[Standards] OMEMO Key Agreement

Chris Ballinger chrisballinger at gmail.com
Wed May 31 18:26:11 UTC 2017


What if instead of all this, we just funded a liberally licensed XEdDSA
reference implementation and got it audited? The spec is public now so
there's nothing stopping us. Given the narrow scope, the line count should
be small enough for the audit to be "inexpensive". I helped arrange some
public funding for the Olm audit, and could reach out to some of those
people because it fits within the same mission.

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Remko Tronçon <remko at el-tramo.be> wrote:

>
> On 31 May 2017 at 17:42, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>
>> The proposed solution would pretty much invalid the OMEMO protocol
>> audit (since important crypto parts are being changed)
>>
>
> If I give a solution that doesn't require *any* changes to libsignal (i.e.
> the
> compromise Chris Ballinger thought was fine), would you then still have
> this
> concern?
>
> Remko
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20170531/cbdeee7b/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list