Bear wrote: > You can have anonymous protocols that aren't open be immune to MITM > And you can have open protocols that aren't anonymous be immune to > MITM. But you can't have both.
I'd like to see the proof.
I think it depends on what you mean by "MITM". Take the Chess Grandmaster Problem: can Alice and Bob play a game of chess against one another while preventing Mitch (the Man In The CHannel) from "proxying" their moves to one another while taking the credit for being a good chess player?
I think it's a tautology: there's no such thing as MITM if there's no such thing as identity. You're talking to the person you're talking to, and that's all you know.
Re: your chess problem, I think the reason it's not applicable is because the concept of "Alice" and "Bob", as distinct from "Mitch", has no role in an anonymous protocol: Alice completing a chess move with Mitch is just as valid as completing one with Bob.
- Tim
--------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
