Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-03-29 📝 Original message:On Saturday, 29 March ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-03-29
📝 Original message:On Saturday, 29 March 2014, at 1:52 pm, Alan Reiner wrote:
> On 03/29/2014 01:19 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> > I intentionally omitted the parameter M (minimum subset size) from the shares because including it would give an adversary a vital piece of information. Likewise, including any kind of information that would allow a determination of whether the secret has been correctly reconstituted would give an adversary too much information. Failing silently when given incorrect shares or an insufficient number of shares is intentional.
>
> I do not believe this is a good tradeoff. It's basically obfuscation of
> something that is already considered secure at the expense of
> usability. It's much more important to me that the user understands
> what is in their hands (or their family members after they get hit by a
> bus), than to obfuscate the parameters of the secret sharing to provide
> a tiny disadvantage to an adversary who gets ahold of one.
>
> The fact that it fails silently is really all downside, not a benefit.
> If I have enough fragments, I can reconstruct the seed and see that it
> produces addresses with money. If not, I know I need more fragments.
> I'm much more concerned about my family having all the info they need to
> recover the money, than an attacker knowing that he needs two more
> fragments instead of which are well-secured anyway.
For what it's worth, ssss also omits from the shares any information about the threshold. It will happily return a garbage secret if too few shares are combined. (And actually, it will happily return a garbage secret if too *many* shares are combined, too. My implementation does not have that problem.)
📝 Original message:On Saturday, 29 March 2014, at 1:52 pm, Alan Reiner wrote:
> On 03/29/2014 01:19 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> > I intentionally omitted the parameter M (minimum subset size) from the shares because including it would give an adversary a vital piece of information. Likewise, including any kind of information that would allow a determination of whether the secret has been correctly reconstituted would give an adversary too much information. Failing silently when given incorrect shares or an insufficient number of shares is intentional.
>
> I do not believe this is a good tradeoff. It's basically obfuscation of
> something that is already considered secure at the expense of
> usability. It's much more important to me that the user understands
> what is in their hands (or their family members after they get hit by a
> bus), than to obfuscate the parameters of the secret sharing to provide
> a tiny disadvantage to an adversary who gets ahold of one.
>
> The fact that it fails silently is really all downside, not a benefit.
> If I have enough fragments, I can reconstruct the seed and see that it
> produces addresses with money. If not, I know I need more fragments.
> I'm much more concerned about my family having all the info they need to
> recover the money, than an attacker knowing that he needs two more
> fragments instead of which are well-secured anyway.
For what it's worth, ssss also omits from the shares any information about the threshold. It will happily return a garbage secret if too few shares are combined. (And actually, it will happily return a garbage secret if too *many* shares are combined, too. My implementation does not have that problem.)