Skip to content

Conversation

@dbosk
Copy link
Owner

@dbosk dbosk commented Nov 21, 2018

I've updated the definitions according to our discussions. Please have a look, PDF attached.

  • I wrote up the informal definitions in Section II-B.
  • I moved the adversary-model section from Section VIII (Security analysis) to Section IV-D.
  • I wrote up the formal definitions in Sections IV-{B,C,D}.

@dbosk dbosk added this to the minimal-submittable milestone Nov 21, 2018
@dbosk dbosk requested review from Simon-Bouget and sbuc November 21, 2018 14:19
@dbosk
Copy link
Owner Author

dbosk commented Nov 21, 2018

I have not yet updated the security analysis itself to these changes.

Copy link
Collaborator

@sbuc sbuc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, let's run with this. I think we can remove (comment) the adversary model in Section II. I'll do that when I'm editing. Please push to submittable. One small question: is there a reason the adversaries are modeled in the numbered definition format? It would seem more readable to me if they were named A1 etc., same as the properties.

@sbuc sbuc merged commit 8640369 into master Nov 21, 2018
@dbosk
Copy link
Owner Author

dbosk commented Nov 22, 2018

The reason I named V1, V2, V3, P1, P2, P3 was that I deemed them not formal enough for a definition, but the adversary was supposed to be a formalization of those properties, hence it got the definition environment.

In the current state though, it's probably better to go for A1, A2, A3. I'll fix that.

@dbosk dbosk mentioned this pull request Nov 22, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants