if I enter a duress code, they will murder the rest of my family. They might not know that my duress code has been entered, but if the authorities come poking around, they will know. So, in Alice's case, she gets kidnapped. The attackers are aware that she might have a duress code. They tell her that if she enters the duress code, her entire family will be murdered. If Alice lives in an area where authorities are in bed with and inseparable from the criminal element, is she going to take the risk that the authorities are alerted? If we are talking about a panic code which erases all information on the phone, do you not think that the same bargain can be applied? In fact, such a system might get innocent people murdered and needlessly tortured since, if someone is suspected of having sensitive information - but actually don't - the attacker might get the idea that a duress or panic code was entered which deleted said information. In any case, it doesn't seem like encryption is going to save people from real harm.

by monochr 12y ago

seandhi 12y ago

I must be totally dense because I am not understanding this at all. As an example, the security system in my home has a duress code that I can enter which disarms the alarm while silently alerting the authorities that my duress code has been entered. In most cases, this is probably sufficient. However, for certain adversaries who are aware that a duress code exists, they could make the "bargain" with me that if I enter a duress code, they will murder the rest of my family. They might not know that my duress code has been entered, but if the authorities come poking around, they will know. So, in Alice's case, she gets kidnapped. The attackers are aware that she might have a duress code. They tell her that if she enters the duress code, her entire family will be murdered. If Alice lives in an area where authorities are in bed with and inseparable from the criminal element, is she going to take the risk that the authorities are alerted? If we are talking about a panic code which erases all information on the phone, do you not think that the same bargain can be applied? In fact, such a system might get innocent people murdered and needlessly tortured since, if someone is suspected of having sensitive information - but actually don't - the attacker might get the idea that a duress or panic code was entered which deleted said information. In any case, it doesn't seem like encryption is going to save people from real harm.