Hi,
> Version 0.1 of XEP-0384 (OMEMO Encryption) has been released.
Congratulations!
> Abstract: This specification defines a protocol for end-to-end
> encryption in one-on-one chats that may have multiple clients per
> account.
>
> Changelog: Initial version approved by the council. (XEP
Hi,
> The 16 bytes key and the GCM authentication tag (The tag SHOULD have at
> least 128 bit) are concatenated and for each intended recipient
> device...
Once received due to the predefined length of the first field (key),
the length of the tag can be calculated. Considering OMEMO
Hi,
Considering "4.5 Sending a message": there is a KEY/IV pair and a
KEY/IV elements, which could be easily confused. Moreover the KEY
element consists of encrypted data, but IV not. What do you think about
changing the naming of the KEY element to something more explicit like
"ENCRYPTED_KEY"?
Hi,
Please consider adding the clarification of why MAC/authentication tag
is being encrypted but IV is left unencrypted and not both left
unencrypted or vice versa or both encrypted.
Thanks,
Andrey
___
Standards mailing list
Info:
Hi,
> An encryption header MUST only be used for one session. However when
> doing a rangend tranfer on a previously aborted file the key/IV pair
> MUST be reused and packed into a new header to keep the integrity of
> the file.
This is a nice catch. But I have two issues with it.
Once jingle
Omemo filetransfer has been rejected by Council due to a retraction by the
author. (me)
The file transfer xep hasn't been updated after that particular change was
made in the omemo xep.
On Dec 11, 2016 7:07 PM, "Andrey Gursky" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The 16 bytes key and
Daniel,
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 19:45:47 +0100 Daniel Gultsch wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2016 7:07 PM, "Andrey Gursky" wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > The 16 bytes key and the GCM authentication tag (The tag SHOULD have at
> > > least 128 bit) are concatenated and for each intended