On 17/12/13 08:17, Мария Коростелёва wrote: > Hi everyone, > > My supervisor Dennis Gamajunov and me have developed a summary on mpOTR > protocol to see the whole picture of it. Later we plan to implement it making > some kind of model implementation of mpOTR. So it would be wery nice to hear > your opinoins about what we've done so far. > Our notes is here: http://mpotr.secsem.ru/mpOTRDev. I gotta say that it's in > Russian but I hope this won't stop you, you can use Google Translate for > example. > > Just to make it clear: we decided to use Improved «Improved Deniable > Signature Key Exchange for mpOTR» [0] at Authentiction and Key Exchange phase > and classical OldBlue [1] at Communication phase. > There are some problems we faced that are stated in «Questions to disuss» > part http://mpotr.secsem.ru/mpOTRDev/quest. We provide some solutions but > it'll be cool to hear some other ideas. > > Cheers, > Maria Korosteleva > > > [0] http://matt.singlethink.net/projects/mpotr/improved-dske.pdf > [1] http://matt.singlethink.net/projects/mpotr/oldblue-draft.pdf > >
Haven't had time to read through the wiki yet, but just wondering, what are your ideas on deniability? Some of us want to drop this property because it's really not that strong[1], and requiring it makes other parts of the protocol harder / more complex. Because of this, we also intend to drop the name "mpOTR", on the basis that deniability and "off-the-record" can be misleading for a non-technical user. X [1] see the otr-users thread, "The effectiveness of deniability", starting Nov 29, last message December 06. -- GPG: 4096R/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE git://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OTR-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-dev
