From 592e89dcfddb9177d3e7eefa3f2568c619e85b71 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: davidsarah <> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:29:34 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] actually !#3 does *not* depend on one-wayness of hash_r because R has the same secrecy as K1. But it does depend on resistance to attack !#2 [Imported from Trac: page NewCaps/WhatCouldGoWrong, version 52] --- NewCaps/WhatCouldGoWrong.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/NewCaps/WhatCouldGoWrong.md b/NewCaps/WhatCouldGoWrong.md index b4d42b4..ed40e29 100644 --- a/NewCaps/WhatCouldGoWrong.md +++ b/NewCaps/WhatCouldGoWrong.md @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ This is about What Could Go Wrong with the "Elk Point 2" immutable file caps: *S*|brute force on *R* is !#2| |7|unauthorized deletion|figure out a working destroy-key *KD* for a given *Dhash*|anyone|any one file|the hash function's preimage resistance on *Dhash* and the secrecy of *KD*|(*p*/*N*).2^min(*d*,*dh*)^| |8|accidental collision|storage indices (*S1*,*T1*) and (*S2*,*T2*) collide accidentally|not applicable|any two files|approximately random distribution of hash function outputs|[4]footnote|