Posez n’importe quelle question sur les cours, conférences, exercices, recherches, actualités, etc. de l’EPFL ou essayez les exemples de questions ci-dessous.
AVERTISSEMENT : Le chatbot Graph n'est pas programmé pour fournir des réponses explicites ou catégoriques à vos questions. Il transforme plutôt vos questions en demandes API qui sont distribuées aux différents services informatiques officiellement administrés par l'EPFL. Son but est uniquement de collecter et de recommander des références pertinentes à des contenus que vous pouvez explorer pour vous aider à répondre à vos questions.
Recently, two e-mail protocols were proposed claiming to provide perfect secrecy. These protocols use authentication and (Diffie-Hellman) key-exchange techniques, and as such, other standard security criteria besides perfect forward secrecy include key-replay resilience, known-key security, key freshness and unknown key-share resilience are expected too. In this paper, we show that the two protocols cannot resist replay attacks, and further that the first falls to unknown key-share attacks while the second fails to provide perfect forward secrecy, contrary to the designers' claims. Although the two protocols were intended by the designers to be more secure variants compared to the common e-mail protocol, our results show that being newer does not necessarily mean being more secure. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.