On 3 June 2017 at 04:10, VanitasVitae <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Sebastian! > > As a cryptographic expert, what would be your advise for future > development of the protocol? > > As you may have read, the reason of this discussion is the fact that there > are concerns that it is not trivial to implement OMEMO in non-GPL apps due > to the lack of a permissive XEdDSA implementation. Thats also the reason > why OMEMO was (prematurely) specified based on Olm instead of libsignal. > > Would you rather suggest to put the efforts into a permissive XEdDSA > implementation or what would be your advice? > I was going to suggest using seperate key-pairs: one for signing and one for DH. However, upon closer inspection it seems that the X3DH-specification requires XEdDSA signatures ( https://whispersystems.org/docs/specifications/x3dh/#cryptographic-notation), so if you did that you would no longer follow the open specs, which I believe (from previous discussions) is not desirable. So the other option is to implement XEdDSA. The specs aren't super complicated, so I think I could do that, based on the public domain Curve25519 code in supercop. It would be a public domain implementation in C (I believe most languages can call C through an FFI?) > > Greetings Vanitasvitae > -- > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail > gesendet. > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
