2019
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-17653-2_5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Double Ratchet: Security Notions, Proofs, and Modularization for the Signal Protocol

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
70
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
70
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Subsequent to these strongly secure ratcheting notions, multiple weaker formal definitions for ratcheting were proposed that consider special properties such as strong explicit authentication [8], out of order receipt of ciphertexts [1], or primarily target on allowing efficient instantiations [12,4]. Table 1: Differences in security notions of ratcheting regarding (a) uni-(→), sesqui-( →), and bidirectional (↔) interaction between A and B, (b) when the adversary is allowed to expose A's and B's state (or when this is unnecessarily restricted), (c) the adversary's ability to reveal or manipulate algorithm invocations' random coins, and (d) how soon and how complete recovery from these two attacks into a secure state is required of secure constructions (or if unnecessary delays or exceptions for recovery are permitted).…”
Section: Relaxed Security Notionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Subsequent to these strongly secure ratcheting notions, multiple weaker formal definitions for ratcheting were proposed that consider special properties such as strong explicit authentication [8], out of order receipt of ciphertexts [1], or primarily target on allowing efficient instantiations [12,4]. Table 1: Differences in security notions of ratcheting regarding (a) uni-(→), sesqui-( →), and bidirectional (↔) interaction between A and B, (b) when the adversary is allowed to expose A's and B's state (or when this is unnecessarily restricted), (c) the adversary's ability to reveal or manipulate algorithm invocations' random coins, and (d) how soon and how complete recovery from these two attacks into a secure state is required of secure constructions (or if unnecessary delays or exceptions for recovery are permitted).…”
Section: Relaxed Security Notionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 1: Differences in security notions of ratcheting regarding (a) uni-(→), sesqui-( →), and bidirectional (↔) interaction between A and B, (b) when the adversary is allowed to expose A's and B's state (or when this is unnecessarily restricted), (c) the adversary's ability to reveal or manipulate algorithm invocations' random coins, and (d) how soon and how complete recovery from these two attacks into a secure state is required of secure constructions (or if unnecessary delays or exceptions for recovery are permitted). 1 Recovery from attacks required by Jost et al [12] is immediate in so far as their restrictions of state exposures introduce delays implicitly. Gray marked cells indicate the reason (i.e., relaxations in security) why respective instantiations can rely on standard PKC only (circumventing our implication result).…”
Section: Relaxed Security Notionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Upon completion of the authentication process, the key pair is generated to secure the communication platform. The generated key is part of the Double Ratchet Algorithm (previously referred to as the Axolotl Ratchet [27]) similar to Whatsapp [28,29].…”
Section: Possible Errors and Attacks On The Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%