Natanael

joined 9 months ago
[–] Natanael 1 points 3 hours ago
[–] Natanael 1 points 3 hours ago

Those thefts are rarely random, though

[–] Natanael 3 points 4 hours ago

Some jurisdictions allow escrow payment when in a legal conflict, in which case you actually might be sending money to your lawyer instead

... Probably doesn't apply for US taxes, but it's a thing

[–] Natanael 7 points 13 hours ago

It's mostly a way to improve coordination around code which uses multiple processor cores, so it will improve multitasking performance for some programs

[–] Natanael 15 points 14 hours ago

USA is explicitly NOT targeting cartels, but civilians, so no they shouldn't

[–] Natanael 1 points 18 hours ago

I have cast iron pans too. When you have family members who'll make them rust it's easier to just not 🤷

If pure ceramic had a strong enough surface I'd prefer that, or stainless steel if it could maintain the same degree of non-stick.

[–] Natanael 2 points 21 hours ago

At least in EU the manufacturer can't revoke licenses on sold physical products with no cause (can't expire before EOL either) and can't remove advertised functionality. If any feature is conditional or temporary it has to be disclosed before sale.

[–] Natanael 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

No, they called it a non-stick non-toxic coating, they didn't originally claim ceramic.

They claim the new surface is ceramic (and it looks plausible from seeing how damaged pans look in photos)

[–] Natanael 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Nah, copy paste

[–] Natanael 1 points 1 day ago

DST or you fell asleep and went a whole extra lap

[–] Natanael 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thermal expansion / contraction?

[–] Natanael 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

All my 3 are deliberately linked (spread across servers for redundancy)

18
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Natanael to c/crypto
4
submitted 2 months ago by Natanael to c/crypto
2
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Natanael to c/crypto
 

Abstract Common verification steps in cryptographic protocols, such as signature or message authentication code checks or the validation of elliptic curve points, are crucial for the overall security of the protocol. Yet implementation errors omitting these steps easily remain unnoticed, as often the protocol will function perfectly anyways. One of the most prominent examples is Apple's goto fail bug where the erroneous certificate verification skipped over several of the required steps, marking invalid certificates as correctly verified. This vulnerability went undetected for at least 17 months.

We propose here a mechanism which supports the detection of such errors on a cryptographic level. Instead of merely returning the binary acceptance decision, we let the verification return more fine-grained information in form of what we call a confirmation code. The reader may think of the confirmation code as disposable information produced as part of the relevant verification steps. In case of an implementation error like the goto fail bug, the confirmation code would then miss essential elements.

The question arises now how to verify the confirmation code itself. We show how to use confirmation codes to tie security to basic functionality at the overall protocol level, making erroneous implementations be detected through the protocol not functioning properly. More concretely, we discuss the usage of confirmation codes in secure connections, established via a key exchange protocol and secured through the derived keys. If some verification steps in a key exchange protocol execution are faulty, then so will be the confirmation codes, and because we can let the confirmation codes enter key derivation, the connection of the two parties will eventually fail. In consequence, an implementation error like goto fail would now be detectable through a simple connection test.

3
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by Natanael to c/crypto
 

https://bsky.app/profile/tumbolia.bsky.social/post/3ltyahiem3s2u

We updated our paper on Fiat-Shamir!

We now take a closer look at the gap between what symmetric cryptography has focused on for over 10 years (indifferentiability) and what is actually needed for the soundness of ZKPs and SNARKs (something stronger!).

4
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by Natanael to c/crypto
 

Opossum is a cross-protocol application layer desynchronization attack that affects TLS-based application protocols that rely on both opportunistic and implicit TLS. Among the affected protocols are HTTP, FTP, POP3, SMTP, LMTP and NNTP.

Note: The vast majority of websites are not vulnerable as HTTP TLS upgrade (RFC 2817) was never widely adopted and no browsers support it.

view more: next ›