[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SOI QUESTIONS: 2.6 Formal proofs of security

To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: SOI QUESTIONS: 2.6 Formal proofs of security
From: Jean-Jacques Puig <jean-jacques.puig@int-evry.fr>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:37:34 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-Reply-To: <E17L5M8-0003XL-00@think.thunk.org>
Organization: =?UTF-8?B?RA==?=
References: <E17L5M8-0003XL-00@think.thunk.org>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> 2.6.)  Does SOI need to provide a formal proof of security?  (Is this
> a "must have" or a "nice to have"?  What are we willing to trade-off
> for having a formal proof of security?)

	It is strongly nice to have, for the protocol of course, but also for its advertizing.
It will have some trade-off though. Of which ones were you thinking about ?

--
Jean-Jacques Puig

References:
- SOI QUESTIONS: 2.6 Formal proofs of security
  - From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: SOI QUESTIONS: 2.5 Plausible denaibility
Next by Date: Re: SOI QUESTIONS: 2.3 Authentication styles
Prev by thread: Re: SOI QUESTIONS: 2.6 Formal proofs of security
Next by thread: Re: SOI QUESTIONS: 2.6 Formal proofs of security
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread